Start Baby, over Kevin

[LooseCannon]

People are looking at BBD being active and thinking that is the only thing that matters, as if that will make everyone play harder.  Other people are pointing out substance matters more than style and that just because he hustles, that doesn't make BBD a potential future all-star when he is, in fact, a role player who really shouldn't be starting in the NBA.

Sometimes, people over-value the appearance of playing with passion.  Don't forget, appearing lazy and unmotivated is the reason that Robert Parish got traded to the Celtics.

I'm not going to go back and re-read this entire insanely long thread, but has anyone brought up the Celtics record before and after BBD came back to the rotation?

[dark_lord]

This topic mad PLamb leave.

True story.

technically plamb is still here, just under another name

[nickagneta]

This topic mad PLamb leave.

True story.

It did? Wow!! I thought I would know that!!

[Spilling Green Dye]

People are looking at BBD being active and thinking that is the only thing that matters, as if that will make everyone play harder.  Other people are pointing out substance matters more than style and that just because he hustles, that doesn't make BBD a potential future all-star when he is, in fact, a role player who really shouldn't be starting in the NBA.

Sometimes, people over-value the appearance of playing with passion.  Don't forget, appearing lazy and unmotivated is the reason that Robert Parish got traded to the Celtics.

I'm not going to go back and re-read this entire insanely long thread, but has anyone brought up the Celtics record before and after BBD came back to the rotation?

No they haven't, but people have brought up every conceivable statistic and they ALL point to Davis being not only inferior to KG by a large margin, but an inferior option in general.

[looseball]

I am in utter disbelief that this idea is still being considered well into page 6.  Utter disbelief.

If this topic had no merit it would have died on page one.

[Fafnir]

I am in utter disbelief that this idea is still being considered well into page 6.  Utter disbelief.

If this topic had no merit it would have died on page one.

Not true at all, silly topics fester as long as a single poster will continually argue the other side.

BBD had a very bad game today.

[Andy Jick]

professional sports is as much about (if not more so) managing egos as they are about talent.  anyone who thinks that KG taking a "demotion" would have a positive impact on a team already questioning their ability is crazy at best...  this team is already screwed up in the head as it is...

Some of us think that changes in the starting lineup can be made for reasons other than to promote or demote players.

...and some who are players might have a different take on this.  KG is not the type of player to sit for anyone...and I wouldn't blame him.  there is NO need to start davis...none whatsoever.  sometimes people just want to make change for the sake of change...because apparently we needed another thread here due to boredom (or whatever).  but this is 6 pages worth of comedy...

Andy, let me ask you this...
Are you one of the posters that believes that this team will win it all the way they are currently playing?

I believe that the reason people are asking to make a change is to give us a chance to win it all since the current lineup (and more importantly rotations) is just not working.  We are not changing the coach before the end of the season, so we have to work with the coach's mindset, which is to replace the whole starting lineup with the whole second unit.  If that's the case, wouldn't you want a great 6th man?

no, i do not believe this team can win a title...  i think they will be lucky to win the first round.  but i also believe that davis starting is not the answer either.  i would have traded for a long, athletic type player (a tyrus thomas or hakim warrick) who can run and hits the boards.  but i can't handle watching uno uno get stuffed on every other shot and his lack of help defense...

[droopdog7]

I would argue that silly topics last longer on average than non-silly ones.

[mmbaby]

Yeah, tonight was a bad night for Baby. Thanks for letting us know, Fafnir.

[looseball]

I am in utter disbelief that this idea is still being considered well into page 6.  Utter disbelief.

If this topic had no merit it would have died on page one.

Not true at all, silly topics fester as long as a single poster will continually argue the other side.

BBD had a very bad game today.

Nothing personal, Fafnir, but there were a number of well thought out opinions posted here by an assortment of bloggers, including 4 of your own.

[Fafnir]

I am in utter disbelief that this idea is still being considered well into page 6.  Utter disbelief.

If this topic had no merit it would have died on page one.

Not true at all, silly topics fester as long as a single poster will continually argue the other side.

BBD had a very bad game today.

Nothing personal, Fafnir, but there were a number of well thought out opinions posted here by an assortment of bloggers, including 4 of your own.

Did I say that only a single silly poster was arguing in this thread?

I was pointing out that your argument, that the thread must be a solid topic because it ended up being a long topic, was false. All it takes for a thread to reach many many pages is for a two posters to dig in their heels over anything. (feel free to look at my posting history to see many examples  )

I think the posters who disagreed with the idea of starting Glen Davis did an excellent job of poking holes in everything that was brought up. Without much rebuttal other than the desire to "change something" to get the team going.

[looseball]

I am in utter disbelief that this idea is still being considered well into page 6.  Utter disbelief.

If this topic had no merit it would have died on page one.

Not true at all, silly topics fester as long as a single poster will continually argue the other side.

BBD had a very bad game today.

Nothing personal, Fafnir, but there were a number of well thought out opinions posted here by an assortment of bloggers, including 4 of your own.

Did I say that only a single silly poster was arguing in this thread?

I was pointing out that your argument, that the thread must be a solid topic because it ended up being a long topic, was false. All it takes for a thread to reach many many pages is for a two posters to dig in their heels over anything. (feel free to look at my posting history to see many examples  )

I think the posters who disagreed with the idea of starting Glen Davis did an excellent job of poking holes in everything that was brought up. Without much rebuttal other than the desire to "change something" to get the team going.

The topic evolved into what was really more about maximizing KG's usefullness to the team, rather than what Big Baby contributes. 

[Fafnir]

The topic evolved into what was really more about maximizing KG's usefullness to the team, rather than what Big Baby contributes. 

Huh? The topic was always about maximizing the Celtics performance, and whether or not starting BBD over KG would be a plus or a minus for the team.

Either way I'm not sure what this response has to do with what I just said....

[Spilling Green Dye]

The topic evolved into what was really more about maximizing KG's usefullness to the team, rather than what Big Baby contributes. 

Huh? The topic was always about maximizing the Celtics performance, and whether or not starting BBD over KG would be a plus or a minus for the team.

Either way I'm not sure what this response has to do with what I just said....

I think Fafnir is right, this thread has always been about the what roster is best for the team, and I think the only question has been what it actually is that Davis would contribute over KG.

Definitely right on when it comes to the length of a thread not equating to the merit of the thread.  Sometimes the most outlandish ones can be the longest.  I also agree that the rebuttals in this thread have generally just been a loose desire for change, without any concrete analysis or evidence to support that change. 

Hopefully these "change the roster threads" start to turn into "how we match up the playoffs" threads soon

[Fafnir]

Hopefully these "change the roster threads" start to turn into "how we match up the playoffs" threads soon

I'm 100% certain they will as soon as the match-ups for the playoffs become clear.

The team I'd like to avoid is the Bucks, Bogut has performed too well against us this year. I think the C's would still win, but that'd be a tough series.

Any of the other potential foes would be easy wins for the C's in my opinion. Anyways I digress, and this thread is getting way off topics now  .