Why Is Glen Davis still on this team?

[BballTim]

Those reb numbers I posted - I don't know the exact calculations, but I think they would project out to Glen Davis averaging over 9 rebs a game in a starting role for us with the same minutes he had in the post-season in 08-09.

So - I think that if he was a starter now, this man could realistically pull down right around 9 rebs a game for us, and post 16-18 pts. Someone with better calculations pls correct me if I'm off.

He even seemed more active defensively last postseason, too...he wasn't a Perk or KG, but he sent back more than a few during our run from April-June 10.

If BBD played 36 minutes, his regular season stats project to: 

13.1 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 2.0 turnovers, 5.1 personal fouls

TP4U Roy, thanks.

I'll even stretch it to say that those numbers would be higher in a regular season setting against weaker opponents - he put up 15 pts and 5.6 rebs in 08-09 playoffs against the likes of Joakim Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis - all tall timber.

I like those turnover numbers, too...he's not a high risk when we need him.

I'd like to see those assists up, but he's only 24? He's going to get better.

I think Danny may have a dillemma on his hands come next yr - when he decides whether or not to keep Glen. I hope Glen stays, or if he gets traded I hope Danny can swing equal value for him.

I would counter that his numbers would drop, and not increase, in a role that required more minutes.  A good percentage of his numbers that you are extrapolating out are against the opposing team's bench.  Ergo, against starters, he would not do as well.

To answer the Original Poster's question, Glen Davis is on this team currently b/c at the end of last season we signed him for $3mil / year for 2 years, and no other team was going higher than that.  Glen is a good 4th big man on the team, and if the Celtics traded him they would have to fill that spot.  It is not easy to have a decent 4th big man on a roster for only $3million, which is where Davis' real value is.  

And the counter to that argument is that he would also be playing most of his minutes with much better players which would make him a better player and increase his stats back to the extrapolated numbers.

For proof: The 2009 post season where playing 36 MPG Davis averaged 15.8PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.29 SPG, 0.57 BPG with a FG% of 49.1%. In 16 games as a starter that year he had near identical numbers except he averaged about 13 PPG. I contend that two years later and in better physical condition, Davis would improve on these stats.

Good point.  However, during that exact same season that you cited, the Celtics went from a +260pt and 73% win team to a -39pt and 43% win team when you replaced KG with Davis.  While much of that could be counted as "not having KG", I think a good deal of it is that Davis was in the lineup.  Therefore, yes his stats may have been better as a result of playing with better players, but the team as a whole greatly suffered and he should not be a starter. 

I don't really care how the numbers "may" extrapolate out b/c he should not be a starter.  His role is to come off the bench, and I hope he continues to progress down that road.

  There's a domino effect, though. When Davis started, his minutes went to players like Scal and Mikki Moore, which hurt the cause significantly.

[GreenFaith1819]

If he really cared and "gave it his all" then how come he got fatter and fatter as the season went on. No excuse. Seemed like he worked hard to get in shape for the beginning of the season; but then let it all go.

Got Fatter? Glen Davis? You have a link or proof? He looked to be in maybe the best shape of his young career from what I saw. The proof is in the fact that his numbers improved somewhat.

And please don't bring up the number of times he was blocked around the rim - as much as I hated to see him get blocked like that, at least he went TO the rim.

[Who]

Those reb numbers I posted - I don't know the exact calculations, but I think they would project out to Glen Davis averaging over 9 rebs a game in a starting role for us with the same minutes he had in the post-season in 08-09.

So - I think that if he was a starter now, this man could realistically pull down right around 9 rebs a game for us, and post 16-18 pts. Someone with better calculations pls correct me if I'm off.

He even seemed more active defensively last postseason, too...he wasn't a Perk or KG, but he sent back more than a few during our run from April-June 10.

If BBD played 36 minutes, his regular season stats project to: 

13.1 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 2.0 turnovers, 5.1 personal fouls

TP4U Roy, thanks.

I'll even stretch it to say that those numbers would be higher in a regular season setting against weaker opponents - he put up 15 pts and 5.6 rebs in 08-09 playoffs against the likes of Joakim Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis - all tall timber.

I like those turnover numbers, too...he's not a high risk when we need him.

I'd like to see those assists up, but he's only 24? He's going to get better.

I think Danny may have a dillemma on his hands come next yr - when he decides whether or not to keep Glen. I hope Glen stays, or if he gets traded I hope Danny can swing equal value for him.

I would counter that his numbers would drop, and not increase, in a role that required more minutes.  A good percentage of his numbers that you are extrapolating out are against the opposing team's bench.  Ergo, against starters, he would not do as well.

To answer the Original Poster's question, Glen Davis is on this team currently b/c at the end of last season we signed him for $3mil / year for 2 years, and no other team was going higher than that.  Glen is a good 4th big man on the team, and if the Celtics traded him they would have to fill that spot.  It is not easy to have a decent 4th big man on a roster for only $3million, which is where Davis' real value is.  

And the counter to that argument is that he would also be playing most of his minutes with much better players which would make him a better player and increase his stats back to the extrapolated numbers.

For proof: The 2009 post season where playing 36 MPG Davis averaged 15.8PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.29 SPG, 0.57 BPG with a FG% of 49.1%. In 16 games as a starter that year he had near identical numbers except he averaged about 13 PPG. I contend that two years later and in better physical condition, Davis would improve on these stats.

Good point.  However, during that exact same season that you cited, the Celtics went from a +260pt and 73% win team to a -39pt and 43% win team when you replaced KG with Davis.  While much of that could be counted as "not having KG", I think a good deal of it is that Davis was in the lineup.  Therefore, yes his stats may have been better as a result of playing with better players, but the team as a whole greatly suffered and he should not be a starter. 

I don't really care how the numbers "may" extrapolate out b/c he should not be a starter.  His role is to come off the bench, and I hope he continues to progress down that road.

Glen Davis was a defensive liability + a major liability on the backboards two years ago when he started. Those negative contributions cost the team more than what he gave on the other end of the floor.

Davis' time as a starting power forward was a failure.

[GreenFaith1819]

Those reb numbers I posted - I don't know the exact calculations, but I think they would project out to Glen Davis averaging over 9 rebs a game in a starting role for us with the same minutes he had in the post-season in 08-09.

So - I think that if he was a starter now, this man could realistically pull down right around 9 rebs a game for us, and post 16-18 pts. Someone with better calculations pls correct me if I'm off.

He even seemed more active defensively last postseason, too...he wasn't a Perk or KG, but he sent back more than a few during our run from April-June 10.

If BBD played 36 minutes, his regular season stats project to: 

13.1 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 2.0 turnovers, 5.1 personal fouls

TP4U Roy, thanks.

I'll even stretch it to say that those numbers would be higher in a regular season setting against weaker opponents - he put up 15 pts and 5.6 rebs in 08-09 playoffs against the likes of Joakim Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis - all tall timber.

I like those turnover numbers, too...he's not a high risk when we need him.

I'd like to see those assists up, but he's only 24? He's going to get better.

I think Danny may have a dillemma on his hands come next yr - when he decides whether or not to keep Glen. I hope Glen stays, or if he gets traded I hope Danny can swing equal value for him.

I would counter that his numbers would drop, and not increase, in a role that required more minutes.  A good percentage of his numbers that you are extrapolating out are against the opposing team's bench.  Ergo, against starters, he would not do as well.

To answer the Original Poster's question, Glen Davis is on this team currently b/c at the end of last season we signed him for $3mil / year for 2 years, and no other team was going higher than that.  Glen is a good 4th big man on the team, and if the Celtics traded him they would have to fill that spot.  It is not easy to have a decent 4th big man on a roster for only $3million, which is where Davis' real value is.  

And the counter to that argument is that he would also be playing most of his minutes with much better players which would make him a better player and increase his stats back to the extrapolated numbers.

For proof: The 2009 post season where playing 36 MPG Davis averaged 15.8PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.29 SPG, 0.57 BPG with a FG% of 49.1%. In 16 games as a starter that year he had near identical numbers except he averaged about 13 PPG. I contend that two years later and in better physical condition, Davis would improve on these stats.

Good point.  However, during that exact same season that you cited, the Celtics went from a +260pt and 73% win team to a -39pt and 43% win team when you replaced KG with Davis.  While much of that could be counted as "not having KG", I think a good deal of it is that Davis was in the lineup.  Therefore, yes his stats may have been better as a result of playing with better players, but the team as a whole greatly suffered and he should not be a starter. 

I don't really care how the numbers "may" extrapolate out b/c he should not be a starter.  His role is to come off the bench, and I hope he continues to progress down that road.

Glen Davis was a defensive liability + a major liability on the backboards two years ago when he started. Those negative contributions cost the team more than what he gave on the other end of the floor.

Davis' time as a starting power forward was a failure.

Who - Yes, Glen was a defensive liability and a major liability on the backboards - two yrs ago.

What we lost when KG went down two yrs ago no PF was going to replace - not even Pau Gasol. And it hurt us even more when Powe went down in that CHI series.

That being said, Glen gave us his best back then, and even extended the series with that shot at the buzzer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3smxdUWquM&feature=related

The best part was at 1:00 when he almost took that poor kid out .

Two yrs later he's a steal.

God forbid if KG went down again, I'd feel even better about Glen's production as a starter this time around than two yrs ago.

Could Glen duplicate KG's presence? No player in the NBA right now can do that - no one. Pau Gasol is Very, Very Close - maybe 99.999999 of KG - but not quite KG. Pau proved that to me when he disappeared in the road games in Boston during the playoffs.

But I trust that if pressed into that role he could hold down the fort until KG returned.

[nickagneta]

Those reb numbers I posted - I don't know the exact calculations, but I think they would project out to Glen Davis averaging over 9 rebs a game in a starting role for us with the same minutes he had in the post-season in 08-09.

So - I think that if he was a starter now, this man could realistically pull down right around 9 rebs a game for us, and post 16-18 pts. Someone with better calculations pls correct me if I'm off.

He even seemed more active defensively last postseason, too...he wasn't a Perk or KG, but he sent back more than a few during our run from April-June 10.

If BBD played 36 minutes, his regular season stats project to: 

13.1 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 2.0 turnovers, 5.1 personal fouls

TP4U Roy, thanks.

I'll even stretch it to say that those numbers would be higher in a regular season setting against weaker opponents - he put up 15 pts and 5.6 rebs in 08-09 playoffs against the likes of Joakim Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis - all tall timber.

I like those turnover numbers, too...he's not a high risk when we need him.

I'd like to see those assists up, but he's only 24? He's going to get better.

I think Danny may have a dillemma on his hands come next yr - when he decides whether or not to keep Glen. I hope Glen stays, or if he gets traded I hope Danny can swing equal value for him.

I would counter that his numbers would drop, and not increase, in a role that required more minutes.  A good percentage of his numbers that you are extrapolating out are against the opposing team's bench.  Ergo, against starters, he would not do as well.

To answer the Original Poster's question, Glen Davis is on this team currently b/c at the end of last season we signed him for $3mil / year for 2 years, and no other team was going higher than that.  Glen is a good 4th big man on the team, and if the Celtics traded him they would have to fill that spot.  It is not easy to have a decent 4th big man on a roster for only $3million, which is where Davis' real value is.  

And the counter to that argument is that he would also be playing most of his minutes with much better players which would make him a better player and increase his stats back to the extrapolated numbers.

For proof: The 2009 post season where playing 36 MPG Davis averaged 15.8PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.29 SPG, 0.57 BPG with a FG% of 49.1%. In 16 games as a starter that year he had near identical numbers except he averaged about 13 PPG. I contend that two years later and in better physical condition, Davis would improve on these stats.

Good point.  However, during that exact same season that you cited, the Celtics went from a +260pt and 73% win team to a -39pt and 43% win team when you replaced KG with Davis.  While much of that could be counted as "not having KG", I think a good deal of it is that Davis was in the lineup.  Therefore, yes his stats may have been better as a result of playing with better players, but the team as a whole greatly suffered and he should not be a starter. 

I don't really care how the numbers "may" extrapolate out b/c he should not be a starter.  His role is to come off the bench, and I hope he continues to progress down that road.

You're moving the goal posts.

The original point was that if Glen Davis had to be a starter his stats would show him to be a more than serviceable player and worthy of praise and probably a much larger contract. His numbers wouldn't look as lacking as they do because he plays so fewer minutes.

You then, after stating his numbers would not extrapolate into the numbers they would were shown that when he does start his numbers actually prove out to be pretty dang close to the expanded numbers. So after admitting that maybe his numbers could turn out that way show that the C's weren't as effective with Baby starting as they were with KG.

Well, no duh!!!

No one ever compared him to KG. No one ever said he could replace one of the greatest power forwards in the history of the game and be just as effective as KG could. We just stated that he was pretty good and if was allowed to start would put up numbers that would show him to be a pretty solid player. That's all.

[Birdbrain]

I don't buy fatigue,age,or even a better Lakers team. Game 7 came down to Glen Davis. I don't even buy his "energy"...please,ever ask why the offense is so bad,when he's on the court that he gets offensive rebounds? I don't get how so much attention can go to a player for a game 4 win, while game 7 was about about "the team just didn't have it". His energy produced 6points in the last 3 games. Glen Davis(half court player only) is a liability to good defense, and offense. Player hater,absolutely. Must it take yet another game7 loss for DA & blind Celtic fans who keep backing him to see this?

http://celticshub.com/2009/04/22/is-glen-davis-a-good-player/
http://celticshub.com/2010/02/26/the-re-re-invention-of-glen-davis-is-it-working/

 

I agree Davis was the key to Boston not getting #18.  Him and then Rondo the prime culprits.  Hopefully if they both are on the roster opening day we won't have to rely on them to come through in the clutch this season.

RA missed 18 straight, KG got 1 rb...

Any chance your a big Sox fan?

[Spilling Green Dye]

The original point was that if Glen Davis had to be a starter his stats would show him to be a more than serviceable player and worthy of praise and probably a much larger contract. His numbers wouldn't look as lacking as they do because he plays so fewer minutes.

You then, after stating his numbers would not extrapolate into the numbers they would were shown that when he does start his numbers actually prove out to be pretty dang close to the expanded numbers. So after admitting that maybe his numbers could turn out that way show that the C's weren't as effective with Baby starting as they were with KG.

Well, no duh!!!

No one ever compared him to KG. No one ever said he could replace one of the greatest power forwards in the history of the game and be just as effective as KG could. We just stated that he was pretty good and if was allowed to start would put up numbers that would show him to be a pretty solid player. That's all.

I'm not really sure what you mean by moving the goal posts, but I think you kind of misunderstood my post.  In no way did I expect Davis to be KG, no-one could.  But you are using numbers from a season that clearly show that Davis, when starting, proved he should not be a starter.  

Someone can have "good" numbers and not be beneficial to the players around him, and this was the case with the stats you referenced.  In fact, had you subsituted Powe or Scalabrine in for KG, you still at least are positive in points and above 50% win percentage.  What were their stats while replacing KG?  It doesn't particularly matter b/c the starting roster as a whole was better than when Davis was in there.

I'm not trying to change the subject, but if you're using stats trying to claim that Davis is productive as a starter, then you have to look at the real productivity of the team during that period.  And the net result leads me to believe that Davis, no matter the numbers you're extrapolating, is not worthy of being a starter.

[ballin]

Just to add my two cents...

Glen Davis is passable on offense due to the offensive rebounding and his propensity to get fouled. Still blows a ton of layups and gets more shots blocked than anybody else in the league, but whatever.

But when somebody is merely passable on offense, they'd better at least be good on defense. And this is where Davis fails hard.

Gasol ABUSED (!!!) his lack of height in the finals terribly. I'd love to see what % Gasol shot when Davis was guarding him (not even sure how/why Davis ended up guarding him as often as he did). Pretty much any player with height dominates him.

Literally, the only guy on the entire Lakers team that Davis played good D against was Lamar Odom... that's the one matchup I liked. But even then, I honestly would've rather had Marquis Daniels guarding Lamar since Daniels at least has some go-to moves on offense instead of living off of broken plays.

[kozlodoev]

I honestly would've rather had Marquis Daniels guarding Lamar since Daniels at least has some go-to moves on offense instead of living off of broken plays.

And should this have happened, you would have probably written something like this:

Odom ABUSED (!!!) his lack of height in the finals terribly. I'd love to see what % Odom shot when Daniels was guarding him (not even sure how/why Daniels ended up guarding him as often as he did).

[nickagneta]

The original point was that if Glen Davis had to be a starter his stats would show him to be a more than serviceable player and worthy of praise and probably a much larger contract. His numbers wouldn't look as lacking as they do because he plays so fewer minutes.

You then, after stating his numbers would not extrapolate into the numbers they would were shown that when he does start his numbers actually prove out to be pretty dang close to the expanded numbers. So after admitting that maybe his numbers could turn out that way show that the C's weren't as effective with Baby starting as they were with KG.

Well, no duh!!!

No one ever compared him to KG. No one ever said he could replace one of the greatest power forwards in the history of the game and be just as effective as KG could. We just stated that he was pretty good and if was allowed to start would put up numbers that would show him to be a pretty solid player. That's all.

I'm not really sure what you mean by moving the goal posts, but I think you kind of misunderstood my post.  In no way did I expect Davis to be KG, no-one could.  But you are using numbers from a season that clearly show that Davis, when starting, proved he should not be a starter.  

Someone can have "good" numbers and not be beneficial to the players around him, and this was the case with the stats you referenced.  In fact, had you subsituted Powe or Scalabrine in for KG, you still at least are positive in points and above 50% win percentage.  What were their stats while replacing KG?  It doesn't particularly matter b/c the starting roster as a whole was better than when Davis was in there.

I'm not trying to change the subject, but if you're using stats trying to claim that Davis is productive as a starter, then you have to look at the real productivity of the team during that period.  And the net result leads me to believe that Davis, no matter the numbers you're extrapolating, is not worthy of being a starter.

Except the stats that you are referring to are team lineup stats not stats of when Baby actually started. They account for every time that lineup was on the floor and not necessarily when he was just starting

The real stats are that of the 16 games that Davis started, the Celtics won 14 of them. And while your lineup comparison of KG playing with the other starters vs that of KG shows a huge difference it does not necessarily show that Davis played poorly as a starter, just that he did not have the same efficiency playing with the same players that KG played with for thousands of minutes over two years. Who could? If given thousands of minutes of opportunity to play with the other starters, perhaps a chemistry would have been born that showed different stats overall.

[pearljammer10]

A question that I too have been asking since we drafted him.

[Birdbrain]

Just to add my two cents...

Glen Davis is passable on offense due to the offensive rebounding and his propensity to get fouled. Still blows a ton of layups and gets more shots blocked than anybody else in the league, but whatever.

But when somebody is merely passable on offense, they'd better at least be good on defense. And this is where Davis fails hard.

Gasol ABUSED (!!!) his lack of height in the finals terribly. I'd love to see what % Gasol shot when Davis was guarding him (not even sure how/why Davis ended up guarding him as often as he did). Pretty much any player with height dominates him.

Literally, the only guy on the entire Lakers team that Davis played good D against was Lamar Odom... that's the one matchup I liked. But even then, I honestly would've rather had Marquis Daniels guarding Lamar since Daniels at least has some go-to moves on offense instead of living off of broken plays.

I don't agree with a single point of your post.  In reality Boston lost 83-79 in game 7 on the road.  Davis' Defense was as much as the problem as the weather outside the staples or Rondo's lack of FT/Jump Shooting.

The Daniels comment was extra nice.

Please season start.

[WeMadeIt17]

Cause we need a Sherk to go with Donkey? No BBD yes can be frustrating at times just like any player can. All I know is BBD has done very well for us. Played great stepping in for KG and still does a very good job. Has a decent offensive game and can body up with Centers and better against Pf's. BBD is still on this team because you cant find to many other good big men off the bench like him.

[Celtics4ever]

Davis is a bench player and he is a good one at times.  To ask him to start is something he is so-so at.  But he is a great energy guy off the bench who heats up sometimes.

[Rondo_is_better]

Cause he's good?

what do you want he's a bench player its not that big of a deal. Besides who are we gonna get that's better?