Why Is Glen Davis still on this team?

[Birdbrain]

Baby doesn't have any lift and gets his shot blocked more than anyone in the NBA.

Harangody, if signed and given a chance, could probably take Baby's job next year and could push him this year.

Why not bundle Baby and Sheed's contract for a wing that could step in and play major minutes if Pierce or Allen go down?

Then sign Harangody and Scal.

To paraphrase what someone said on RealGM....so a guy in BBD who can play the 4 and at times the 5 thanks to his size will be pushed this season by someone in Harangody who doesn't even have an established NBA position yet just because he might have more lift?

It's not that simple, and posts like that make me realize why people used to love Bill Walker and J.R Giddens, and subsequently headpalm.

C'mon he did say add Scal as well.  Harangody/Scal will more than make up for BBDs output...

Are you serious? LOL

No not entirely.  Just having a bit of fun.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

All i say or want out of bbd, is too improve his conditioning, which should improve his jump / explosiveness, which he could do, easily, at 24-25 yrs old. No doubt. He has skills, knows where he should be, and what he should do.....but i won't back down from him and his need for getting in serious shape...there aren't any players i can think of that is playing top bball, while fat or out of shape. He has a body type, that will be big...but still no reason to be mayor mccheese...it is not like he is a lineman or a pitcher...!

[Spilling Green Dye]

I can't remember the last time a player was both so overrated and underrated by large segments of the fan base.

1 of them is true.

Could not agree more... he is overrated and not the future starting PF of this team. 

He is a role player on a very good team, and the bigman backup behind KG, Shaq, Jermaine O'Neal, and Perkins (when healthy). 

[Spilling Green Dye]

BTW, as someone who thinks that Davis is quite vastly overrated on this board, there is no way that I think Hargondy is going to take Davis' spot.  Even I say that is crazy.

Hargondy (spel?) cannot play center against anyone, will likely not take charges at Davis' rate, and does not have the experience with our plays, etc.

[Tai]

All i say or want out of bbd, is too improve his conditioning, which should improve his jump / explosiveness, which he could do, easily, at 24-25 yrs old. No doubt. He has skills, knows where he should be, and what he should do.....but i won't back down from him and his need for getting in serious shape...there aren't any players i can think of that is playing top bball, while fat or out of shape. He has a body type, that will be big...but still no reason to be mayor mccheese...it is not like he is a lineman or a pitcher...!

Well, he did play football, albeit as a tailback.

[Fan from VT]

VS. Opponents and On/Off

'09-'10: Davis: 13.1; Opp.: 18.5 On/Off: -10.4
'08-'09: Davis: 12.2; Opp.: 18.2 On/Off: -7.9
'07-'08: Davis: 12.8; Opp.: 15.8 On/Off: -6.4

PER and Per Minute:

'09-'10:
11.59 (61 out of 70 for qualified PF's; 50 out of 60 if counted as a C)
P/40: 14.6
R/40: 8.8
A/40: 1.5
FG%: .437
TS%: .500
Min: 17.3

'08-'09:
10.77 (57 out of 64 for qualified PF's; 55 out of 67 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.0
R/40: 7.4
A/40: 1.7
FG%: .442
TS%: .502
Min: 21.5

'07-'08:
11.40 (51 out of 63 for qualified PF's; 42 out of 58 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.3
R/40: 8.9
A/40: 1.2
FG%: .484
TS%: .545
Min: 13.6

Some Notes about the Numbers

-I put the On/Off there for reference, but I acknowledge that I personally question how valid they are. Davis has been on the C's for all 3 seasons, and On/Off I think are more valuable when there is a lot of player movement. Additionally, the C's roster has been quite consistent, so really all the On/Off says is that the Celtics are quite significantly worse team when Davis plays instead of KG or Perk. That's to be expected; both are very good and valuable players and start for a reason.

-However, it should put a damper on the "Davis is our future starting PF when the Big Three retire" talk. You cannot get aways with starting a PF that is that much worse than a past-his-prime KG and expect to be a great, competitive team, unless the other pieces are really good (like our playoff run 2 years ago). Further evidence against the notion of Davis as a starter is that his PER and Per Minute numbers so far have been inversely related to his minutes in a very consistent fashion: his best year was his fewest minutes; his worst was his most minutes. Small sample, to be sure, but if that pattern holds, he'd be quite a bit less efficient if he played actual starters minutes.

-In addition, I want to point this out too: Whenever talk of trading Davis for another team's bench player comes up, and someone uses stats to point out why they want another team's bench player, the anti-trade crowd consistently says something like "yeah, but that players' stats are inflated because they come off the bench and play against other bench players." If this makes that much of a difference, the exact same logic should be applied to Davis, and therefore Davis's numbers are just as inflated as every other bench player in the league. After all, he too comes off the bench and plays against other backups, to the extent that such activity is actually relevant. Unfortunately, whether Davis is going against other starters or other backup PF/Cs, he has consistently been outplayed by the opposition as evidenced by his efficiency vs. the opposing efficiencies.



My Summary
I want to be clear. I like Davis. I was super-excited from the day he was drafted in the 2nd round; thought he was an instant steal. I'm very glad he's on the Celtics. He does not suck; he has filled a valuable role for the team in his career so far. However, he is decidedly a bench player and far from irreplaceable. He's so valuable to us because 90% of our salary is devoted to the starting lineup (and our starting lineup is consistently near tops in the league), so any adequate contribution off the bench stands out and is key. However, we could easily have a better bench and better bench PF. No one with his statistical background has ended up being a key starter down the road unless they are a phenomenal all-defense type shut down defender; Davis is simply a good defender. Now, I know that this will provoke the "stats are lies I trust my eyes" crowd. As it should, as stats are always simply a [valuable] tool in the whole toolbox. However, I guarantee that if you took some of those other low minute PF's that are near or higher in the PER rankings and stuck them on the Celtics for the past 3 years, there would be just as much anecdotal observational evidence for, say, Jason Maxiell or Hansbrough, or Turiaf as there is for Davis, and the blogger defense of such players would be at least as strong as it is for Davis...there's definitely Green bias that occurs. Said another way, I think that there are many on this board that would never ever even think about trading Baby for Turiaf straight up (and would in fact ridicule other posters for even considering such a deal), despite similar numerical profiles plus Turiaf's edges in size, athleticism, and scoring efficiency and quite notable edge in overall defense. However, were Turiaf the first Celtic big off the bench for the past 3 years while Davis was achieving his consistent 11.25 or so PER and .460 shooting percentage on some other team, the backlash against people wanting to give away "Celtic Turiaf" for "Other Davis" would (rightly) be even MORE ridiculed than the current backlash against "Celtic Davis" trade ideas. That's the (quite natural) Green Bias at work again.

In summary to my summary, Davis is valuable right now. Additionally, big man depth is a good thing to have, as such depth can disappear quite quickly (JO or Shaq could miss a few weeks each; Perk could have a setback; KG strains something again...depth gone). So in no way shape or form do I (or, I believe, most people who think about Davis trades) want to just "dump Davis for the sake of dumping him" (which is a common accusation from the "anti-davis-trade" population which is a simplistic way of avoiding a fun/engaging/intelligent discussion). Rather, Davis is a replaceable bench part, and there may exist a trade out there that makes the overall team better (for example, a player who has the size/skill to play SF/PF and can defend both positions well; I think with our current team structure we'd be better off replaceing the PF/C Davis with an equally talented SF/PF; even better if we can use Sheed+Davis expiring to exploit a cash-concerned team into swapping Davis with a more talented SF/PF) and it's fun to explore such options. His name comes up in trade discussions because he is not a future starter, is not a current starter, but has proven to have some value and has a very nice attractive contract; he is our best combination of expendability and return value and thus will naturally be brought up in trade ideas. I will not be at all upset if Davis is on our roster for the next season. However, options should be explored, and Davis is not so valuable that you can't think about ways to make the overall team better; not so valuable that he is an automatic "no trade."

[MBunge]

VS. Opponents and On/Off

'09-'10: Davis: 13.1; Opp.: 18.5 On/Off: -10.4
'08-'09: Davis: 12.2; Opp.: 18.2 On/Off: -7.9
'07-'08: Davis: 12.8; Opp.: 15.8 On/Off: -6.4

PER and Per Minute:

'09-'10:
11.59 (61 out of 70 for qualified PF's; 50 out of 60 if counted as a C)
P/40: 14.6
R/40: 8.8
A/40: 1.5
FG%: .437
TS%: .500
Min: 17.3

'08-'09:
10.77 (57 out of 64 for qualified PF's; 55 out of 67 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.0
R/40: 7.4
A/40: 1.7
FG%: .442
TS%: .502
Min: 21.5

'07-'08:
11.40 (51 out of 63 for qualified PF's; 42 out of 58 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.3
R/40: 8.9
A/40: 1.2
FG%: .484
TS%: .545
Min: 13.6

Some Notes about the Numbers

-I put the On/Off there for reference, but I acknowledge that I personally question how valid they are. Davis has been on the C's for all 3 seasons, and On/Off I think are more valuable when there is a lot of player movement. Additionally, the C's roster has been quite consistent, so really all the On/Off says is that the Celtics are quite significantly worse team when Davis plays instead of KG or Perk. That's to be expected; both are very good and valuable players and start for a reason.

-However, it should put a damper on the "Davis is our future starting PF when the Big Three retire" talk. You cannot get aways with starting a PF that is that much worse than a past-his-prime KG and expect to be a great, competitive team, unless the other pieces are really good (like our playoff run 2 years ago). Further evidence against the notion of Davis as a starter is that his PER and Per Minute numbers so far have been inversely related to his minutes in a very consistent fashion: his best year was his fewest minutes; his worst was his most minutes. Small sample, to be sure, but if that pattern holds, he'd be quite a bit less efficient if he played actual starters minutes.

-In addition, I want to point this out too: Whenever talk of trading Davis for another team's bench player comes up, and someone uses stats to point out why they want another team's bench player, the anti-trade crowd consistently says something like "yeah, but that players' stats are inflated because they come off the bench and play against other bench players." If this makes that much of a difference, the exact same logic should be applied to Davis, and therefore Davis's numbers are just as inflated as every other bench player in the league. After all, he too comes off the bench and plays against other backups, to the extent that such activity is actually relevant. Unfortunately, whether Davis is going against other starters or other backup PF/Cs, he has consistently been outplayed by the opposition as evidenced by his efficiency vs. the opposing efficiencies.



My Summary
I want to be clear. I like Davis. I was super-excited from the day he was drafted in the 2nd round; thought he was an instant steal. I'm very glad he's on the Celtics. He does not suck; he has filled a valuable role for the team in his career so far. However, he is decidedly a bench player and far from irreplaceable. He's so valuable to us because 90% of our salary is devoted to the starting lineup (and our starting lineup is consistently near tops in the league), so any adequate contribution off the bench stands out and is key. However, we could easily have a better bench and better bench PF. No one with his statistical background has ended up being a key starter down the road unless they are a phenomenal all-defense type shut down defender; Davis is simply a good defender. Now, I know that this will provoke the "stats are lies I trust my eyes" crowd. As it should, as stats are always simply a [valuable] tool in the whole toolbox. However, I guarantee that if you took some of those other low minute PF's that are near or higher in the PER rankings and stuck them on the Celtics for the past 3 years, there would be just as much anecdotal observational evidence for, say, Jason Maxiell or Hansbrough, or Turiaf as there is for Davis, and the blogger defense of such players would be at least as strong as it is for Davis...there's definitely Green bias that occurs. Said another way, I think that there are many on this board that would never ever even think about trading Baby for Turiaf straight up (and would in fact ridicule other posters for even considering such a deal), despite similar numerical profiles plus Turiaf's edges in size, athleticism, and scoring efficiency and quite notable edge in overall defense. However, were Turiaf the first Celtic big off the bench for the past 3 years while Davis was achieving his consistent 11.25 or so PER and .460 shooting percentage on some other team, the backlash against people wanting to give away "Celtic Turiaf" for "Other Davis" would (rightly) be even MORE ridiculed than the current backlash against "Celtic Davis" trade ideas. That's the (quite natural) Green Bias at work again.

In summary to my summary, Davis is valuable right now. Additionally, big man depth is a good thing to have, as such depth can disappear quite quickly (JO or Shaq could miss a few weeks each; Perk could have a setback; KG strains something again...depth gone). So in no way shape or form do I (or, I believe, most people who think about Davis trades) want to just "dump Davis for the sake of dumping him" (which is a common accusation from the "anti-davis-trade" population which is a simplistic way of avoiding a fun/engaging/intelligent discussion). Rather, Davis is a replaceable bench part, and there may exist a trade out there that makes the overall team better (for example, a player who has the size/skill to play SF/PF and can defend both positions well; I think with our current team structure we'd be better off replaceing the PF/C Davis with an equally talented SF/PF; even better if we can use Sheed+Davis expiring to exploit a cash-concerned team into swapping Davis with a more talented SF/PF) and it's fun to explore such options. His name comes up in trade discussions because he is not a future starter, is not a current starter, but has proven to have some value and has a very nice attractive contract; he is our best combination of expendability and return value and thus will naturally be brought up in trade ideas. I will not be at all upset if Davis is on our roster for the next season. However, options should be explored, and Davis is not so valuable that you can't think about ways to make the overall team better; not so valuable that he is an automatic "no trade."

I just want to point out that I hate per X number of minute stats, especially when they're applied to a player who's never played X number of minutes.

Mike

[Birdbrain]

I hate the whole concept of PER especially for bench players.  Too many variables, IMO.  But too each his own.

You deserve TP for all the work you put into it though.

[Birdbrain]

I can't remember the last time a player was both so overrated and underrated by large segments of the fan base.

1 of them is true.

Could not agree more... he is overrated and not the future starting PF of this team. 

He is a role player on a very good team, and the bigman backup behind KG, Shaq, Jermaine O'Neal, and Perkins (when healthy). 

Another swing and a miss.  Those that 'overrate' always state he's a nice big reserve sometimes (depending on the night) our best big but, those that use PER like yourself miss so much of his game that you consistently underrate him.  Roy in is rush to placate both sides misses on this one. 

[Birdbrain]

BTW, as someone who thinks that Davis is quite vastly overrated on this board, there is no way that I think Hargondy is going to take Davis' spot.  Even I say that is crazy.

Hargondy (spel?) cannot play center against anyone, will likely not take charges at Davis' rate, and does not have the experience with our plays, etc.

And no where near the athletic ability.  Which you can't recognize w/ a stat.

[nickagneta]

VS. Opponents and On/Off

'09-'10: Davis: 13.1; Opp.: 18.5 On/Off: -10.4
'08-'09: Davis: 12.2; Opp.: 18.2 On/Off: -7.9
'07-'08: Davis: 12.8; Opp.: 15.8 On/Off: -6.4

PER and Per Minute:

'09-'10:
11.59 (61 out of 70 for qualified PF's; 50 out of 60 if counted as a C)
P/40: 14.6
R/40: 8.8
A/40: 1.5
FG%: .437
TS%: .500
Min: 17.3

'08-'09:
10.77 (57 out of 64 for qualified PF's; 55 out of 67 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.0
R/40: 7.4
A/40: 1.7
FG%: .442
TS%: .502
Min: 21.5

'07-'08:
11.40 (51 out of 63 for qualified PF's; 42 out of 58 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.3
R/40: 8.9
A/40: 1.2
FG%: .484
TS%: .545
Min: 13.6

Some Notes about the Numbers

-I put the On/Off there for reference, but I acknowledge that I personally question how valid they are. Davis has been on the C's for all 3 seasons, and On/Off I think are more valuable when there is a lot of player movement. Additionally, the C's roster has been quite consistent, so really all the On/Off says is that the Celtics are quite significantly worse team when Davis plays instead of KG or Perk. That's to be expected; both are very good and valuable players and start for a reason.

-However, it should put a damper on the "Davis is our future starting PF when the Big Three retire" talk. You cannot get aways with starting a PF that is that much worse than a past-his-prime KG and expect to be a great, competitive team, unless the other pieces are really good (like our playoff run 2 years ago). Further evidence against the notion of Davis as a starter is that his PER and Per Minute numbers so far have been inversely related to his minutes in a very consistent fashion: his best year was his fewest minutes; his worst was his most minutes. Small sample, to be sure, but if that pattern holds, he'd be quite a bit less efficient if he played actual starters minutes.

-In addition, I want to point this out too: Whenever talk of trading Davis for another team's bench player comes up, and someone uses stats to point out why they want another team's bench player, the anti-trade crowd consistently says something like "yeah, but that players' stats are inflated because they come off the bench and play against other bench players." If this makes that much of a difference, the exact same logic should be applied to Davis, and therefore Davis's numbers are just as inflated as every other bench player in the league. After all, he too comes off the bench and plays against other backups, to the extent that such activity is actually relevant. Unfortunately, whether Davis is going against other starters or other backup PF/Cs, he has consistently been outplayed by the opposition as evidenced by his efficiency vs. the opposing efficiencies.



My Summary
I want to be clear. I like Davis. I was super-excited from the day he was drafted in the 2nd round; thought he was an instant steal. I'm very glad he's on the Celtics. He does not suck; he has filled a valuable role for the team in his career so far. However, he is decidedly a bench player and far from irreplaceable. He's so valuable to us because 90% of our salary is devoted to the starting lineup (and our starting lineup is consistently near tops in the league), so any adequate contribution off the bench stands out and is key. However, we could easily have a better bench and better bench PF. No one with his statistical background has ended up being a key starter down the road unless they are a phenomenal all-defense type shut down defender; Davis is simply a good defender. Now, I know that this will provoke the "stats are lies I trust my eyes" crowd. As it should, as stats are always simply a [valuable] tool in the whole toolbox. However, I guarantee that if you took some of those other low minute PF's that are near or higher in the PER rankings and stuck them on the Celtics for the past 3 years, there would be just as much anecdotal observational evidence for, say, Jason Maxiell or Hansbrough, or Turiaf as there is for Davis, and the blogger defense of such players would be at least as strong as it is for Davis...there's definitely Green bias that occurs. Said another way, I think that there are many on this board that would never ever even think about trading Baby for Turiaf straight up (and would in fact ridicule other posters for even considering such a deal), despite similar numerical profiles plus Turiaf's edges in size, athleticism, and scoring efficiency and quite notable edge in overall defense. However, were Turiaf the first Celtic big off the bench for the past 3 years while Davis was achieving his consistent 11.25 or so PER and .460 shooting percentage on some other team, the backlash against people wanting to give away "Celtic Turiaf" for "Other Davis" would (rightly) be even MORE ridiculed than the current backlash against "Celtic Davis" trade ideas. That's the (quite natural) Green Bias at work again.

In summary to my summary, Davis is valuable right now. Additionally, big man depth is a good thing to have, as such depth can disappear quite quickly (JO or Shaq could miss a few weeks each; Perk could have a setback; KG strains something again...depth gone). So in no way shape or form do I (or, I believe, most people who think about Davis trades) want to just "dump Davis for the sake of dumping him" (which is a common accusation from the "anti-davis-trade" population which is a simplistic way of avoiding a fun/engaging/intelligent discussion). Rather, Davis is a replaceable bench part, and there may exist a trade out there that makes the overall team better (for example, a player who has the size/skill to play SF/PF and can defend both positions well; I think with our current team structure we'd be better off replaceing the PF/C Davis with an equally talented SF/PF; even better if we can use Sheed+Davis expiring to exploit a cash-concerned team into swapping Davis with a more talented SF/PF) and it's fun to explore such options. His name comes up in trade discussions because he is not a future starter, is not a current starter, but has proven to have some value and has a very nice attractive contract; he is our best combination of expendability and return value and thus will naturally be brought up in trade ideas. I will not be at all upset if Davis is on our roster for the next season. However, options should be explored, and Davis is not so valuable that you can't think about ways to make the overall team better; not so valuable that he is an automatic "no trade."

I just want to point out that I hate per X number of minute stats, especially when they're applied to a player who's never played X number of minutes.

Mike

Your problem is the understanding of the statistic. It is not meant to imply that a certain player, if they played X minutes would produce X stats. It is meant as an indicator of the type of performance that each player gives during a per minute basis.

The problem is that it is tough to differentiate the differences in per minute stats. People find it easier to interpret the per minute stats if put into a different context. For instance, it's difficult looking at a stat that says X player scores at a rate of 0.30 points per minute or rebounds at a rate of 0.2 rebounds per minute and be able to tell if that is good or not.

But if you take that same number and extrapolate it into a number like 36 minutes or 40 minutes, minutes that a player might play if forced to start a game and play starters minutes, then it becomes easier to judge the stat in the context of game like minutes. As a Per36 stat, player X above has number that now look like 10.8 PP36 and 7.2 RP36 which means he's might be giving a per minute result of a marginal starter or decent bench player.

That is how those Per X minute stats should be used and interpreted. It is not meant to imply that if the player played that many minutes that would be their stats. You need to get that out of your head.

[MBunge]

VS. Opponents and On/Off

'09-'10: Davis: 13.1; Opp.: 18.5 On/Off: -10.4
'08-'09: Davis: 12.2; Opp.: 18.2 On/Off: -7.9
'07-'08: Davis: 12.8; Opp.: 15.8 On/Off: -6.4

PER and Per Minute:

'09-'10:
11.59 (61 out of 70 for qualified PF's; 50 out of 60 if counted as a C)
P/40: 14.6
R/40: 8.8
A/40: 1.5
FG%: .437
TS%: .500
Min: 17.3

'08-'09:
10.77 (57 out of 64 for qualified PF's; 55 out of 67 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.0
R/40: 7.4
A/40: 1.7
FG%: .442
TS%: .502
Min: 21.5

'07-'08:
11.40 (51 out of 63 for qualified PF's; 42 out of 58 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.3
R/40: 8.9
A/40: 1.2
FG%: .484
TS%: .545
Min: 13.6

Some Notes about the Numbers

-I put the On/Off there for reference, but I acknowledge that I personally question how valid they are. Davis has been on the C's for all 3 seasons, and On/Off I think are more valuable when there is a lot of player movement. Additionally, the C's roster has been quite consistent, so really all the On/Off says is that the Celtics are quite significantly worse team when Davis plays instead of KG or Perk. That's to be expected; both are very good and valuable players and start for a reason.

-However, it should put a damper on the "Davis is our future starting PF when the Big Three retire" talk. You cannot get aways with starting a PF that is that much worse than a past-his-prime KG and expect to be a great, competitive team, unless the other pieces are really good (like our playoff run 2 years ago). Further evidence against the notion of Davis as a starter is that his PER and Per Minute numbers so far have been inversely related to his minutes in a very consistent fashion: his best year was his fewest minutes; his worst was his most minutes. Small sample, to be sure, but if that pattern holds, he'd be quite a bit less efficient if he played actual starters minutes.

-In addition, I want to point this out too: Whenever talk of trading Davis for another team's bench player comes up, and someone uses stats to point out why they want another team's bench player, the anti-trade crowd consistently says something like "yeah, but that players' stats are inflated because they come off the bench and play against other bench players." If this makes that much of a difference, the exact same logic should be applied to Davis, and therefore Davis's numbers are just as inflated as every other bench player in the league. After all, he too comes off the bench and plays against other backups, to the extent that such activity is actually relevant. Unfortunately, whether Davis is going against other starters or other backup PF/Cs, he has consistently been outplayed by the opposition as evidenced by his efficiency vs. the opposing efficiencies.



My Summary
I want to be clear. I like Davis. I was super-excited from the day he was drafted in the 2nd round; thought he was an instant steal. I'm very glad he's on the Celtics. He does not suck; he has filled a valuable role for the team in his career so far. However, he is decidedly a bench player and far from irreplaceable. He's so valuable to us because 90% of our salary is devoted to the starting lineup (and our starting lineup is consistently near tops in the league), so any adequate contribution off the bench stands out and is key. However, we could easily have a better bench and better bench PF. No one with his statistical background has ended up being a key starter down the road unless they are a phenomenal all-defense type shut down defender; Davis is simply a good defender. Now, I know that this will provoke the "stats are lies I trust my eyes" crowd. As it should, as stats are always simply a [valuable] tool in the whole toolbox. However, I guarantee that if you took some of those other low minute PF's that are near or higher in the PER rankings and stuck them on the Celtics for the past 3 years, there would be just as much anecdotal observational evidence for, say, Jason Maxiell or Hansbrough, or Turiaf as there is for Davis, and the blogger defense of such players would be at least as strong as it is for Davis...there's definitely Green bias that occurs. Said another way, I think that there are many on this board that would never ever even think about trading Baby for Turiaf straight up (and would in fact ridicule other posters for even considering such a deal), despite similar numerical profiles plus Turiaf's edges in size, athleticism, and scoring efficiency and quite notable edge in overall defense. However, were Turiaf the first Celtic big off the bench for the past 3 years while Davis was achieving his consistent 11.25 or so PER and .460 shooting percentage on some other team, the backlash against people wanting to give away "Celtic Turiaf" for "Other Davis" would (rightly) be even MORE ridiculed than the current backlash against "Celtic Davis" trade ideas. That's the (quite natural) Green Bias at work again.

In summary to my summary, Davis is valuable right now. Additionally, big man depth is a good thing to have, as such depth can disappear quite quickly (JO or Shaq could miss a few weeks each; Perk could have a setback; KG strains something again...depth gone). So in no way shape or form do I (or, I believe, most people who think about Davis trades) want to just "dump Davis for the sake of dumping him" (which is a common accusation from the "anti-davis-trade" population which is a simplistic way of avoiding a fun/engaging/intelligent discussion). Rather, Davis is a replaceable bench part, and there may exist a trade out there that makes the overall team better (for example, a player who has the size/skill to play SF/PF and can defend both positions well; I think with our current team structure we'd be better off replaceing the PF/C Davis with an equally talented SF/PF; even better if we can use Sheed+Davis expiring to exploit a cash-concerned team into swapping Davis with a more talented SF/PF) and it's fun to explore such options. His name comes up in trade discussions because he is not a future starter, is not a current starter, but has proven to have some value and has a very nice attractive contract; he is our best combination of expendability and return value and thus will naturally be brought up in trade ideas. I will not be at all upset if Davis is on our roster for the next season. However, options should be explored, and Davis is not so valuable that you can't think about ways to make the overall team better; not so valuable that he is an automatic "no trade."

I just want to point out that I hate per X number of minute stats, especially when they're applied to a player who's never played X number of minutes.

Mike

Your problem is the understanding of the statistic.

No, my problem is that it's a theoretical stat.  It's not measuring actual performance, but extrapolating from existing data and presenting a conclusion that people then take as gospel.  For example, if you take the per40 stats for Baby that have been offered up and compare them to what he produced when he got a chance to play major minutes in the 09 playoffs, his actual scoring and shooting percentage were up while his rebounding was down from his theoretical production.

Mike

[Fan from VT]

Anyway, here are a couple of my ideas, with reasoning:

Milwaukee:
Davis for Delfino

Milwaukee's frontcourt right now is Bogut and Gooden; they could use another tough guy (Bogut is tough, but Gooden, though a very good rebounder, sometimes shies away from defense and, shall we say, sometimes lacks intensity). Ilyasova is another PF, but a more outside/offensive one. And the unproven Sanders project. However, their wings right now are Delfino, Dooling, Mbah a moute, Redd, Salmons, Maggette, Douglas Roberts...they can spare one. Redd's contract is unmatchable by us and they just acquired Salmons, Maggette, Douglas Roberts, and Dooling, and I don't see them moving Mbah a Moute (thought he'd be my #1 choice). So Delfino. Unless Davis and a first gets you delfino and Mbah a Moute.

Charlotte:
Sheed and Davis for Boris Diaw.

Charlotte must want to save money; they'd essentially replace Diaw for 9 mil with Davis for 3 and save the sheed money. With the full investment in Tyrus Thomas, it's looking like their lineup is going to be Dampier, Thomas, Wallace, Jackson, Augustin, so Diaw is a 9 million dollar bench player...palatable for a big market team like Boston, not for a fringe playoff team with money problems. I think Diaw helps us more than Davis. Better defender, can defend 3-5 (instead of 4-5), and a good facilitator on offense, but is really a better defender than offensive player anyway.  I'm not super enthused by this deal, but I do think it's an upgrade. Critics will say Diaw lacks heart, which is true, but really if you're talking about wins, it's results that matter. So if someone is a 9 talent and slacks their way to an 8 in effectiveness, it's still better than a 6 talent that hearts his way to a 7. As a prime example, Odom has questionable heart with great talent and has a more positive actual impact on the court than 90% of those with much greater heart than actual talent.

Knicks
Davis and Lafayette for Turiaf.

Doesn't address the need for an SF, but is a definite upgrade in talent and on court results. I threw it in here in case the Knicks want to get a little younger as a deal you'd have to think about.

Portland
Sheed and Davis for Przybilla, Cunningham, Fernandez.

Hinges on the fact that Przybilla is probably going to miss this year due to injury, so Portland saves that money and doesn't care. Essentially tis is expanded because Davis for Fernandez straight up doesn't work and I'm not sure Portland would just do Davis for Frenandez, Cunningham, Pendergraph. I like Cunningham and am intrigued by his very solid rookie per minute numbers and length/athleticism.

New Orleans
Sheed and Davis for Posey and Wright

Wright is the key here. I'd prefer Davis for Wright straight up. Wright has regressed a bit since his rookie year, but his last season's PER was still about as good as Davis's has ever been. Wright is also one of those Diaw types that need to be a facilitator/fill in the blanks on offense on a good team and is a more versatile 3/4 defender than Davis. However, NO might only do this to save money, so I expanded it to the above deal. Posey I think is about done. There's no excuse for how bad he's been in N.O. and I wouldn't really want him here, but in limited minutes he could still be okay/useful in certain situations.

Phoenix
Baby for T. Griffin and Dudley.

Griffin is there just for salary. I'd take Clark instead if they preferred; I know very little about Griffin or Clark to be honest, just that Clark was a bit of a disappointment. Key is Dudley. Would they give him up for Davis? I think the C's do that; Dudley is a really nice 3/4 role player. As for Phoenix, they have Hedo, Grant Hill, Richardson, Clark, Childress, Dudley, Janning and Lawal at the 2/3 and have just Warrick, Griffin, Lopez and Frye at 4/5. Only Lopez can really handle big guys, and he's merely solid; Phoenix could definitely use a guy like Davis that can be really tough and move big guys around. But does Phoenix agree?

[Fan from VT]

I just want to point out that I hate per X number of minute stats, especially when they're applied to a player who's never played X number of minutes.

Mike

Yeah, it's suspect. But it can be useful, especially when (as in Davis's case) per 40 numbers trend down as minutes go up.

[LilRip]

VS. Opponents and On/Off

'09-'10: Davis: 13.1; Opp.: 18.5 On/Off: -10.4
'08-'09: Davis: 12.2; Opp.: 18.2 On/Off: -7.9
'07-'08: Davis: 12.8; Opp.: 15.8 On/Off: -6.4

PER and Per Minute:

'09-'10:
11.59 (61 out of 70 for qualified PF's; 50 out of 60 if counted as a C)
P/40: 14.6
R/40: 8.8
A/40: 1.5
FG%: .437
TS%: .500
Min: 17.3

'08-'09:
10.77 (57 out of 64 for qualified PF's; 55 out of 67 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.0
R/40: 7.4
A/40: 1.7
FG%: .442
TS%: .502
Min: 21.5

'07-'08:
11.40 (51 out of 63 for qualified PF's; 42 out of 58 if counted as a C)
P/40: 13.3
R/40: 8.9
A/40: 1.2
FG%: .484
TS%: .545
Min: 13.6

Some Notes about the Numbers

-I put the On/Off there for reference, but I acknowledge that I personally question how valid they are. Davis has been on the C's for all 3 seasons, and On/Off I think are more valuable when there is a lot of player movement. Additionally, the C's roster has been quite consistent, so really all the On/Off says is that the Celtics are quite significantly worse team when Davis plays instead of KG or Perk. That's to be expected; both are very good and valuable players and start for a reason.

-However, it should put a damper on the "Davis is our future starting PF when the Big Three retire" talk. You cannot get aways with starting a PF that is that much worse than a past-his-prime KG and expect to be a great, competitive team, unless the other pieces are really good (like our playoff run 2 years ago). Further evidence against the notion of Davis as a starter is that his PER and Per Minute numbers so far have been inversely related to his minutes in a very consistent fashion: his best year was his fewest minutes; his worst was his most minutes. Small sample, to be sure, but if that pattern holds, he'd be quite a bit less efficient if he played actual starters minutes.

-In addition, I want to point this out too: Whenever talk of trading Davis for another team's bench player comes up, and someone uses stats to point out why they want another team's bench player, the anti-trade crowd consistently says something like "yeah, but that players' stats are inflated because they come off the bench and play against other bench players." If this makes that much of a difference, the exact same logic should be applied to Davis, and therefore Davis's numbers are just as inflated as every other bench player in the league. After all, he too comes off the bench and plays against other backups, to the extent that such activity is actually relevant. Unfortunately, whether Davis is going against other starters or other backup PF/Cs, he has consistently been outplayed by the opposition as evidenced by his efficiency vs. the opposing efficiencies.



My Summary
I want to be clear. I like Davis. I was super-excited from the day he was drafted in the 2nd round; thought he was an instant steal. I'm very glad he's on the Celtics. He does not suck; he has filled a valuable role for the team in his career so far. However, he is decidedly a bench player and far from irreplaceable. He's so valuable to us because 90% of our salary is devoted to the starting lineup (and our starting lineup is consistently near tops in the league), so any adequate contribution off the bench stands out and is key. However, we could easily have a better bench and better bench PF. No one with his statistical background has ended up being a key starter down the road unless they are a phenomenal all-defense type shut down defender; Davis is simply a good defender. Now, I know that this will provoke the "stats are lies I trust my eyes" crowd. As it should, as stats are always simply a [valuable] tool in the whole toolbox. However, I guarantee that if you took some of those other low minute PF's that are near or higher in the PER rankings and stuck them on the Celtics for the past 3 years, there would be just as much anecdotal observational evidence for, say, Jason Maxiell or Hansbrough, or Turiaf as there is for Davis, and the blogger defense of such players would be at least as strong as it is for Davis...there's definitely Green bias that occurs. Said another way, I think that there are many on this board that would never ever even think about trading Baby for Turiaf straight up (and would in fact ridicule other posters for even considering such a deal), despite similar numerical profiles plus Turiaf's edges in size, athleticism, and scoring efficiency and quite notable edge in overall defense. However, were Turiaf the first Celtic big off the bench for the past 3 years while Davis was achieving his consistent 11.25 or so PER and .460 shooting percentage on some other team, the backlash against people wanting to give away "Celtic Turiaf" for "Other Davis" would (rightly) be even MORE ridiculed than the current backlash against "Celtic Davis" trade ideas. That's the (quite natural) Green Bias at work again.

In summary to my summary, Davis is valuable right now. Additionally, big man depth is a good thing to have, as such depth can disappear quite quickly (JO or Shaq could miss a few weeks each; Perk could have a setback; KG strains something again...depth gone). So in no way shape or form do I (or, I believe, most people who think about Davis trades) want to just "dump Davis for the sake of dumping him" (which is a common accusation from the "anti-davis-trade" population which is a simplistic way of avoiding a fun/engaging/intelligent discussion). Rather, Davis is a replaceable bench part, and there may exist a trade out there that makes the overall team better (for example, a player who has the size/skill to play SF/PF and can defend both positions well; I think with our current team structure we'd be better off replaceing the PF/C Davis with an equally talented SF/PF; even better if we can use Sheed+Davis expiring to exploit a cash-concerned team into swapping Davis with a more talented SF/PF) and it's fun to explore such options. His name comes up in trade discussions because he is not a future starter, is not a current starter, but has proven to have some value and has a very nice attractive contract; he is our best combination of expendability and return value and thus will naturally be brought up in trade ideas. I will not be at all upset if Davis is on our roster for the next season. However, options should be explored, and Davis is not so valuable that you can't think about ways to make the overall team better; not so valuable that he is an automatic "no trade."

very true. TP for a good summary.

I do hate having to debate with those who have such a bias against players that aren't wearing Celtic green. the pro-Davis people seem to take some kind of offense with the fact that some people are actually open to trading Davis, let alone some other PF's out there can fill his shoes.

as you stated, guys like Maxiell can probably come in and fill his shoes and i don't see why not either. If given the right system, those guys can do well. and if acquiring Maxiell allows us to land Prince too, then what a deal that would be! don't think it'd happen though because i don't think the Pistons will bite.



- LilRip