Shaq wants to be a Celtic

[BballTim]

When the following players played vs Cleveland

Gasol

PPG 12.0
RPG 8.0
FG% 37.5

Bynum

PPG 5.5
RPG  7.0
FG% 50

Bosh

PPG 14.7
RPG 9.0
FG% 47.1

In fact, the only one that seems to have success vs. Shaq is Howard.

Howard

PPG 18.5
RPG 11.8
FG% 62.5

Shaq vs...

LAL

PPG 12.5
RPG 5.5
FG% 58.8
MPG 25.0

Mia (they still have Anthony and replaced JO with a bad defender in Big Z)

PPG 15.3
RPG  6.0
FG% 57.6
MPG 23.0

Orl

PPG 13.3
RPG 5.3
FG% 66.7
MPG 23.3

Shaq's production per minute was very high in all of these matchups.

  The big problem with Shaq's defense isn't stopping the opposing centers, it's things like guarding the rim and stopping penetration. Rondo made a lot of hay against the Cavs when Shaq was in the game.

[Who]

Shaq's team defense around the rim was atrocious against the Celtics and Bulls in the playoffs ... but in fairness to him, he was a lot better in that department prior to the injury.

I would consider him an excellent post defender + very good overall man-to-man defender below 12 feet (lot of overlap with post defense here) + a good interior team defender ... but unfortunately, a massive liability in team defensive situations away from the rim (particularly pick and roll and transition situations) + a liability in any man-to-man situation outside of 14-15 feet (any big man with a jumper or the quickness to take him off the bounce).

Overall, I'd say he's a poor defender.

[Jon]

Well, I think it's safe to say that we'd all take him for the minimum.  Even Shaq haters have to realize that he's better than anyone else we can get at that figure. 

But assuming he doesn't come for that figure, we're going to have to sign and trade.  And I think if we sign and trade, we're going to have to get some sort of wing from Cleveland to justify trading Wallace's deal. 

My question is, will Cleveland be willing to trade Moon or Parker to us along with Shaq, when all we're essentially giving them is Wallace's contract space?  I mean they are "getting rid" of Shaq since he's not under contract anyway.  Parker makes about 2.8 million and expires after this year, while Moon makes slightly more over the next two years.  So it's not like they get to dump bad salaries in return. 

So, are we going to have to pony up a first round pick for this?  Are we going to have to opt for Delonte West instead (who they're more likely to want to dump)? 

Thoughts? 

[BballTim]

Well, I think it's safe to say that we'd all take him for the minimum.  Even Shaq haters have to realize that he's better than anyone else we can get at that figure. 

But assuming he doesn't come for that figure, we're going to have to sign and trade.  And I think if we sign and trade, we're going to have to get some sort of wing from Cleveland to justify trading Wallace's deal. 

My question is, will Cleveland be willing to trade Moon or Parker to us along with Shaq, when all we're essentially giving them is Wallace's contract space?  I mean they are "getting rid" of Shaq since he's not under contract anyway.  Parker makes about 2.8 million and expires after this year, while Moon makes slightly more over the next two years.  So it's not like they get to dump bad salaries in return. 

So, are we going to have to pony up a first round pick for this?  Are we going to have to opt for Delonte West instead (who they're more likely to want to dump)? 

Thoughts? 

  If they traded Moon they'd get out of his 2011-2012 salary. At least they'd have some incentive to do that.

[nickagneta]

When I saw Manu Ginobli drive to the hoop in the 2009, I only saw one guy meet him and work to move his feet to defend:  Shaq, because the SG played terrible defense and did not stay in front of Manu.  When I saw a player step up and play physical and score against the Celtics in the 2010 playoffs it wasn't "The King" Lebron, it was Shaq under the hoop.  Shaq made Perkins and Davis seem small. 

So because you saw Manu get defended once in 2009 by Shaq in good help defense that means Shaq can actually play good help defense? My guess here is the list of guys that drove right by Shaq for easy layups over the last couple years far, far, far exceeds the list of guys that Shaq successfully was able to move his feet to go over and defend.

And that player that stepped up in the 2010 playoffs that scored and played underneath was Shaq? All 13.3 points per game, 5 rebounds per game and 1 block per game? That's the guy that stepped up for Cleveland? He average 12 PPG, 6.7 RPG and 1.5 BPG in the regular season. How exactly is that stepping up?

As for the comment about making Perkins and Davis look small I can only think you meant that literally because Shaq has gained so much weight because figuratively, I don't see it. In that series Perk averaged 7PPG, 7 RPG and 2.4 BPG in that series playing 3 minutes more per game than Shaq and Davis averaged 6 PPG and 3 RPG in 2/3 the minutes that Shaq played. That doesn't really signify to me that Shaq put up numbers or played so well that he dwarfed Perk and Davis.

[Jon]

Well, I think it's safe to say that we'd all take him for the minimum.  Even Shaq haters have to realize that he's better than anyone else we can get at that figure. 

But assuming he doesn't come for that figure, we're going to have to sign and trade.  And I think if we sign and trade, we're going to have to get some sort of wing from Cleveland to justify trading Wallace's deal. 

My question is, will Cleveland be willing to trade Moon or Parker to us along with Shaq, when all we're essentially giving them is Wallace's contract space?  I mean they are "getting rid" of Shaq since he's not under contract anyway.  Parker makes about 2.8 million and expires after this year, while Moon makes slightly more over the next two years.  So it's not like they get to dump bad salaries in return. 

So, are we going to have to pony up a first round pick for this?  Are we going to have to opt for Delonte West instead (who they're more likely to want to dump)? 

Thoughts? 

  If they traded Moon they'd get out of his 2011-2012 salary. At least they'd have some incentive to do that.

True.  But it's only 3 million dollars.  And given their owner's attitude about wanting to remain competitive, I don't know if giving Moon away is exactly in the plans. 

[MBunge]

And that player that stepped up in the 2010 playoffs that scored and played underneath was Shaq? All 13.3 points per game, 5 rebounds per game and 1 block per game? That's the guy that stepped up for Cleveland? He average 12 PPG, 6.7 RPG and 1.5 BPG in the regular season. How exactly is that stepping up?

As for the comment about making Perkins and Davis look small I can only think you meant that literally because Shaq has gained so much weight because figuratively, I don't see it. In that series Perk averaged 7PPG, 7 RPG and 2.4 BPG in that series playing 3 minutes more per game than Shaq and Davis averaged 6 PPG and 3 RPG in 2/3 the minutes that Shaq played. That doesn't really signify to me that Shaq put up numbers or played so well that he dwarfed Perk and Davis.

Are you happy with Perk as Boston's starting center?  Then you might want to look at those numbers again.  The bottom line is that Shaq, even at this stage, is roughly the equal of Perk.  What Shaq gives up in his helplessness against the pick-n-roll, he almost completely makes up for with his far greater ability to score in the post.  Perk becomes almost useless in the post-season when teams increase their defensive intensity, while Shaq can still score against any defense in the league.

Given the size of Orlando and LA, given Miami's obvious weakness in the post and given that Perk might only be 75% at best when the playoffs come around, picking up Shaq would be a very good deal for Boston.

Good enough to use all of Sheed's money?  Maybe not.  I'd much rather have Josh Howard than Shaq.  But getting Shaq and Moon or Shaq and Parker?  Those wouldn't be the sexiest or flashiest moves, but you'd be taking basically the same team than went to the finals and adding quality depth at the wing while significantly improving interior offense without losing that much on defense.

Mike

[Who]

Well, I think it's safe to say that we'd all take him for the minimum.  Even Shaq haters have to realize that he's better than anyone else we can get at that figure. 

It depends on the role. I'd be happy with Shaq as a 10 minute fourth big in the depth chart type of player but I would be against signing him if we were talking about a starting spot and 20+ minutes a night.

[Spicoli]

Could you have ever imagined 15 years ago when the day would come that Shaq said he WANTED to play for the Celtics?

I'd get this done...  He wants to be here and there's no doubt that Shaq will do what needs to be done to make the dollar amount work.  We really need him...  He's limited now, but funny enough, he's probably better than Perk...

Shaq is nowhere near better than a healthy Perk!

I'd pay to watch the two of them go one-on-one in a pay-per-view matchup.  I also guarantee you that Shaq would destroy him. 

All we need is a guy outside dropping them passes on the low block and then let the two of them play. 

Perk is so mechanical and limited it's a shame...  You really think Perk is that good, huh?   

Yes I really do think Perk is better than Shaq!  And I think most poeple do too.   

Sorry i had to chime in on this, but i think even a 40 yo Shaq is better than Perk. What does Perk really do better other than defend the pick and roll? Perk is not a great rebounder, and his offense is abysmal. Shaq is a superior offensive player, and a good man defender. I don't see how Perk could be considered the better player.

[LilRip]

it's kinda annoying how people here are expecting so much from everyone. Newsflash: not everyone is Kevin Freakin' Garnett!

let's look at the obvious strengths and weaknesses of Shaq:

(+):
Post-offense
Post-defense
Rebounding
Hard Fouls
Passing
Size

(-):
FT's
Pick-n-Roll defense
Defense on agile bigs
Speed in transition in offense
Speed in transition in defense
Lack of any kind of range outside the paint
Locker Room Attitude

now, i didn't include some stuff like Blocks or Strength (coz he's lost those and is basically average when it comes to it).

the way i see it, we should bring Shaq in because we really need some size and rebounding. he can play good enough post D against the likes of Bynum. and he's light-years ahead of Perk on offense. Shaq is a [dang] good passer, especially out of the post.

People are focusing on his lack of speed/mobility and FT shooting while conveniently forgetting that Perkins isn't good at those either. Perk is able to defend the pick and roll well enough though, that much is true, while Shaq is just absolutely horrible at it. if he plays limited minutes, hopefully he can dish out some hard fouls instead if he gets beat. Agile bigs also kill Shaq but conveniently, we have KG (who is a much much much better defender than Antawn Jamison). It's rare for a team to have 2 agile big men (like the Hawks) and besides, the Hawks still beat us whether we sign Shaq or not.

the biggest hurdle in my eyes is the locker room/chemistry. If Shaq is willing to possibly play limited minutes (say JO is a better matchup) or even have to come off the bench (say Perk comes back), then take him. DA needs to make this clear to Shaq that he can't be promised a starting job. if Shaq is ok with that, and we're able to get a wing from Cleveland (who have cap space so i wouldn't know if they will bite on a Sheed deal), then i would do this.



- LilRip

[cdif911]

I'd like to see a reality show with Baby and Shaq - imagine the hijinks they'd get into?

[nickagneta]

And that player that stepped up in the 2010 playoffs that scored and played underneath was Shaq? All 13.3 points per game, 5 rebounds per game and 1 block per game? That's the guy that stepped up for Cleveland? He average 12 PPG, 6.7 RPG and 1.5 BPG in the regular season. How exactly is that stepping up?

As for the comment about making Perkins and Davis look small I can only think you meant that literally because Shaq has gained so much weight because figuratively, I don't see it. In that series Perk averaged 7PPG, 7 RPG and 2.4 BPG in that series playing 3 minutes more per game than Shaq and Davis averaged 6 PPG and 3 RPG in 2/3 the minutes that Shaq played. That doesn't really signify to me that Shaq put up numbers or played so well that he dwarfed Perk and Davis.

Are you happy with Perk as Boston's starting center?  Then you might want to look at those numbers again.  The bottom line is that Shaq, even at this stage, is roughly the equal of Perk.  What Shaq gives up in his helplessness against the pick-n-roll, he almost completely makes up for with his far greater ability to score in the post.  Perk becomes almost useless in the post-season when teams increase their defensive intensity, while Shaq can still score against any defense in the league.

Given the size of Orlando and LA, given Miami's obvious weakness in the post and given that Perk might only be 75% at best when the playoffs come around, picking up Shaq would be a very good deal for Boston.

Yes I am happy with Perkins as this team's starting center because he is a fifth option on offense and because he is the anchor of this team's interior defense.

Let's look at some more meaningful numbers from the playoffs. Shaq's offensive and defensive ratings(number of points scored and given up while he was on the floor) were Ortg 102 and Drtg 106. Perkins numbers were Ortg 94 and Drtg 100. So Perkins team scored less and let up less when he was one the floor for his team versus those same situation for Shaq's team but Perk had a usage rate of only 13.6% versus that of Shaq's usage rate of 26.4%. That means the Celtics lack of offensive efficiency on offense is less Perk's fault than Shaq's fault that the Cavs offense was lacking. Perkins and Shaq's rebounding percentages were almost identical but with Perk being slightly better and Perkins had a much higher block percentage.

As for Shaq's ability to score. Shaq was taking 8.5 shots per game in the playoffs to score 11.5 PPG. Perk was taking 4.1 shots per game to score 5.7 PPG. I don't see that being involved in twice as many plays as Perk(usage rate), taking more than twice as many shots per game as Perk and scoring less than twice as many points per game as Perk equals that Shaq is significantly better than Perk offensively. If we went to Perk twice as much could he have equaled Shaq's numbers? Probably. Would that have helped the team? Probably not.

And I am really not worried about other team's size because last year we beat all of those same teams except LA and if Perk doesn't get hurt in Game 6 of the Finals, we probably beat LA for the title.

I would, however, want Shaq on this team this year if it was for the vet minimum. I think trading Wallace's contract for him is not prudent, especially since I can see a Houston or Utah or Denver or Philly or some other team close to the luxury tax line wanting to unload a player before the trading deadline. Shaq at the min, love it. Shaq in a sign and trade for more than one year and at millions per year, bad business decision.

[MBunge]

And that player that stepped up in the 2010 playoffs that scored and played underneath was Shaq? All 13.3 points per game, 5 rebounds per game and 1 block per game? That's the guy that stepped up for Cleveland? He average 12 PPG, 6.7 RPG and 1.5 BPG in the regular season. How exactly is that stepping up?

As for the comment about making Perkins and Davis look small I can only think you meant that literally because Shaq has gained so much weight because figuratively, I don't see it. In that series Perk averaged 7PPG, 7 RPG and 2.4 BPG in that series playing 3 minutes more per game than Shaq and Davis averaged 6 PPG and 3 RPG in 2/3 the minutes that Shaq played. That doesn't really signify to me that Shaq put up numbers or played so well that he dwarfed Perk and Davis.

Are you happy with Perk as Boston's starting center?  Then you might want to look at those numbers again.  The bottom line is that Shaq, even at this stage, is roughly the equal of Perk.  What Shaq gives up in his helplessness against the pick-n-roll, he almost completely makes up for with his far greater ability to score in the post.  Perk becomes almost useless in the post-season when teams increase their defensive intensity, while Shaq can still score against any defense in the league.

Given the size of Orlando and LA, given Miami's obvious weakness in the post and given that Perk might only be 75% at best when the playoffs come around, picking up Shaq would be a very good deal for Boston.

Yes I am happy with Perkins as this team's starting center because he is a fifth option on offense and because he is the anchor of this team's interior defense.

Let's look at some more meaningful numbers from the playoffs. Shaq's offensive and defensive ratings(number of points scored and given up while he was on the floor) were Ortg 102 and Drtg 106. Perkins numbers were Ortg 94 and Drtg 100. So Perkins team scored less and let up less when he was one the floor for his team versus those same situation for Shaq's team but Perk had a usage rate of only 13.6% versus that of Shaq's usage rate of 26.4%. That means the Celtics lack of offensive efficiency on offense is less Perk's fault than Shaq's fault that the Cavs offense was lacking. Perkins and Shaq's rebounding percentages were almost identical but with Perk being slightly better and Perkins had a much higher block percentage.

As for Shaq's ability to score. Shaq was taking 8.5 shots per game in the playoffs to score 11.5 PPG. Perk was taking 4.1 shots per game to score 5.7 PPG. I don't see that being involved in twice as many plays as Perk(usage rate), taking more than twice as many shots per game as Perk and scoring less than twice as many points per game as Perk equals that Shaq is significantly better than Perk offensively. If we went to Perk twice as much could he have equaled Shaq's numbers? Probably. Would that have helped the team? Probably not.

And I am really not worried about other team's size because last year we beat all of those same teams except LA and if Perk doesn't get hurt in Game 6 of the Finals, we probably beat LA for the title.

I would, however, want Shaq on this team this year if it was for the vet minimum. I think trading Wallace's contract for him is not prudent, especially since I can see a Houston or Utah or Denver or Philly or some other team close to the luxury tax line wanting to unload a player before the trading deadline. Shaq at the min, love it. Shaq in a sign and trade for more than one year and at millions per year, bad business decision.

You really, really, really, really and I mean REALLY need to stop thinking that stats are the be-all, end-all of basketball analysis.

Firstly, Perk is a huge factor in Boston's lack of offensive efficiency.  That's because his lack of production or even potential to produce offense forces the other 4 players on the court to compensate.

Secondly, the reason why Shaq gets more shots than Perk and produces more points than Perk is because he's a better offensive player than Perk.  If Perk got more shots, he would not generate more points because if he could generate more points HE WOULD ALREADY BET GETTING MORE SHOTS.  If you can't see the difference between throwing Shaq the ball in the post and him being able to make an offensive move to score and someone else having to make an offensive move to open up a chance for Perk to score, you don't really understand the game of basketball.

Thirdly, KG, Ray and Pierce are all going to be a year older next season and by the time the playoffs come around, they'll probably be just as tired and worn down as this past year.  If you think this team isn't going to need something extra in order to win another title, think again.

As I've stated, I wouldn't want to use all Sheed's contract on Shaq.  I don't think waiting and hoping to grab somebody at the trading deadline is a great idea, though.  And with Perk either out or probably limited for this entire coming season, a deal with Cleveland that brought back Shaq and either Parker or Moon would both shore up Boston at the 5 and give them much needed depth on the wing.

Mike

[KungPoweChicken]

 

As for Shaq's ability to score. Shaq was taking 8.5 shots per game in the playoffs to score 11.5 PPG. Perk was taking 4.1 shots per game to score 5.7 PPG. I don't see that being involved in twice as many plays as Perk(usage rate), taking more than twice as many shots per game as Perk and scoring less than twice as many points per game as Perk equals that Shaq is significantly better than Perk offensively. If we went to Perk twice as much could he have equaled Shaq's numbers? Probably. Would that have helped the team? Probably not.

And I am really not worried about other team's size because last year we beat all of those same teams except LA and if Perk doesn't get hurt in Game 6 of the Finals, we probably beat LA for the title.

I would, however, want Shaq on this team this year if it was for the vet minimum. I think trading Wallace's contract for him is not prudent, especially since I can see a Houston or Utah or Denver or Philly or some other team close to the luxury tax line wanting to unload a player before the trading deadline. Shaq at the min, love it. Shaq in a sign and trade for more than one year and at millions per year, bad business decision.

How are we going to get Perk twice as many touches when Perk still doesn't know how to not travel?

[nickagneta]

First off, there's no need to insult my basketball intelligence

Second, I'm not arguing that Perk is a better offensive player than Shaq. I merely was stating that Shaq was in no way dominant or earth shakingly better than Perk any more at this time of his career, offensively. And the stats were to refute your claim that Shaq made Perk and Davis look small in the playoffs. He did no such thing, either from an observational, non measurable way of looking at things or through stats. He was okay offensively and below average defensively. Perk and Davis were bad offensively and good to great defensively. Seems a pretty even trade off considering what wins championships.