I think we're on a collision course with Shaq

[nickagneta]

Regarding Shaq's scoring that Mike continues to compare to Perk I think the context has to be looked at differently. When Shaq started and was on the floor with Cleveland, he was their number 2 scoring option.

So instead of comparing Shaq to Perk who was the Celtics 5th scoring option why don't we compare Shaq's numbers to those of other #2 scoring options in the playoffs:

Shaq scored 11.5 points in 8.4 shots and 4.2 free throw attempts.

Ray Allen scored 16.2 point in 12.7 shots and 3.2 free throws

Pau Gasol scored 19.6 points in 13.3 shots and 3.9 free throws

Jameer Nelson scored 19.0 points in 13.6 shots and 4.4 free throws

Carlos Boozer scored 19.7 points on 16.8 shots and 3.5 free throws.

You see, one of the reasons that Cleveland failed as a team was due to the fact that their second scoring option was so old and out of shape he couldn't be left on the floor for more than 23 MPG without and further sacrificing their defensive abilities as a team. Shaq, and I believe Mike has stated this, has to be a second or first option when he is on the floor. That the way HE views himself and if he isn't going to be that first or second option, then he's going to be a locker room problem.

Perk was a 5th option. Comparing Perk's and Shaq's outputs are not fair and saying that the reason Perk wasn't given the ball more was because he couldn't be relied to score isn't fair either. He was his team's 5th best chance of scoring. There is not a coach in the world that will feed the ball into Perk in tight playoff defenses when he is on the floor with scorers the caliber of KG, Pierce, Ray Allen and Rondo. The notion is absurd.

Shaq in Boston is a very bad fit. Yes he could give this team better low post offense and could be used similar to the way he was in Cleveland. But by doing that you are making him your first or second option when he is on the floor and Ray and KG and Paul are not going to look to kindly on that, especially since they have already had a tough enough time relinquishing the hold on the offense to Rondo already.

Shaq to Boston to start, I don't care how many minutes it is is bad news.

[kozlodoev]

Are you aware Shaq averaged more points in the playoffs against Boston than he did against Chicago?

Right, in more minutes, and skewed upwards by a 21-point game that came in a 32-point blowout. Take this for what it's worth to you.

By the way, any comment for the fact that he averaged 5 rebounds and 4 fouls in 23 minutes that series?

[Evantime34]

Regarding Shaq's scoring that Mike continues to compare to Perk I think the context has to be looked at differently. When Shaq started and was on the floor with Cleveland, he was their number 2 scoring option.

So instead of comparing Shaq to Perk who was the Celtics 5th scoring option why don't we compare Shaq's numbers to those of other #2 scoring options in the playoffs:

Shaq scored 11.5 points in 8.4 shots and 4.2 free throw attempts.

Ray Allen scored 16.2 point in 12.7 shots and 3.2 free throws

Pau Gasol scored 19.6 points in 13.3 shots and 3.9 free throws

Jameer Nelson scored 19.0 points in 13.6 shots and 4.4 free throws

Carlos Boozer scored 19.7 points on 16.8 shots and 3.5 free throws.

You see, one of the reasons that Cleveland failed as a team was due to the fact that their second scoring option was so old and out of shape he couldn't be left on the floor for more than 23 MPG without and further sacrificing their defensive abilities as a team. Shaq, and I believe Mike has stated this, has to be a second or first option when he is on the floor. That the way HE views himself and if he isn't going to be that first or second option, then he's going to be a locker room problem.

Perk was a 5th option. Comparing Perk's and Shaq's outputs are not fair and saying that the reason Perk wasn't given the ball more was because he couldn't be relied to score isn't fair either. He was his team's 5th best chance of scoring. There is not a coach in the world that will feed the ball into Perk in tight playoff defenses when he is on the floor with scorers the caliber of KG, Pierce, Ray Allen and Rondo. The notion is absurd.

Shaq in Boston is a very bad fit. Yes he could give this team better low post offense and could be used similar to the way he was in Cleveland. But by doing that you are making him your first or second option when he is on the floor and Ray and KG and Paul are not going to look to kindly on that, especially since they have already had a tough enough time relinquishing the hold on the offense to Rondo already.

Shaq to Boston to start, I don't care how many minutes it is is bad news.

I'm going to have to side with Mike here. Shaq would not be a terrible fit if he is willing to take a back up role on this team. If he ends up signing for the vet min it will clearly indicate he is willing to do so (in most people's minds).

People say Shaq was a less efficient scorer than Perk. Well this is technically true. However, the reason for this is because Perk almost exclusively scores on perfect feeds to him under the hoop. There have been many times where Perk has a good shot but he's not sure if he wants to take it so he hesitates and gives the ball up.

If Shaq is willing to take a back up role on offense he will be far more valuable than Perk. All those previously mentioned great feeds into the post are buckets or fouls for Shaq. Perk converts a high amount of shots but if you give the looks he gets to a player like Shaq, Shaq shoots an even higher percentage than Perk.

I understand that your argument is Shaq won't take a back seat role on this team. Well I don't think he would be brought in unless he would agree to it.

For the sake of argument let's pretend that Shaq will 100% buy in to his new role, is there anyone better out there on the market to fill this role?

[MBunge]

1.  Why did Sheed and Perk get fewer shots and score less efficiently in the playoffs vs. regular, while Shaq's production and efficiency wer virtually the same?

 
Sheed shot a higher percentage in the playoffs. I don't see how this makes him "less efficient". And he played less because KG got extra 4 minutes per game. Zydrunas Ilgauskas, on the other hand, is not exactly Kevin Garnett.

Shaq can still score against any defense and defender in the league, he just can't do for 35 minutes a game anymore.

So why then did the Cavaliers score so much better as a team with him off the floor?

Shaq can still score against any defense and defender in the league, he just can't do for 35 minutes a game anymore.  On the other hand, both Perk and Sheed (especially Perk) can have their offense limited or shut down by opposing defenses.

Of course. And no matter how limited their offense is, they will still score 12 points per game if they get enough touches.

2.  Shaq played about 23 minutes a game in the regular season and 22 minutes in the playoffs and Cleveland was still one of the best defensive teams in the league, so your contention that Shaq is somebody who destroys a team's defense is provable false.

My contention is that Shaq is someone who will not be able to play within the Celtics team defense. If you want to redo a championship defense for an aging, marginal contributor, be my guest.

Furthermore, according to 82games.com, the center position had the 2nd best offensive and defensive PER of the entire Cavaliers team.  That again indicates your Chicken Little fear Shaq would make the defensive sky fall in Boston is silly.

And according to 82games.com, the Celtics had the lowest PER defensively at the SG position, so Ray Allen must be our best defender. Blame Hollinger.

What about double-teams? You're the one who brought it up.  Now you just want to drop it?  This is what I mean by your insane standard with Shaq.  You say he doesn't draw double-teams and that's a reason why Boston shouldn't get him.  Then when it's pointed out that none of the Celtic centers last season drew double-teams and even the team's best post player wasn't double-teamed that often, you just throw that standard aside.

You _really_ don't like reading, do you? Let me try outline style, maybe it will be easier for you.

* None of the Celtics centers drew double teams. However, all of them performed admirably in the Celtics defensive schemes due to their ability to adjust and cut off angles.

* Shaq used to have value to teams because he was an offense on his own, drawing double teams and distributing to to open teammates. He is no longer able to do that as he does.

* Because he can no longer perform offensively as he used to, he has now become an overall liability, and will be even more so in a defensive system which requires big men to blitz, recover, and rotate quickly and crisply.

1.  Sheed played only 4 fewer minutes in the playoffs, but got 3 fewer shots.  Why?  Was the rest of the team just being selfish and not passing him the ball?

2.  Last season, Tony Allen had a +/- of -28 and Glenn Davis was a -83.  By the standard you're using for Shaq, Boston would have been a much better team if neither of those players had seen the floor.

3.  Again, Cleveland was one of the best defensive teams last year, so obviously Shaq doesn't obliterate a team's ability to play great defense.  And again, I think the last two games in the Finals proved that this team isn't going to be able to simply defend its way to banner #18.

4.  However few double-teams Shaq will draw, it will still be more than Perk and Sheed combined to draw last year.  And even if he doesn't draw a full-on double-team, there's a difference between a player who can score on his own and a player who has to be set up to score by someone else.  Shaq's ability to score on his own will inevitably open up things for the other Celtics that wouldn't be there with Perk on the floor.  Furthermore, Shaq will draw fouls, which neither Perk nor Sheed did or will do.  That means he would help get the other team into foul trouble and the Celtics into the bonus, which means more foul shots and more points for Pierce, Ray, KG and others.

Your concerns about Shaq's defense are not without merit, though I think they're overblown.  But to argue that Shaq wouldn't be a more valuable offensive force than Perk or Sheed is crazy.

Mike

[nickagneta]

Regarding Shaq's scoring that Mike continues to compare to Perk I think the context has to be looked at differently. When Shaq started and was on the floor with Cleveland, he was their number 2 scoring option.

So instead of comparing Shaq to Perk who was the Celtics 5th scoring option why don't we compare Shaq's numbers to those of other #2 scoring options in the playoffs:

Shaq scored 11.5 points in 8.4 shots and 4.2 free throw attempts.

Ray Allen scored 16.2 point in 12.7 shots and 3.2 free throws

Pau Gasol scored 19.6 points in 13.3 shots and 3.9 free throws

Jameer Nelson scored 19.0 points in 13.6 shots and 4.4 free throws

Carlos Boozer scored 19.7 points on 16.8 shots and 3.5 free throws.

You see, one of the reasons that Cleveland failed as a team was due to the fact that their second scoring option was so old and out of shape he couldn't be left on the floor for more than 23 MPG without and further sacrificing their defensive abilities as a team. Shaq, and I believe Mike has stated this, has to be a second or first option when he is on the floor. That the way HE views himself and if he isn't going to be that first or second option, then he's going to be a locker room problem.

Perk was a 5th option. Comparing Perk's and Shaq's outputs are not fair and saying that the reason Perk wasn't given the ball more was because he couldn't be relied to score isn't fair either. He was his team's 5th best chance of scoring. There is not a coach in the world that will feed the ball into Perk in tight playoff defenses when he is on the floor with scorers the caliber of KG, Pierce, Ray Allen and Rondo. The notion is absurd.

Shaq in Boston is a very bad fit. Yes he could give this team better low post offense and could be used similar to the way he was in Cleveland. But by doing that you are making him your first or second option when he is on the floor and Ray and KG and Paul are not going to look to kindly on that, especially since they have already had a tough enough time relinquishing the hold on the offense to Rondo already.

Shaq to Boston to start, I don't care how many minutes it is is bad news.

I'm going to have to side with Mike here. Shaq would not be a terrible fit if he is willing to take a back up role on this team. If he ends up signing for the vet min it will clearly indicate he is willing to do so (in most people's minds).

People say Shaq was a less efficient scorer than Perk. Well this is technically true. However, the reason for this is because Perk almost exclusively scores on perfect feeds to him under the hoop. There have been many times where Perk has a good shot but he's not sure if he wants to take it so he hesitates and gives the ball up.

If Shaq is willing to take a back up role on offense he will be far more valuable than Perk. All those previously mentioned great feeds into the post are buckets or fouls for Shaq. Perk converts a high amount of shots but if you give the looks he gets to a player like Shaq, Shaq shoots an even higher percentage than Perk.

I understand that your argument is Shaq won't take a back seat role on this team. Well I don't think he would be brought in unless he would agree to it.

For the sake of argument let's pretend that Shaq will 100% buy in to his new role, is there anyone better out there on the market to fill this role?

I have no problem with Shaq as a backup at the minimum.

None.

He can make all the promises he wants about being a good boy and if he keeps them, great. If he doesn't, hit the road Shaq and don't come round here no more.

But there have been a bunch of suggestions, and I know you and Mike aren't the ones making them Evantime, that we should get Shaq with a sign and trade at costs going all the way up to $5.8 million a year and at more than one year. There have been others that suggest, like Jon, to use him as a starter like Cleveland did because who cares who starts. I think these are awful ideas.

But at the min and as a back up only, not starting, I have no problem with Shaq here.

[MBunge]

Regarding Shaq's scoring that Mike continues to compare to Perk I think the context has to be looked at differently. When Shaq started and was on the floor with Cleveland, he was their number 2 scoring option.

Uh, in his 53 games last season, Shaq averaged 8.7 shots a game.  In Mo Williams 68 games last season, he averaged 12.5 shots a game.  In Antawn Jamison's 25 games with Cleveland, he averaged over 13 shots a game.

In 53 games, Shaq had 463 field goal attempts.  In 60 games, Delonte West had 436 field goal attempts.  Shaq played 1240 minutes for those 463 FGAs,  JJ Hickson 1691 minutes and had 522 FGAs.

So no, Shaq was not the clearcut #2 scoring option for the Cavs last year.

Mike

[Jon]

Regarding Shaq's scoring that Mike continues to compare to Perk I think the context has to be looked at differently. When Shaq started and was on the floor with Cleveland, he was their number 2 scoring option.

Uh, in his 53 games last season, Shaq averaged 8.7 shots a game.  In Mo Williams 68 games last season, he averaged 12.5 shots a game.  In Antawn Jamison's 25 games with Cleveland, he averaged over 13 shots a game.

In 53 games, Shaq had 463 field goal attempts.  In 60 games, Delonte West had 436 field goal attempts.  Shaq played 1240 minutes for those 463 FGAs,  JJ Hickson 1691 minutes and had 522 FGAs.

So no, Shaq was not the clearcut #2 scoring option for the Cavs last year.

Mike

Good point. TP.  And that's the issue.  There's this perception on this board that he won't defer to anyone.  I think it's totally unfounded.  If he was mostly OK with deferring to the likes of Delonte West, J.J. Hickson, Mo Williams, and Antawn Jamison, I'm sure he'll be OK deferring to 3 Hall of Famers and Rondo. 

[Evantime34]

Regarding Shaq's scoring that Mike continues to compare to Perk I think the context has to be looked at differently. When Shaq started and was on the floor with Cleveland, he was their number 2 scoring option.

So instead of comparing Shaq to Perk who was the Celtics 5th scoring option why don't we compare Shaq's numbers to those of other #2 scoring options in the playoffs:

Shaq scored 11.5 points in 8.4 shots and 4.2 free throw attempts.

Ray Allen scored 16.2 point in 12.7 shots and 3.2 free throws

Pau Gasol scored 19.6 points in 13.3 shots and 3.9 free throws

Jameer Nelson scored 19.0 points in 13.6 shots and 4.4 free throws

Carlos Boozer scored 19.7 points on 16.8 shots and 3.5 free throws.

You see, one of the reasons that Cleveland failed as a team was due to the fact that their second scoring option was so old and out of shape he couldn't be left on the floor for more than 23 MPG without and further sacrificing their defensive abilities as a team. Shaq, and I believe Mike has stated this, has to be a second or first option when he is on the floor. That the way HE views himself and if he isn't going to be that first or second option, then he's going to be a locker room problem.

Perk was a 5th option. Comparing Perk's and Shaq's outputs are not fair and saying that the reason Perk wasn't given the ball more was because he couldn't be relied to score isn't fair either. He was his team's 5th best chance of scoring. There is not a coach in the world that will feed the ball into Perk in tight playoff defenses when he is on the floor with scorers the caliber of KG, Pierce, Ray Allen and Rondo. The notion is absurd.

Shaq in Boston is a very bad fit. Yes he could give this team better low post offense and could be used similar to the way he was in Cleveland. But by doing that you are making him your first or second option when he is on the floor and Ray and KG and Paul are not going to look to kindly on that, especially since they have already had a tough enough time relinquishing the hold on the offense to Rondo already.

Shaq to Boston to start, I don't care how many minutes it is is bad news.

I'm going to have to side with Mike here. Shaq would not be a terrible fit if he is willing to take a back up role on this team. If he ends up signing for the vet min it will clearly indicate he is willing to do so (in most people's minds).

People say Shaq was a less efficient scorer than Perk. Well this is technically true. However, the reason for this is because Perk almost exclusively scores on perfect feeds to him under the hoop. There have been many times where Perk has a good shot but he's not sure if he wants to take it so he hesitates and gives the ball up.

If Shaq is willing to take a back up role on offense he will be far more valuable than Perk. All those previously mentioned great feeds into the post are buckets or fouls for Shaq. Perk converts a high amount of shots but if you give the looks he gets to a player like Shaq, Shaq shoots an even higher percentage than Perk.

I understand that your argument is Shaq won't take a back seat role on this team. Well I don't think he would be brought in unless he would agree to it.

For the sake of argument let's pretend that Shaq will 100% buy in to his new role, is there anyone better out there on the market to fill this role?

I have no problem with Shaq as a backup at the minimum.

None.

He can make all the promises he wants about being a good boy and if he keeps them, great. If he doesn't, hit the road Shaq and don't come round here no more.

But there have been a bunch of suggestions, and I know you and Mike aren't the ones making them Evantime, that we should get Shaq with a sign and trade at costs going all the way up to $5.8 million a year and at more than one year. There have been others that suggest, like Jon, to use him as a starter like Cleveland did because who cares who starts. I think these are awful ideas.

But at the min and as a back up only, not starting, I have no problem with Shaq here.

Fair enough then we are in complete agreement. Not sure why we would sign and trade for him to give him a larger contract when no one seems willing to pay that.
That would be like going to buy a $700 TV and then paying $1400 for it, there is absolutely no reason to do so if you can get it at the cheaper price. Especially if you believe the TV is only worth $700.
People that want to sign Shaq to start are probably in one of two boats. 1. They fondly remember when Shaq was one of the best players in the league and don't want to admit he has declined (whether openly or even to themselves). 2. They believe Shaq's star power is worth the money (the guy is hilarious).
Btw Nick you can call me Evan if you like. Evantime is what time it is anytime I make a point. ;-)

[LooseCannon]

Comparing Shaq to Sheed or Perk is meaningless.  You should be comparing Shaq to a) likely vet min centers such as DJ Mbenga and Francisco Elson or b) Semih Erden playing 10-15 mpg.  Then you should decide if the cost of acquiring (and putting up with) Shaq is worth the difference between Shaq's likely output and those two others options.

[BballTim]

I think the Celtics played a good defensive team (Miami), a poor defensive team (Cleveland) and two excellent defensive teams (Orlando, LAL).

While the Cavs played against one good defensive team (Chicago) and one excellent defensive team (Boston).

  If you look at how they compared to the rest of the league, you have a good defensive team (Miami) tied for 3rd in the league, a poor defensive team (Cleveland) 7th and a good defensive team (Chicago) 10th. I might characterize them a little differently.

[More Banners]

Does anybody agree that Shaq needs the Celtics more than the C's need him at this point?

And is his money demand related to Mrs. Shaq's recent divorce filing?  Or is it about respect?

[EJPLAYA]

Here's a different thought. If I had my way I'd rather see Sheed return next year than to sign Shaq. He could play very light minutes as he got his back in shape for another playoff run. Then next year when we likely should blow things up we can use his contract to get younger kids with upside. I think Sheed, if healthy, gives you more than Shaq does at this point.

[kozlodoev]

Your concerns about Shaq's defense are not without merit, though I think they're overblown.  But to argue that Shaq wouldn't be a more valuable offensive force than Perk or Sheed is crazy.

I've never argued this. I just said I don't care about his offensive performance, having in mind the effect I expect him to have on our defense. I also said I have no problem with him being a 10-15 mpg backup at the vet minimum.

And frankly, I don't feel the need to bring any additional arguments in other than the fact that in the last several years, two teams that had 2-time MVPs tried to make some noise by having Shaq play an extended role for them, and both failed spectacularly.

So Shaq is fine with this, great. If not, he can take his points to Atlanta, and I'd rather we signed a better defensive center, and have someone else do that scoring -- I am sure we can find someone on the roster who can do this.

[Fafnir]

Regarding Shaq's scoring that Mike continues to compare to Perk I think the context has to be looked at differently. When Shaq started and was on the floor with Cleveland, he was their number 2 scoring option.

Uh, in his 53 games last season, Shaq averaged 8.7 shots a game.  In Mo Williams 68 games last season, he averaged 12.5 shots a game.  In Antawn Jamison's 25 games with Cleveland, he averaged over 13 shots a game.

In 53 games, Shaq had 463 field goal attempts.  In 60 games, Delonte West had 436 field goal attempts.  Shaq played 1240 minutes for those 463 FGAs,  JJ Hickson 1691 minutes and had 522 FGAs.

So no, Shaq was not the clearcut #2 scoring option for the Cavs last year.

Mike

FGA's don't account for all shot attempts though, especially with someone who gets fouled as much as Shaq. Take a look at the usage numbers on the team.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2010.html
(Note I disregard Telfair/Coby Karl/Cedric Jackson, they didn't play enough to matter)

LeBron is first with a 33.5%, Shaq is second with 25.1%, Jamison is third with 23.1%, and Mo Williams is fourht with 22%

I think its fair to say LeBron was options #1 and #2, and then Shaq was tied for #3 with Jamison and Mo Williams. He just played less minutes than those two did. He certainly does not compare to Perkins usage of 17%.

So I do think that when people say Shaq got those numbers being the #2 option, they have a point.

[BballTim]

1.  Sheed played only 4 fewer minutes in the playoffs, but got 3 fewer shots.  Why?  Was the rest of the team just being selfish and not passing him the ball?

  A few reasons. We played at a slower pace in the playoffs, and (more importantly) the starters (KG/PP/RA/RR) all played more minutes. When he was on the court during the season he spent more time with the subs. During the playoffs he spent more time with the starters so he was a lesser option on offense.