Scal ranked least productive C's regular of alltime.

[BballTim]

The funny thing here is that I wonder if they are even watching the games....seeing how Scal played his role effectively for us.

Last year for Scal was tough, with those concussions and all, but I just cannot agree with whatever their rationale is.

It just seemed to me that while Scal certainly was not the most talented player on our team, he played his role really well and did not make many mistakes while in the game.

This sort of stuff from ESPN makes me appreciate some other sports outlets even more. For example - that Kelly Dwyer piece from Yahoo Sports I believe that had the PF ranking several weeks ago? They had KG ranked number 8, and rightfully so - but at least Dwyer had the knowledge to state that KG's intangibles make him much more valuable than the ranking alone.

I think the same thing applies to Scal, and it's much more than him being a good guy. Over the last few years - when he was healthy - Scal was a rotation player for us.

Sure - Scal made a lot of money to just be a rotation player, but looking back I can't be mad at him. That 15Mil was his Big Payday - his max contract, I believe.

On what planet was Scal a rotation player? He was at best a reserve, sometimes a bench warmer or cheer leader.

Brendan - What about the few games where Scal started because of injuries to our starters? Or the games where he may not have started, but was the 6th or 7th player off the bench - again due to injuries?

We can't always look at stats - we all know this, right?

You are cherry picking a few successes. All the other unproductive players had their few good moments too.

You seem to be ignoring his first 2 horrific seasons when he actually had a chance to get minutes.

  I don't think he's talking about successes (per se), just times that he played enough that he could be considered a rotation player.

I'm not sure "playing enough" has any relevance to a discussion of "least productive" besides the obvious need for the player to play enough to be considered for the list.

He played enough to show that he is unproductive.

  I would guess "playing enough" would be pertinent to a discussion about whether or not Scal would be considered a rotation player, but that's just me.

[guava_wrench]

The funny thing here is that I wonder if they are even watching the games....seeing how Scal played his role effectively for us.

Last year for Scal was tough, with those concussions and all, but I just cannot agree with whatever their rationale is.

It just seemed to me that while Scal certainly was not the most talented player on our team, he played his role really well and did not make many mistakes while in the game.

This sort of stuff from ESPN makes me appreciate some other sports outlets even more. For example - that Kelly Dwyer piece from Yahoo Sports I believe that had the PF ranking several weeks ago? They had KG ranked number 8, and rightfully so - but at least Dwyer had the knowledge to state that KG's intangibles make him much more valuable than the ranking alone.

I think the same thing applies to Scal, and it's much more than him being a good guy. Over the last few years - when he was healthy - Scal was a rotation player for us.

Sure - Scal made a lot of money to just be a rotation player, but looking back I can't be mad at him. That 15Mil was his Big Payday - his max contract, I believe.

On what planet was Scal a rotation player? He was at best a reserve, sometimes a bench warmer or cheer leader.

Brendan - What about the few games where Scal started because of injuries to our starters? Or the games where he may not have started, but was the 6th or 7th player off the bench - again due to injuries?

We can't always look at stats - we all know this, right?

You are cherry picking a few successes. All the other unproductive players had their few good moments too.

You seem to be ignoring his first 2 horrific seasons when he actually had a chance to get minutes.

  I don't think he's talking about successes (per se), just times that he played enough that he could be considered a rotation player.

I'm not sure "playing enough" has any relevance to a discussion of "least productive" besides the obvious need for the player to play enough to be considered for the list.

He played enough to show that he is unproductive.

  I would guess "playing enough" would be pertinent to a discussion about whether or not Scal would be considered a rotation player, but that's just me.

Scal played enough in the first 2 years. He was a rotation player. That is why he has enough minutes to be included in the list.

[GreenFaith1819]

Here's a prime example of Scal helping in a way that probably didn't show up in ESPN's stats book:

2009-10 game in San Antonio. Closely-fought game, as usual. I remember vividly that Doc chose to bring Scal in to keep Matt Bonner from torching us from deep, and Scal did just that. I can barely remember the circumstances that lead up to Scal checking Bonner, but I do know that with our foul trouble in that game and with the substitutions that Pop was making, Scal showed up big in that game - Defensively.

I realize that this is a small sample, but it still matters.

How about his block on Rashard Lewis in the 08-09 playoffs? (Funny thing is that I can't find it on youtube anywhere). We lost that series eventually, yes - but it wasn't because of Scal. We just maxxed out player-wise without KG or Powe to help us. Scal played a lot in that series due to our injuries, and while it would be unfair to expect him to elevate us, he didn't hurt us, either.

[Alleyoopster]

I don't get the attention Scal is getting on this site.  It's time to move on.

Everyone knew he wasn't the greatest player alive when he got here. He did the best he could with the abilities he had. To his credit he worked hard to improve his defense.  On the other hand he kept shooting the 3 and it never worked.  It wasn't until the very end did Doc pull the reigns in on his outside shooting.  He should have done it 3 years ago.

If you want to blame someone on Scals shooting, maybe one could fault Doc as well.  He should have limited him to shots within 10-15 feet of the basket forcing him to work harder for his shot.  Then again, this may not have worked either.   

[BballTim]

The funny thing here is that I wonder if they are even watching the games....seeing how Scal played his role effectively for us.

Last year for Scal was tough, with those concussions and all, but I just cannot agree with whatever their rationale is.

It just seemed to me that while Scal certainly was not the most talented player on our team, he played his role really well and did not make many mistakes while in the game.

This sort of stuff from ESPN makes me appreciate some other sports outlets even more. For example - that Kelly Dwyer piece from Yahoo Sports I believe that had the PF ranking several weeks ago? They had KG ranked number 8, and rightfully so - but at least Dwyer had the knowledge to state that KG's intangibles make him much more valuable than the ranking alone.

I think the same thing applies to Scal, and it's much more than him being a good guy. Over the last few years - when he was healthy - Scal was a rotation player for us.

Sure - Scal made a lot of money to just be a rotation player, but looking back I can't be mad at him. That 15Mil was his Big Payday - his max contract, I believe.

On what planet was Scal a rotation player? He was at best a reserve, sometimes a bench warmer or cheer leader.

Brendan - What about the few games where Scal started because of injuries to our starters? Or the games where he may not have started, but was the 6th or 7th player off the bench - again due to injuries?

We can't always look at stats - we all know this, right?

You are cherry picking a few successes. All the other unproductive players had their few good moments too.

You seem to be ignoring his first 2 horrific seasons when he actually had a chance to get minutes.

  I don't think he's talking about successes (per se), just times that he played enough that he could be considered a rotation player.

I'm not sure "playing enough" has any relevance to a discussion of "least productive" besides the obvious need for the player to play enough to be considered for the list.

He played enough to show that he is unproductive.

  I would guess "playing enough" would be pertinent to a discussion about whether or not Scal would be considered a rotation player, but that's just me.

Scal played enough in the first 2 years. He was a rotation player. That is why he has enough minutes to be included in the list.

  Have you not, during all of this, looked at the posts you quoted? Here are snippets from the first three posts in this discussion:

  "Sure - Scal made a lot of money to just be a rotation player, but looking back I can't be mad at him."

  "On what planet was Scal a rotation player? He was at best a reserve, sometimes a bench warmer or cheer leader."

  "Brendan - What about the few games where Scal started because of injuries to our starters? Or the games where he may not have started, but was the 6th or 7th player off the bench - again due to injuries?"

  As far as I can tell these posts were arguing about whether or not Scal was a ROTATION PLAYER. I was merely pointing out what they were discussing, and how your response may have fit in well with the forum topic, but it didn't really fit with the posts you responded to.

[action781]

The funny thing here is that I wonder if they are even watching the games....seeing how Scal played his role effectively for us.

Last year for Scal was tough, with those concussions and all, but I just cannot agree with whatever their rationale is.

It just seemed to me that while Scal certainly was not the most talented player on our team, he played his role really well and did not make many mistakes while in the game.

This sort of stuff from ESPN makes me appreciate some other sports outlets even more. For example - that Kelly Dwyer piece from Yahoo Sports I believe that had the PF ranking several weeks ago? They had KG ranked number 8, and rightfully so - but at least Dwyer had the knowledge to state that KG's intangibles make him much more valuable than the ranking alone.

I think the same thing applies to Scal, and it's much more than him being a good guy. Over the last few years - when he was healthy - Scal was a rotation player for us.

Sure - Scal made a lot of money to just be a rotation player, but looking back I can't be mad at him. That 15Mil was his Big Payday - his max contract, I believe.

On what planet was Scal a rotation player? He was at best a reserve, sometimes a bench warmer or cheer leader.

Brendan - What about the few games where Scal started because of injuries to our starters? Or the games where he may not have started, but was the 6th or 7th player off the bench - again due to injuries?

We can't always look at stats - we all know this, right?

There was a point in the '08-'09 season when I as at the gym working out and watching the celts game on TV.  Scal was starting because of an injury to KG I think.  Either Mike Gorman or Tommy mentioned that "Since the start of the '07-'08 season, when Scal has started, the celtics are 13-0."

That's very decent for a guy filling in to KG or Perk's shoes.

[Jevi]

Jim Loscutoff’s name on the list? They have a banner bearing Loscutoff’s nickname—Loscy—instead of his number. Loscy’s toughness, defense and rebounding were considered important ingredients on those early C’s teams. Fans who were actually around then are outraged of the disrespect.

Those of us who want James Posey back: His 2010 year was bad enough to land him on the New Orleans Hornets list. 

Scal's numbers after the big 3 never really improved, but worst in Celtic's history? For the money, absolutely.

[jambr380]

Jim Loscutoff’s name on the list? They have a banner bearing Loscutoff’s nickname—Loscy—instead of his number. Loscy’s toughness, defense and rebounding were considered important ingredients on those early C’s teams. Fans who were actually around then are outraged of the disrespect.

Those of us who want James Posey back: His 2010 year was bad enough to land him on the New Orleans Hornets list. 

Scal's numbers after the big 3 never really improved, but worst in Celtic's history? For the money, absolutely.

For the money, I'll take Scal's three mill over Raef's 13 mill any day of the week. He may not have been super productive, but he was a low cost, hard working player who knew his role well.

[Redz]

I don't get the attention Scal is getting on this site.  It's time to move on.

Everyone knew he wasn't the greatest player alive when he got here. He did the best he could with the abilities he had. To his credit he worked hard to improve his defense.  On the other hand he kept shooting the 3 and it never worked.  It wasn't until the very end did Doc pull the reigns in on his outside shooting.  He should have done it 3 years ago.

If you want to blame someone on Scals shooting, maybe one could fault Doc as well.  He should have limited him to shots within 10-15 feet of the basket forcing him to work harder for his shot.  Then again, this may not have worked either.   

There is a several page thread dedicated to the longing for a glorious return to the several hours Wil Solomon spent as a Celtic.  More Bring Back Toine, Gerald, Gomes etc...threads than you can shake a stick at.  Not to mention Bring Back Delonte - wait, that one actually worked!

Keep the faith people.  All good Celtics return eventually ("good" is clearly open to interpretation).

[moiso]

I don't get the attention Scal is getting on this site.  It's time to move on.

Everyone knew he wasn't the greatest player alive when he got here. He did the best he could with the abilities he had. To his credit he worked hard to improve his defense.  On the other hand he kept shooting the 3 and it never worked.  It wasn't until the very end did Doc pull the reigns in on his outside shooting.  He should have done it 3 years ago.

If you want to blame someone on Scals shooting, maybe one could fault Doc as well.  He should have limited him to shots within 10-15 feet of the basket forcing him to work harder for his shot.  Then again, this may not have worked either.   

There is a several page thread dedicated to the longing for a glorious return to the several hours Wil Solomon spent as a Celtic.  More Bring Back Toine, Gerald, Gomes etc...threads than you can shake a stick at.  Not to mention Bring Back Delonte - wait, that one actually worked!

Keep the faith people.  All good Celtics return eventually ("good" is clearly open to interpretation).

Roy Rogers just came back!

[soap07]

2009-10 game in San Antonio. Closely-fought game, as usual. I remember vividly that Doc chose to bring Scal in to keep Matt Bonner from torching us from deep, and Scal did just that. I can barely remember the circumstances that lead up to Scal checking Bonner, but I do know that with our foul trouble in that game and with the substitutions that Pop was making, Scal showed up big in that game - Defensively.

Interesting. How about the time Scal came in specifically to throw an inbounds pass at the end of a quarter against the Blazers and promptly threw the ball away? If we're going to get anecdotal about this, what about all the times Scal being in the game and not being able to rebound the ball put the C's at a huge disadvantage? What about his inability to hit an open jumper consistently? Which would be fine if he could do anything else on the court offensively, but he couldn't. He was a terrible rotation player. Yes, he was a good 13-15th man, but what does that even mean?

Bruno Sundov was probably worse but he was never a rotation player.

[wdleehi]

2009-10 game in San Antonio. Closely-fought game, as usual. I remember vividly that Doc chose to bring Scal in to keep Matt Bonner from torching us from deep, and Scal did just that. I can barely remember the circumstances that lead up to Scal checking Bonner, but I do know that with our foul trouble in that game and with the substitutions that Pop was making, Scal showed up big in that game - Defensively.

Interesting. How about the time Scal came in specifically to throw an inbounds pass at the end of a quarter against the Blazers and promptly threw the ball away? If we're going to get anecdotal about this, what about all the times Scal being in the game and not being able to rebound the ball put the C's at a huge disadvantage? What about his inability to hit an open jumper consistently? Which would be fine if he could do anything else on the court offensively, but he couldn't. He was a terrible rotation player. Yes, he was a good 13-15th man, but what does that even mean?

Bruno Sundov was probably worse but he was never a rotation player.

It means that when this team was good and they needed him to step in and play a role, more times then not, he gave them what they needed.  It wasn't flashy.  It wasn't eyeopening.  It was just solid play. 

[soap07]

Guys, I'll take Scal over Mikki Moore or Pat O'Bryant any day.  Scal knew how to play basketball and as long as his role was small he could play reasonably well within that role.  

Scal's a guy you put on the floor and hope that you don't notice him, and more often than not he's surprisingly good at not getting noticed.  In that sense, his lack of production is kind of a good thing.  Better a player who doesn't take many shots or mix it up on the floor because he knows he can't than a crappy player who takes a lot of shots cause he thinks he's a great scorer (e.g. Gerald Greene).

This is some of the most convoluted logic I've ever seen. First, minor point, I'm taking Mikki over Scal every day of the week. Moore's career PER is 12.5...Scal's 7.6, and Mikki cheered his teammates and hustled just as much as Scal did

In the second part of that, the fact that we're saying that when Scal went on the floor and did nothing (and knew that he couldn't) was a good thing for the team is pretty much proof as to how bad he was as a player. He was a rotation player, folks. You can't be a rotation player if the only skill you have is knowing you don't have any.

[soap07]

more times then not, he gave them what they needed.  It wasn't flashy.  It wasn't eyeopening.  It was just solid play.

Are you really going to say that more often than not, Scal gave the C's what they needed? And more often than not, Scal's play was solid?

[EJPLAYA]

Can some one show me in their stat lines where it shows you the solid team defense he played? How about his effort setting picks and keeping the offense moving while out there?

Anyone who can't see that Scal played a solid role for us and was able to step in and produce to a decent degree even after large stretches of no minutes is just thinking about the paycheck. Fact is, if the guy made vet minimum no one would complain about him at all. (Unless of course your bias isn't the money but his pasty white redheadedness)