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.
Stats and PER are not everything.
Scal goes out there and he'll fit in with the lineup, as long as the lineup is one that allows him to simply focus on playing defense, making a decent pass, stretching the defense a bit with his outside shot, setting good picks, and so on. This is why Doc so often started Scal instead of Glen Davis or Powe when Garnett was out.
Scal is the kind of player who does all of the little things. He was never a great player and nobody here is trying to say that he was. But I'll take Scal over somebody who doesn't know how to play the game or doesn't play with effort.
Mikki Moore, by the way, couldn't stay on the floor cause he was a foul machine. That's the only production we got out of him. His defense was atrocious.
My favorite player, Shane Battier, is a huge asset to any team, yet he doesn't produce very much and he has a low PER. All of what he adds to the game can't be measured that well with stats - 1 on 1 and team defense, spreading the floor, setting good picks, making good passes, communication on and off the floor, team leadership, and so on. Scal does a lot of those things - just not nearly as well as Shane does. What I'm describing is a glue guy - not a flashy player, not even a 1-skill specialist (e.g. Eddie House). A player who who has an impact on a game by doing a lot of little things that aren't easily noticed. Yet glue guys are absolutely necessary on a successful team.
Now, again, if your team is any good and not dealing with injuries, Scal doesn't ever see the floor. But you feel confident knowing that if Scal had to see the floor, you can rely on him to not make a ton of mistakes or mess up the team's gameplan, which is more than you can say about most reserve guys on NBA teams. As a glue guy, Scal is far from the best; clearly, he's only a fringe NBA player. But this list we're talking about has him below a lot of shouldn't-have-been-in-the-NBA players.
Bottom line, you'd rather have a guy who isn't athletic or particularly talented but knows his role and doesn't question it, and has an overall very positive effect in the locker-room - as your 13-15th man, mind you - than a younger guy with athleticism and perhaps some "potential" who is really raw, doesn't know the game very well, and has behavioral or attitude issues. That means Scal is preferable to a lot of players the C's have had on their team in the last 10 years, let alone the team's entire existence.
Topic: Scal ranked least productive C's regular of alltime. (Read 25463 times)