Baby Complaining

[Bankshot]

If Perkins can come back and play at 80-90 percent, there will likely be an excess of big men. If it is before the trade deadline, I wonder if the Celts won't try to make a move and unload one of their big men? Not sure if it will be Davis, and obviously this depends on how healthy the big men are when Perk comes back.

But we don't really have an excess of big men when you think about age and injuries to the big men we have.  Perk's hurt and it's a possibility that he won't be the same when he returns.  Shaq is old and can't log many minutes.  Jermaine is always hurt and Semih is still raw (and now he's hurt too).  I don't think we can afford to get rid of any of our big men.  Baby is our only young, healthy, energetic and productive big man.

[footey]

As is usually the case - the fan boys are at least as irrational as the haters. There are very few players in the league above criticism, BBD is not one of them. "Haters" will continue to criticize him in response to praise, because they are providing the other side of the argument. Others (like me) will continue to post trade ideas that sometimes involve BBD, because we like thinking about trades that would make the team better, and because we think another player can make a bigger impact than BBD.

Saying "you cannot just see the awesomeness of BBD because you don't have the ability to detect awesome, even when its being blared through your TV at your eyes" is not a strong argument for BBD. And id someone sites stats that make BBD look like a bad player (such as leading the team in the minus part of +/-) you do need to refute that with some sort of logical argument. And no saying "that stat is dumb" is not sufficient.

That all being said - I'm hoping for great things from BBD all year, either it helps the team win or it helps the team trade him for quality.

Well said. But the problem with the "Traders" is that they don't acknowledge the discrepancy between Glen's market or "trade" value and his real value to the team.  His market value is lower than his real value.  Also, they don't take into account the likelihood that Glen will continue to improve his overall game, versus the players they propose that we trade him for (Shane Battier, for example, who is not likely to get better but worse over time).

[moiso]

If Perkins can come back and play at 80-90 percent, there will likely be an excess of big men. If it is before the trade deadline, I wonder if the Celts won't try to make a move and unload one of their big men? Not sure if it will be Davis, and obviously this depends on how healthy the big men are when Perk comes back.

But we don't really have an excess of big men when you think about age and injuries to the big men we have.  Perk's hurt and it's a possibility that he won't be the same when he returns.  Shaq is old and can't log many minutes.  Jermaine is always hurt and Semih is still raw (and now he's hurt too).  I don't think we can afford to get rid of any of our big men.  Baby is our only young, healthy, energetic and productive big man.

That last sentence says it in a nutshell.  Baby has looked great so far.  The energy is high as usual, he's still drawing charges, and now he looks super confident in that fallway jumpshot.  He's not even getting his shot blocked in traffic like he used to. 
With Shaq sitting out crunchtime minutes and JO looking like an old slug, Baby's contribution really stands out.

[mmbaby]

There's been a lot of talk here about trading Big Baby, and it is possible because Baby may want to be a starter. He actually has played starter minutes in all the preseason and last 2 games. He could do even better with scoring if he was given more shots. And his defense is maximum; I really don't see how he could improve on that, since it's so good already-maybe more rebounding like last year.

He should be able to improve his game even more as a starter.
That being said, Doc has obviously seen his worth because he is the first man off the bench, and is often in there along with the rest of the starters.

I know I am one of those who drinks the koolaide and loves Big Baby, but I really don't think I overrate him. If he can keep in shape and stay motivated, I see no reason why he won't be a championship contending starter one day. 

[paul]

It's exciting to have a guy who seems to be smart, and motivated and who seems to keep improving.   

[Jevi]

    Zach Lowe takes a long hard look at the problem that's been plaguing the Celtics since the Big 3 arrived: Turnovers. After watching all 197 of Boston's transition turnovers (no, really. I did. And it was torture) from last season, there is one uncomfortable yet inescapable conclusion:

    It is largely Rajon Rondo's fault.

I guess the fact that Rondo's providing the bulk of turnovers isn't that surprising considering that he has the ball in his hands so much.  But I was a little surprised that many of the turnovers happen in transition.  I always thought of Rondo as a great fast break point guard because he's so quick and creative.  The thing is, he might be a little too creative.

Star-divide

Here's one of the examples that Zach gives to illustrate the point.

    Highlight bounce passes from the wing to the paint. Rondo prefers to work from the side of the court (usually the left side) on fast breaks, and he rarely misses a chance to throw a one-handed bounce pass across the court to a big man lumbering down the middle. When you do this left-handed, and when the target is Kendrick Perkins or Brian Scalabrine running at full speed with a defender in close pursuit, you are basically working as the NBA equivalent of Brett Favre throwing into traffic. A turnover is likely.

That sounds about right actually.  Because he's so skilled with the ball, sometimes he gets a little fancy with things counting on his teammates (who may not be as skilled with the ball) to make difficult plays.

Now, before you rush to Rondo's defense, don't get me (or Zach) wrong.  The positives far outweigh the negatives.  But you have to understand what you are getting with Rondo.  A guy who likes to push the envelope and take chances.  The reason he makes spectacular plays because he tries spectacular things - which don't always work out.  That's probably not changing any time soon - but that's ok with me.  I'll take a few extra turnovers if the assists keep piling up.

By the way, he makes several other points and his whole post is definitely worth reading.

This is one of the reason I have a problem with Baby and his effect on the team. Everybody is quick to point to other proven members while Baby nearly gets a parade in his honor. I have given articles proving everything I said way after I called the problem. Zach thinks turnovers are Rondo's fault and I respect the research he took to make his claim. I bet most of you Baby backers respect his too. I am always quick to point out that every time Rondo plays with Baby, transition suffers relying on halfcourt, ruining what Rondo does best. Zach should record Rondo's fastbreaks last year, before Baby's return from injury. Remember that, the record start, and Sheed being on fire during. Or the old article below

[Jevi]

This is an oldie, but goodie. This for you BBackers who dare to dream Baby as a starter again. Lol, pardon me I had to laugh at that, enjoy.

The Bottom 10% and One Big Reason Why the Celtics are Having Problems

Bringing Down Boston

And then there are the Celtics.  The Boston Celtics won 62 games this past season.  When we look at Wins Produced we see the team received 48.3 Wins Produced from Rajon Rondo (6th most productive), Paul Pierce (29th most productive), Kevin Garnett (30th most productive), and Ray Allen (35th most productive).  But the team also received -4.44 Wins Produced from Glen Davis (9th least productive), Brian Scalabrine (20th least productive), and Stephon Marbury (41st least productive).

Unfortunately for the Celtics, KG is probably lost for the entire playoffs.  And perhaps more dismaying to Boston fans is that the team has turned to Glen Davis to take many of Garnett’s minutes.   Had Davis played all the minutes played by Garnett this year, Davis would have seen his Wins Produced fall from -1.98 to -4.12.  Plus the Celtics would have lost the 10.16 Wins Produced from Garnett.  The outcome of these changes is that the Celtics would have seen their Wins Produced fall from 61.06 to 48.76 (assuming the per-minute performance from Davis did not change).  In other words, moving from Garnett to Davis takes the Celtics from a title contender to a team that will struggle to defeat the Bulls.

We only heard that KG was lost for the playoffs the day the TrueHoop picks were due.  And my schedule last Thursday prevented me from doing much thinking about this before I had to submit my choices. As a consequence, I thought the Celtics would still be good enough to defeat the Bulls in five games.  Although this is still possible, it seems unlikely.  Yes, the Celtics did win on Monday night.  And yes, Davis actually played well.  But given what Davis did in 2008-09, it doesn’t seem possible for Davis and the Celtics to take the next three from Chicago.

And this means that once Chicago wins another game in this series, my rooting interest in this series moves from the Celtics to the Bulls.  Everyone in the Smackdown picked Boston, but only Neal Paine and I took Boston in five games.  So to stay even with the other competitors, once “Boston in Five” can’t happen anymore I need Chicago to take the series (and then everyone loses the points).

If Boston keeps playing Glen Davis, it seems possible that the defending champions will indeed lose in the first round.  And the legend of Derrick Rose – which I will address in a future post – will certainly grow.

- DJ

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/the-bottom-10-and-one-big-reason-why-the-celtics-are-having-problems/

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910BOS1.HTM

[Celtics18]

This is an oldie, but goodie. This for you BBackers who dare to dream Baby as a starter again. Lol, pardon me I had to laugh at that, enjoy.

The Bottom 10% and One Big Reason Why the Celtics are Having Problems

Bringing Down Boston

And then there are the Celtics.  The Boston Celtics won 62 games this past season.  When we look at Wins Produced we see the team received 48.3 Wins Produced from Rajon Rondo (6th most productive), Paul Pierce (29th most productive), Kevin Garnett (30th most productive), and Ray Allen (35th most productive).  But the team also received -4.44 Wins Produced from Glen Davis (9th least productive), Brian Scalabrine (20th least productive), and Stephon Marbury (41st least productive).

Unfortunately for the Celtics, KG is probably lost for the entire playoffs.  And perhaps more dismaying to Boston fans is that the team has turned to Glen Davis to take many of Garnett’s minutes.   Had Davis played all the minutes played by Garnett this year, Davis would have seen his Wins Produced fall from -1.98 to -4.12.  Plus the Celtics would have lost the 10.16 Wins Produced from Garnett.  The outcome of these changes is that the Celtics would have seen their Wins Produced fall from 61.06 to 48.76 (assuming the per-minute performance from Davis did not change).  In other words, moving from Garnett to Davis takes the Celtics from a title contender to a team that will struggle to defeat the Bulls.

We only heard that KG was lost for the playoffs the day the TrueHoop picks were due.  And my schedule last Thursday prevented me from doing much thinking about this before I had to submit my choices. As a consequence, I thought the Celtics would still be good enough to defeat the Bulls in five games.  Although this is still possible, it seems unlikely.  Yes, the Celtics did win on Monday night.  And yes, Davis actually played well.  But given what Davis did in 2008-09, it doesn’t seem possible for Davis and the Celtics to take the next three from Chicago.

And this means that once Chicago wins another game in this series, my rooting interest in this series moves from the Celtics to the Bulls.  Everyone in the Smackdown picked Boston, but only Neal Paine and I took Boston in five games.  So to stay even with the other competitors, once “Boston in Five” can’t happen anymore I need Chicago to take the series (and then everyone loses the points).

If Boston keeps playing Glen Davis, it seems possible that the defending champions will indeed lose in the first round.  And the legend of Derrick Rose – which I will address in a future post – will certainly grow.

- DJ

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/the-bottom-10-and-one-big-reason-why-the-celtics-are-having-problems/

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910BOS1.HTM

That was an interesting article claiming that we wouldn't be able to beat Chicago in a seven game series two years ago because Glen Davis was starting.  You do realize, don't you, that we won that series?

I'm confused as to what point this makes.

[Tai]

    Zach Lowe takes a long hard look at the problem that's been plaguing the Celtics since the Big 3 arrived: Turnovers. After watching all 197 of Boston's transition turnovers (no, really. I did. And it was torture) from last season, there is one uncomfortable yet inescapable conclusion:

    It is largely Rajon Rondo's fault.

I guess the fact that Rondo's providing the bulk of turnovers isn't that surprising considering that he has the ball in his hands so much.  But I was a little surprised that many of the turnovers happen in transition.  I always thought of Rondo as a great fast break point guard because he's so quick and creative.  The thing is, he might be a little too creative.

Star-divide

Here's one of the examples that Zach gives to illustrate the point.

    Highlight bounce passes from the wing to the paint. Rondo prefers to work from the side of the court (usually the left side) on fast breaks, and he rarely misses a chance to throw a one-handed bounce pass across the court to a big man lumbering down the middle. When you do this left-handed, and when the target is Kendrick Perkins or Brian Scalabrine running at full speed with a defender in close pursuit, you are basically working as the NBA equivalent of Brett Favre throwing into traffic. A turnover is likely.

That sounds about right actually.  Because he's so skilled with the ball, sometimes he gets a little fancy with things counting on his teammates (who may not be as skilled with the ball) to make difficult plays.

Now, before you rush to Rondo's defense, don't get me (or Zach) wrong.  The positives far outweigh the negatives.  But you have to understand what you are getting with Rondo.  A guy who likes to push the envelope and take chances.  The reason he makes spectacular plays because he tries spectacular things - which don't always work out.  That's probably not changing any time soon - but that's ok with me.  I'll take a few extra turnovers if the assists keep piling up.

By the way, he makes several other points and his whole post is definitely worth reading.

This is one of the reason I have a problem with Baby and his effect on the team. Everybody is quick to point to other proven members while Baby nearly gets a parade in his honor. I have given articles proving everything I said way after I called the problem. Zach thinks turnovers are Rondo's fault and I respect the research he took to make his claim. I bet most of you Baby backers respect his too. I am always quick to point out that every time Rondo plays with Baby, transition suffers relying on halfcourt, ruining what Rondo does best. Zach should record Rondo's fastbreaks last year, before Baby's return from injury. Remember that, the record start, and Sheed being on fire during. Or the old article below

Maybe I'm rude for asking, but why don't you find Rondo's stats in fastbreaks with Baby on the floor if you truly believe they prove your point that BBD hurts the team in transition? The article clearly indicts Rondo; whether that's fair enough is another story. Perkins was mentioned as one of the most turnover-prone centers in the league. What does this article have to do with BBD apart from the simple fact you want us to assume BBD hurts the Celtics in the fastbreak simply cause you say so?

[Spilling Green Dye]

As is usually the case - the fan boys are at least as irrational as the haters. There are very few players in the league above criticism, BBD is not one of them. "Haters" will continue to criticize him in response to praise, because they are providing the other side of the argument. Others (like me) will continue to post trade ideas that sometimes involve BBD, because we like thinking about trades that would make the team better, and because we think another player can make a bigger impact than BBD.

Saying "you cannot just see the awesomeness of BBD because you don't have the ability to detect awesome, even when its being blared through your TV at your eyes" is not a strong argument for BBD. And id someone sites stats that make BBD look like a bad player (such as leading the team in the minus part of +/-) you do need to refute that with some sort of logical argument. And no saying "that stat is dumb" is not sufficient.

That all being said - I'm hoping for great things from BBD all year, either it helps the team win or it helps the team trade him for quality.

Well said. But the problem with the "Traders" is that they don't acknowledge the discrepancy between Glen's market or "trade" value and his real value to the team.  His market value is lower than his real value.  Also, they don't take into account the likelihood that Glen will continue to improve his overall game, versus the players they propose that we trade him for (Shane Battier, for example, who is not likely to get better but worse over time).

I think you highlight something that some people like myself have been saying for quite sometime:  The rest of the league does not value Glen Davis near as much as the fans here do. 

He most definitely has value on this team's bench.  But if he were truly good enough to be a quality starter on a team, then I guarantee that every team in this league would love to have a quality 3mil / year starter.  BUT THEY DON'T. 

Again, Glen has good value as a backup big man in certain situations, and I'm not actively trying to find trades for him.  Obviously he is one of the few "trade chips" if we were to seek a trade, which is why you see him name tossed about, but the team is smarter if they keep him for now IMO

[Jevi]

My premise is just still the same that with the article(and yes I know we won the Chicago series), and the 82games stats, that we just aren't seeing this team's potential. Look, I admit I loved the 07-08 team's approach of killing opponents, with a the large victory margin. That's all I want! Now if for some reason a player like say Glen Davis who with increased minutes makes me identify him with bad basketball, turnovers, ridiculous comebacks, and small victory margin. That's just simply my opinion, til I prove it with articles and stats that back that same premise. How it compares to Zach's article? I don't see the difference to point out an issue and back it up with proof. Which is what I did, which is what Zach did. This last article explained why these guys didn't think we had a chance because Baby was starting, and their stats show how dreadful Baby was. Yes we won the series, thanks to the other 4 starters(winners). Baby couldn't even outrebound our point guard in that series. The margin was way to close for a young team we slaughtered with KG. Who else could've done better? My point is find that player! Don't hurt the team because you love a player, but who's results prove aren't good at all. The proof is there.

[fairweatherfan]

Baby couldn't even outrebound our point guard in that series.

Did anybody outrebound our point guard in that series? 

[GreenFaith1819]

So Jevi - say that Danny Ainge calls you in 1 hour, and asks you to come up with a trade package for Glen Davis.

What would you do?

Danny's Stipulation(s) to you: The player we get in return for Glen Davis must first take on his role of backup to KG, and provide at least the same production as him.

Second, this player must be affordable - meaning nearly the same payroll amount as Glen.

Thirdly, you must convince this player to come to Boston and play with our "Old, Tired Vets", and accept his role....

Who would you go after? Just curious.

[Celtics18]

As is usually the case - the fan boys are at least as irrational as the haters. There are very few players in the league above criticism, BBD is not one of them. "Haters" will continue to criticize him in response to praise, because they are providing the other side of the argument. Others (like me) will continue to post trade ideas that sometimes involve BBD, because we like thinking about trades that would make the team better, and because we think another player can make a bigger impact than BBD.

Saying "you cannot just see the awesomeness of BBD because you don't have the ability to detect awesome, even when its being blared through your TV at your eyes" is not a strong argument for BBD. And id someone sites stats that make BBD look like a bad player (such as leading the team in the minus part of +/-) you do need to refute that with some sort of logical argument. And no saying "that stat is dumb" is not sufficient.

That all being said - I'm hoping for great things from BBD all year, either it helps the team win or it helps the team trade him for quality.

Well said. But the problem with the "Traders" is that they don't acknowledge the discrepancy between Glen's market or "trade" value and his real value to the team.  His market value is lower than his real value.  Also, they don't take into account the likelihood that Glen will continue to improve his overall game, versus the players they propose that we trade him for (Shane Battier, for example, who is not likely to get better but worse over time).

I think you highlight something that some people like myself have been saying for quite sometime:  The rest of the league does not value Glen Davis near as much as the fans here do. 

He most definitely has value on this team's bench.  But if he were truly good enough to be a quality starter on a team, then I guarantee that every team in this league would love to have a quality 3mil / year starter.  BUT THEY DON'T. 

Again, Glen has good value as a backup big man in certain situations, and I'm not actively trying to find trades for him.  Obviously he is one of the few "trade chips" if we were to seek a trade, which is why you see him name tossed about, but the team is smarter if they keep him for now IMO

I happen to think that Glen Davis has pretty good trade value.  I'm not asking to get an immediate starter in return for him (our starting lineup is pretty set), but I do think that there may be a trade for a young, athletic back up who shows more upside and could turn into a starter that would mesh will with Rondo in a couple of years time.  If Danny were to consider trading him, I would hope that he is looking at young wing players who fit that description.

[BballTim]

I think you highlight something that some people like myself have been saying for quite sometime:  The rest of the league does not value Glen Davis near as much as the fans here do. 

He most definitely has value on this team's bench.  But if he were truly good enough to be a quality starter on a team, then I guarantee that every team in this league would love to have a quality 3mil / year starter.  BUT THEY DON'T. 

  Just curious, but do you have any evidence that other teams have no interest in Davis? Has Danny been unsuccessfully shopping him around the league?