Baby is Getting Better and Better!

[kozlodoev]

When it comes down to it and you take away the passion and hustle aspect of his game, how much of his basketball skill set has improved exponentially since his rookie year?  And how much more of it is going to improve?

1. Developed a reliable jump shot and extended its range (jumper had a hitch in its form, and wasn't reliable).
2. Actually has some post moves now (zero ability to convert a hook shot in his rookie year).
3. Improved his ability to create off the dribble (nonexistent in his rookie year).
4. Significantly improved his ability to step in and take a charge (he was a step late on every rotation in his rookie year).

That's before even considering the passion, hustle, and improved conditioning.

While he has improved these things, I think they were always there, he has just gotten better at them, and adapted them to the NBA game. 

Basically, he has become pretty close to the player he was in college.  And that is a very good thing.

I don't get the point. You can ostensibly make the argument that just about every player has never improved, because every skill he has developed "has always been there".

In either case, I don't even think his relative improvement is important. It all boils down to the fact whether he'll have enough skills to hold a starting spot, whether these are ones he "always had", or developed out of thin air.

[Donoghus]

I just think some of you are underrating how hard it is to be a front line starter in this league.  

Now, I should say, I think on the right team, Davis could be the starter on a championship level team.  For example, I think if you put him on the Heat next year as a starter, he might do a heck of a job, and they would have a great chance at winning it all.  He would compliment the other starters, and fill the role nicely.

However, if anyone is expecting him to turn into an impact starter on a good team.  Meaning, someone who is actually a target for defenses, rather than just someone who takes advantage of the attention defenses pay to everyone else, then I think you are underestimating how difficult that is in this league.

Thanks for conveying in a much easier manner what I was trying to explain.

BBD has certainly made improvements and matured in his game since his rookie year.  I'm not denying that.  I just don't feel there is much more that he is capable of that we're already not seeing.

[kozlodoev]

When it comes down to it and you take away the passion and hustle aspect of his game, how much of his basketball skill set has improved exponentially since his rookie year?  And how much more of it is going to improve?

1. Developed a reliable jump shot and extended its range (jumper had a hitch in its form, and wasn't reliable).
2. Actually has some post moves now (zero ability to convert a hook shot in his rookie year).
3. Improved his ability to create off the dribble (nonexistent in his rookie year).
4. Significantly improved his ability to step in and take a charge (he was a step late on every rotation in his rookie year).

That's before even considering the passion, hustle, and improved conditioning.

So I guess then it comes down to my question of whether or not its an "exponential" improvement which may be left up to semantics?

Are these improvements indictive to the point that it will illustrate growth into a player who can be a starting PF on a title contender?  Does these improvements illustrate that his ceiling is much higher from right now that myself and some others believe? Are we off in that assessement?

I just flipped a coin. Can you tell me whether it came heads or tails?

[thirstyboots18]

To look at it from another view, Charles Barkley was a terrific basketball player.  He played with some terrific basketball players.  He won just about every individual honor that a 6'6" power forward could possibly win, including a Gold Medal at the Olympics.  However, Sir Charles never, despite all these things, won an NBA championship.  Despite being known for rebounding, (his nick name was "The Round Mound of Rebound," he was not tall enough to lead a team to the NBA championship, or even start on a team that won it. The question is, will Glen Davis be good enough to do something that Charles Barkley could not do while in his prime and surrounded by star players?

[Jevi]

He has gotten better. I agree with this. Baby's game is more improved. He is condition, efficient, and easily the most improved Celtic so far. In two games, he looks good.

Unfortunately hasn't done much for the team's overall performance in the 4th quarter in two games, has it? The results aren't that good. In two games, we show we aren't able to hold a lead. I can fault each starter for mistakes they did to allow teams to come back, except BCD of course. My stance is the same, more Doc plays BCD, the worst I expect. The more he is trusted in the 4th quarter, just expect a comeback. Exactly why I have been against him remaining a Celtic. I can't explain it, but at least his effect doesn't discriminate, 2nd unit, 1st unit, 4th quarter. Please, take your pick. Oh but no, I don't hate the guy, at least not as some might of Sheed last year. I just don't like anything or anyone that disrupts what I believe is a proven, championship caliber squad. Believe me, happened well after KG chewed BCD(and 2nd unit) out for allowing an opponent to mount a comeback on C's in the 4th. Gee, is that still happening? Seriously, I like this post, TP Bankshot! I'm happy Baby is getting better and better(trade value). As always, Go Celts!   I love Baby's pictures

[Casperian]

I think it´s pointless to discuss Baby´s ceiling.
It´s all about consistency with him. He needs consistent minutes and has to show he can find ways to contribute on bad nights or against opponents who give him matchup problems. I´d say "so far, so good".

This team is full with stars and hall of famers, but he´s already part of our crunch time lineup. Debating his talent becomes more and more pointless.
We should simply trust him, sit back and see how he will react to his increased role over the next weeks and months before we can re-evaluate his status as a player, imo.

[Donoghus]

When it comes down to it and you take away the passion and hustle aspect of his game, how much of his basketball skill set has improved exponentially since his rookie year?  And how much more of it is going to improve?

1. Developed a reliable jump shot and extended its range (jumper had a hitch in its form, and wasn't reliable).
2. Actually has some post moves now (zero ability to convert a hook shot in his rookie year).
3. Improved his ability to create off the dribble (nonexistent in his rookie year).
4. Significantly improved his ability to step in and take a charge (he was a step late on every rotation in his rookie year).

That's before even considering the passion, hustle, and improved conditioning.

So I guess then it comes down to my question of whether or not its an "exponential" improvement which may be left up to semantics?

Are these improvements indictive to the point that it will illustrate growth into a player who can be a starting PF on a title contender?  Does these improvements illustrate that his ceiling is much higher from right now that myself and some others believe? Are we off in that assessement?

I just flipped a coin. Can you tell me whether it came heads or tails?

Gee...I don't know.

But I will say that's a helluva response.  Really brought a lot to the table there.

[kozlodoev]

To look at it from another view, Charles Barkley was a terrific basketball player.  He played with some terrific basketball players.  He won just about every individual honor that a 6'6" power forward could possibly win, including a Gold Medal at the Olympics.  However, Sir Charles never, despite all these things, won an NBA championship.  Despite being known for rebounding, (his nick name was "The Round Mound of Rebound," he was not tall enough to lead a team to the NBA championship, or even start on a team that won it. The question is, will Glen Davis be good enough to do something that Charles Barkley could not do while in his prime and surrounded by star players?

And Dirk Nowitzki, who is undoubtedly taller than Chuck, has exactly as many championships as him. This "argument" is silly

[kozlodoev]

But I will say that's a helluva response.  Really brought a lot to the table there.

It brought enough to the table if you would only look. Everyone here seems to discuss the situation in some sort of "certainties". Davis "has great ceiling" or "is too short to lead a team to an NBA championship.

The simple fact of the matter is, you can't tell. There isn't anything that's stopping Davis from being a great player, but it isn't guaranteed either.

[Donoghus]

But I will say that's a helluva response.  Really brought a lot to the table there.

It brought enough to the table if you would only look. Everyone here seems to discuss the situation in some sort of "certainties". Davis "has great ceiling" or "is too short to lead a team to an NBA championship.

The simple fact of the matter is, you can't tell. There isn't anything that's stopping Davis from being a great player, but it isn't guaranteed either.

Yeah, but you can make analysis & observations that can lead you to get a better sense of where he could possibly be headed.  The statheads can look at his numbers, the "feel" guys can judge with their eyes;  predictive conclusions can be drawn.  Of course, they could be wrong but people can get a sense of things and make predictions based off evidence already out there.  Scouts do this all the time.  I think the hit/miss rate on their conclusions are a lot better than that of a coinflip. Are we not allowed to do that?  Then what's the point of debating it on a message board? 

[Casperian]

To look at it from another view, Charles Barkley was a terrific basketball player.  He played with some terrific basketball players.  He won just about every individual honor that a 6'6" power forward could possibly win, including a Gold Medal at the Olympics.  However, Sir Charles never, despite all these things, won an NBA championship.  Despite being known for rebounding, (his nick name was "The Round Mound of Rebound," he was not tall enough to lead a team to the NBA championship, or even start on a team that won it. The question is, will Glen Davis be good enough to do something that Charles Barkley could not do while in his prime and surrounded by star players?

And Dirk Nowitzki, who is undoubtedly taller than Chuck, has exactly as many championships as him. This "argument" is silly

Speaking of Nowitzki, Detlef Schrempf is the perfect example of what a player can accomplish with discipline and hard work. I would be happy if Baby turns out to be on Schrempf´s level.

[LarBrd33]

he will never lead a team to a title.  And he absolutely has a ceiling... a role playing big man who gives you subpar defense, subpar rebounds, subpar finishing around the hoop, but can knock down some shots and hit some layups if nobody is guarding him.   Peak out as a 16 and 6 guy if he gets consistent minutes on a bad team.  And he'll never shoot 50%.

[Fafnir]

The simple fact of the matter is, you can't tell. There isn't anything that's stopping Davis from being a great player, but it isn't guaranteed either.

I think a lack of elite size and athleticism will hold him back from being a great player. (all-star level potential)

I mean how many players are all-stars without one of those two attributes? Plus, I think baby is a well rounded (zing!) player, but is he excellent at anything?

He's not a great defender at the C or PF spot. He's not an efficient scorer, he's not an effective rebounder at the C/PF positions, etc...

He has a lot of skills but he's not elite at any of them.

[LarBrd33]

To look at it from another view, Charles Barkley was a terrific basketball player.  He played with some terrific basketball players.  He won just about every individual honor that a 6'6" power forward could possibly win, including a Gold Medal at the Olympics.  However, Sir Charles never, despite all these things, won an NBA championship.  Despite being known for rebounding, (his nick name was "The Round Mound of Rebound," he was not tall enough to lead a team to the NBA championship, or even start on a team that won it. The question is, will Glen Davis be good enough to do something that Charles Barkley could not do while in his prime and surrounded by star players?

And Dirk Nowitzki, who is undoubtedly taller than Chuck, has exactly as many championships as him. This "argument" is silly

Speaking of Nowitzki, Detlef Schrempf is the perfect example of what a player can accomplish with discipline and hard work. I would be happy if Baby turns out to be on Schrempf´s level.

There is absolutely zero chance Glen Davis ever comes anywhere close to Schrempf's level. 

[Fan from VT]

To look at it from another view, Charles Barkley was a terrific basketball player.  He played with some terrific basketball players.  He won just about every individual honor that a 6'6" power forward could possibly win, including a Gold Medal at the Olympics.  However, Sir Charles never, despite all these things, won an NBA championship.  Despite being known for rebounding, (his nick name was "The Round Mound of Rebound," he was not tall enough to lead a team to the NBA championship, or even start on a team that won it. The question is, will Glen Davis be good enough to do something that Charles Barkley could not do while in his prime and surrounded by star players?

And Dirk Nowitzki, who is undoubtedly taller than Chuck, has exactly as many championships as him. This "argument" is silly

Speaking of Nowitzki, Detlef Schrempf is the perfect example of what a player can accomplish with discipline and hard work. I would be happy if Baby turns out to be on Schrempf´s level.

clearly that would be awesome. However, I think people are underestimating how difficult this would be. This would require a SIGNIFICANT improvements in his scoring EVEN JUST USING THIS YEAR'S BLISTERING NUMBERS, an EXTREME increase in rebounding, and a MYTHOLOGICAL increase in assists, all WITHOUT any additional playing time.

Such a conversion would really be nearly unprecedented.