Baby is Getting Better and Better!

[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.

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

That´s what they said about Schrempf after his first three seasons, too.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/schrede01.html

[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.

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? 

Any person who uses one or the other, but not both, is bound to produce "fickle" results. There are reasons why you can't do statistical analysis without an underlying theory, and why theories without empirical proof are typically questionable.

[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? 

Any person who uses one or the other, but not both, is bound to produce "fickle" results. There are reasons why you can't do statistical analysis without an underlying theory, and why theories without empirical proof are typically questionable.

Well, I tend to think that most people doing analysis use a combination of both.  They may weigh heavliy on one more than the other but I'm willing to bet almost everyone uses a mix. 

Whatever the means, people can still draw predictive conclusions.  I think there is plenty of information out there statistically and visually to produce an expectation of BBD's future.

[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. 

That´s what they said about Schrempf after his first three seasons, too.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/schrede01.html

Not buying it.  Schrempf was an 8th pick with elite potential.  He was always a lights out shooter... he just had a learning curve.  In his prime he was a 19, 10 and 6 guy and with the Sonics he shot 52%, 51% from three and 84% from the line.  One of the best shooters ive seen in person.  

Totally different type of players, though.

Davis is a role player at best.   Can't do anything particularly great.  Rebounding is not a skill players eventually learn.  He is what he is... unathletic, slowish, short fat boy roleplayer who will hit a few jumpers and make a few uncontested layups.

[Celtics17]

BBD has given this team much more then it should have ever expected. I was always surprised to read peoples disappointment with him. What do you expect from a guy at his draft position. He can bang with the best of them, a talent highly underrated, and now offers much more. Aingle sure does have a knack for spotting talent.

[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.

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

That´s what they said about Schrempf after his first three seasons, too.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/schrede01.html

Not buying it.  Schrempf was an 8th pick with elite potential.  He was always a lights out shooter... he just had a learning curve.  In his prime he was a 19, 10 and 6 guy and with the Sonics he shot 52%, 51% from three and 84% from the line.  One of the best shooters ive seen in person.  

Totally different type of players, though.

Davis is a role player at best.   Can't do anything particularly great.  Rebounding is not a skill players eventually learn.  He is what he is... unathletic, slowish, short fat boy roleplayer who will hit a few jumpers and make a few uncontested layups.

Well, I said "I would be happy". Schrempf was a backup for seven years, who went on to become a 3x all-star, an ideal scenario, that´s why I mentioned him.

Still, Baby was a very raw project when we drafted him, too, and has already shown a lot of improvement. He is part of our crunchtime rotation now, and I have the feeling he will thrive with his increased responsibility. If he does, we`re talking about more than just an average NBA PF.

[thirstyboots18]

BBD has given this team much more then it should have ever expected. I was always surprised to read peoples disappointment with him. What do you expect from a guy at his draft position. He can bang with the best of them, a talent highly underrated, and now offers much more. Aingle sure does have a knack for spotting talent.

I agree, Celtics17...Danny is genius at finding talent!

[mmbaby]

I won't even try to be a scout or basketball analyst because I am not, and neither is anyone on this board, as far as I know.

There are those who will harp on how terrible he is no matter how good he is and that will never change. It's like that for most players. No one can please everyone.

Again, I will say I believe he will wind up starter PF on a contending team. This is my own personal prediction. Why? I see that he really has no ceiling. Not yet, anyway. It's way too soon to tell, and just stating that you don't agree because other players you have known have reached their ceiling earlier, is ridiculous to me. As long as he stays motivated he will keep getting better. I don't have any reason to doubt that. His lack of length is made up for by his quick feet, quick reflexes and ability to overcome his limitations to the extent that he continues to improve, in spite of them.

[housecall]

I realized BBD had talent and was only going to get better in time when he stepped in for KG in the'09 playoffs.Also Glenn doesn't get rattled in big game situations,a trait not all young guys carry.

[Fafnir]

Not yet, anyway. It's way too soon to tell, and just stating that you don't agree because other players you have known have reached their ceiling earlier, is ridiculous to me.

Why?

The vast majority of players peak between ages 25-28. Davis should be showing us his ceiling soon. Very few players suddenly become as amazing as you think BBD will be.

Steve Nash is the one example that stands out to me, and he's an unique case in NBA history.

[Chris]

I won't even try to be a scout or basketball analyst because I am not, and neither is anyone on this board, as far as I know.

There are those who will harp on how terrible he is no matter how good he is and that will never change. It's like that for most players. No one can please everyone.

Again, I will say I believe he will wind up starter PF on a contending team. This is my own personal prediction. Why? I see that he really has no ceiling. Not yet, anyway. It's way too soon to tell, and just stating that you don't agree because other players you have known have reached their ceiling earlier, is ridiculous to me. As long as he stays motivated he will keep getting better. I don't have any reason to doubt that. His lack of length is made up for by his quick feet, quick reflexes and ability to overcome his limitations to the extent that he continues to improve, in spite of them.

Fair enough.  I disagree, but that is your opinion.  We can just wait and see what happens. 

Although I do think it is an interesting discussion to continue, because frankly, it is fun to try to predict how players will develop.

[kozlodoev]

Rebounding is not a skill players eventually learn.  He is what he is... unathletic, slowish, short fat boy roleplayer who will hit a few jumpers and make a few uncontested layups.

Yes, yes. And the play of the day is something every unathletic, slowish fat boy can pull off. There is ridiculous... and then there is this statement. What a joke.

[mmbaby]

Agreed, that statement is offensive to those of us who appreciate what Glen's doing for this team.

Glen is 24 yrs. old, beginning his 3rd year, I believe. He had 3 years of college before he came to us. So I don't understand your logic, Fafnir.

[Fafnir]

Agreed, that statement is offensive to those of us who appreciate what Glen's doing for this team.

So disagreeing with you is offensive? Not exactly having an open mind for a debate.

Glen is 24 yrs. old, beginning his 3rd year, I believe. He had 3 years of college before he came to us. So I don't understand your logic, Fafnir.

My logic is simple, Glen Davis should hitting his prime in the next few years. He's currently getting 30 minutes a game. If he's ever going to develop like you think he will, he should show signs this year. We should be seeing his amazing potential right now.

Instead we're seeing below average PF play.

[mmbaby]

That's an unfair statement about me. I didn't saying disagreeing was offensive. I said calling Glen fat boy is very offensive, especially when he's helping your team and the fact that he is not fat; at least not any fatter than Perk or Shaq.

And also, we've seen a great deal 'this' year. And it has only been 2 games of regular season. How can a player prove himself for this season when the season just started?