Author Topic: More Green, less Baby  (Read 10031 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2011, 02:57:27 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123

It's possible that Ainge made the move because he didn't put that much stock in Perk's game. This notion that Green was the centerpiece of the trade and should get big minutes because of it alludes me. His production and adaption to the system will warrant more minutes.


Nobody is arguing that Green should get minutes out of charity or to save face.  However, if Green is good enough to trade a starter off a championship team, it stands to figure that the team thinks he has some value.  He should get the minutes to prove it. 

(I don't think the argument that Danny traded Perk because he didn't think Perk had a lot of value is legitimate.  Danny is smart enough not to tamper with championship chemistry for a guy who can't play.  I think Danny undervalued Perk's intangible contributions, but even so, he's not a total idiot.)

As for a KG/Green lineup, it's not going to work in every matchup, but the ability to go small is one of the strengths of this team that isn't being taken advantage of, mostly because we don't have a healthy center who can rebound and defend the paint.  KG is the only guy capable of doing that in a small ball lineup right now.

I really hope small ball turns out to be effective with Green, but I'm skeptical at the moment.

The reason it worked with Posey was due to how good a defender he was.

I don't understand why Green isn't a better defender. He has all the tools but just seems not out of sorts at that end....still hoping on this, however.

  Posey at pf wasn't a good defensive lineup for us, it was a pretty good offensive unit.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2011, 03:17:33 AM »

Offline greenhead85

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 783
  • Tommy Points: 36
I would say more Green (SF) and Baby(PF).

PP and Ray minutes, as recent performances suggest, should go down. I would rather see both alternating at SG and Green plays at SF. When a small ball is at play, play Green, PP and Ray together. The Big 3 were pathetic in the second half, except for the bailout PP did at end game. All plays were centered on them and that is not good. Two-thirds of the play on the 2nd and 3rd quarters was centered on them. They are not helping other teammates to grow and produce effectively. Baby was pushing it inside and challenging almost everyone in the paint. His mid range shot was a little off tonight but I would play him more together with Green.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2011, 07:04:41 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255

It's possible that Ainge made the move because he didn't put that much stock in Perk's game. This notion that Green was the centerpiece of the trade and should get big minutes because of it alludes me. His production and adaption to the system will warrant more minutes.


Nobody is arguing that Green should get minutes out of charity or to save face.  However, if Green is good enough to trade a starter off a championship team, it stands to figure that the team thinks he has some value.  He should get the minutes to prove it. 

(I don't think the argument that Danny traded Perk because he didn't think Perk had a lot of value is legitimate.  Danny is smart enough not to tamper with championship chemistry for a guy who can't play.  I think Danny undervalued Perk's intangible contributions, but even so, he's not a total idiot.)

As for a KG/Green lineup, it's not going to work in every matchup, but the ability to go small is one of the strengths of this team that isn't being taken advantage of, mostly because we don't have a healthy center who can rebound and defend the paint.  KG is the only guy capable of doing that in a small ball lineup right now.

I really hope small ball turns out to be effective with Green, but I'm skeptical at the moment.

The reason it worked with Posey was due to how good a defender he was.

I don't understand why Green isn't a better defender. He has all the tools but just seems not out of sorts at that end....still hoping on this, however.

  Posey at pf wasn't a good defensive lineup for us, it was a pretty good offensive unit.

and you want Green to have time at PF?

the point I'm really making is that Posey was a better defender than Green....so going off your observation that we were not a good defensive team with Posey, we would be even worse defensively with Green...

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2011, 07:50:00 AM »

Offline clover

  • Front Page Moderator
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6130
  • Tommy Points: 315
Green and Baby remind me a bit of young Paul Pierce and Antoine.  The young guy with the complete game who had to be featured more--and the volume shooter.

Yes, yes, I know to those of you who came of age in the '80s Toine was a basketball god, but then you probably thought the hair bands were good, too.


Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2011, 07:57:06 AM »

Offline CoachBo

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6069
  • Tommy Points: 336

It's possible that Ainge made the move because he didn't put that much stock in Perk's game. This notion that Green was the centerpiece of the trade and should get big minutes because of it alludes me. His production and adaption to the system will warrant more minutes.


Nobody is arguing that Green should get minutes out of charity or to save face.  However, if Green is good enough to trade a starter off a championship team, it stands to figure that the team thinks he has some value.  He should get the minutes to prove it. 

(I don't think the argument that Danny traded Perk because he didn't think Perk had a lot of value is legitimate.  Danny is smart enough not to tamper with championship chemistry for a guy who can't play.  I think Danny undervalued Perk's intangible contributions, but even so, he's not a total idiot.)

As for a KG/Green lineup, it's not going to work in every matchup, but the ability to go small is one of the strengths of this team that isn't being taken advantage of, mostly because we don't have a healthy center who can rebound and defend the paint.  KG is the only guy capable of doing that in a small ball lineup right now.

I really hope small ball turns out to be effective with Green, but I'm skeptical at the moment.

The reason it worked with Posey was due to how good a defender he was.

I don't understand why Green isn't a better defender. He has all the tools but just seems not out of sorts at that end....still hoping on this, however.

  Posey at pf wasn't a good defensive lineup for us, it was a pretty good offensive unit.

Actually, it was fine on both ends of the floor - in relatively brief doses. We closed out games throughout the 08 playoffs with that lineup.
Coined the CelticsBlog term, "Euromistake."

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2011, 08:31:54 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123

It's possible that Ainge made the move because he didn't put that much stock in Perk's game. This notion that Green was the centerpiece of the trade and should get big minutes because of it alludes me. His production and adaption to the system will warrant more minutes.


Nobody is arguing that Green should get minutes out of charity or to save face.  However, if Green is good enough to trade a starter off a championship team, it stands to figure that the team thinks he has some value.  He should get the minutes to prove it. 

(I don't think the argument that Danny traded Perk because he didn't think Perk had a lot of value is legitimate.  Danny is smart enough not to tamper with championship chemistry for a guy who can't play.  I think Danny undervalued Perk's intangible contributions, but even so, he's not a total idiot.)

As for a KG/Green lineup, it's not going to work in every matchup, but the ability to go small is one of the strengths of this team that isn't being taken advantage of, mostly because we don't have a healthy center who can rebound and defend the paint.  KG is the only guy capable of doing that in a small ball lineup right now.

I really hope small ball turns out to be effective with Green, but I'm skeptical at the moment.

The reason it worked with Posey was due to how good a defender he was.

I don't understand why Green isn't a better defender. He has all the tools but just seems not out of sorts at that end....still hoping on this, however.

  Posey at pf wasn't a good defensive lineup for us, it was a pretty good offensive unit.

Actually, it was fine on both ends of the floor - in relatively brief doses. We closed out games throughout the 08 playoffs with that lineup.

  The defense was 8 points worse with Posey at pf than sf during the season and about 14 points worse in the playoffs. The offense improved enough to make up for it but it wasn't a good defensive lineup for us.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2011, 09:37:23 AM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6673
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
I think we could use a little more Green and a little less Baby - sure

I think Baby might be playing a little Hero Ball from the bench and trying to do too much
Faith and Sports - an essay by Jeff Clark

"Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin (Bill Watterson)

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2011, 09:42:54 AM »

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4855
  • Tommy Points: 386
I think we could use a little more Green and a little less Baby - sure

I think Baby might be playing a little Hero Ball from the bench and trying to do too much

At times he does Jeff.  I do think he's aware of his issues and struggles to stay away from all things individual....but it's hard to change and be consistent in one's mental approach. 

In general, I would say more Green less Baby isn't happening now because we don't have enough bigs.  With Shaq and/or JO back, I would think Baby's time will decrease....and hopefully Green's increase though not sure this would happen......

I wouldn't mind seeing Green as backup to both Paul and KG if the center on the floor is either Shaq or JO.  With Kristic however, Baby might be the better option unless the other team is real small....

I don't know if we can keep Green if Pierce is going to retire a Celtic.  Two more years off the bench?  Green would be a perfect starting 3 on a number of teams....good passer, team player, etc....Imagine him starting between Gordon and Griffin in L.A.  Perfect.  How about between Kobe and Pau in L.A.  Perfect.  Sacramento....perfect.  Houston, Dallas, New Jersey?  All perfect.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2011, 09:47:34 AM »

Offline get_banners

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1848
  • Tommy Points: 100
I think we could use a little more Green and a little less Baby - sure
I think Baby might be playing a little Hero Ball from the bench and trying to do too much
yes....this is the problem. i don't even think its a minutes issue, or a selfishness issue, but i think baby is trying to do too much on his own these days. when the ball is moving (like it was during our comebacks), our offense is back to normal. unfortunately, it hasn't been moving much most of the time, and baby is part of the problem.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2011, 11:09:24 AM »

Offline minijericho29

  • Sam Hauser
  • Posts: 158
  • Tommy Points: 24
Green has been very efficient off the bench lately but Baby is getting most of the touches with the second unit. Anyone else agree that Baby needs to take less shots and Green needs to take more? Not to mention more minutes for Green who played only 19 tonight

I agree totally.  Big Baby's shot-to-touch ratio must be tops in the entire league.  He is a black hole out there.  When he took that three pointer against Memphis last week, I came pretty close to dropping to my knees and vomiting all over the carpet.  He needs to know his role.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2011, 01:38:24 PM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2554
  • Tommy Points: 406
i missed the game last night. checked the box score
jeff green 4-5, 9 pts in 19 minutes
big baby, 4-15, 8 pts in 35 minutes
?
baby swings between the 4 and 5 which (considering our lack of centers)  is going to give him more minutes but come on.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2011, 01:42:36 PM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6987
  • Tommy Points: 411
Green has been very efficient off the bench lately but Baby is getting most of the touches with the second unit. Anyone else agree that Baby needs to take less shots and Green needs to take more? Not to mention more minutes for Green who played only 19 tonight

I agree totally.  Big Baby's shot-to-touch ratio must be tops in the entire league.  He is a black hole out there.  When he took that three pointer against Memphis last week, I came pretty close to dropping to my knees and vomiting all over the carpet.  He needs to know his role.

you know who comes to my mind with BBD on offense? Zach Randolph. boy was he a black hole. unfortunately, BBD doesn't have ZBo's post moves or solid jumper
- LilRip

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2011, 02:09:15 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37807
  • Tommy Points: 3030
I 'll buy into this myself.  But, I'll go futher and say when PP, KG is COLD or not really adding much rebounds, assists, ect or energy.... man if I was Doc ... I'd have JG in every minute I could slip him in. Jeff was was held back at OKC,  he can have the same type of games Tony Allen is having these days. He just needs to get the minutes to build up his stamina, and game.

If PP is playing dead, the first 3 quarters, I'd be playing Green till he dropped. I think he is one of those guys , like Allen , or some running backs , he needs to play ALOT minutes to come alive and get in his ZONE.  

Against the under 500 teams regular season , I woud be all for starting Jeff Green. To bad PP. Get over it or play better or just sit on the bench.  

Since Danny screwed us out of a center, I think Green  should be seeing huge minutes to put some life and faith back in this team.

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2011, 02:56:40 PM »

Offline Edgar

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24646
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • No contaban con mi astucia !!!
I think we could use a little more Green and a little less Baby - sure

I think Baby might be playing a little Hero Ball from the bench and trying to do too much

ditto

Hope shaq back soon that will close this.
and send BBD where he belongs at 9th place in our rotation
Once a CrotorNat always a CROTORNAT  2 times CB draft Champion 2009-2012

Nice to be back!

Re: More Green, less Baby
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2011, 03:03:25 PM »

Offline mc34

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 540
  • Tommy Points: 40
Just remembered that since the O'Neals have been out and the Perk trade, Baby has been pretty much been exclusively playing center off the bench right? Baby was at his best earlier in the season when he was playing the 4, not banging around with the bigger guys, so maybe with Shaq and JO's returns we'll be seeing a more efficient and effective Baby.