What's the "BIG" problem?

[Yogi]

   We have a healthy KG and Jermaine O'Neal to start.  They are backed up by a healthy Big Baby and Nenad Kristic (Starting Center that took the Lakers to 6 games last year).  Green can also play the 4 sometimes.  Troy Murphy is our last resort insurance. 
   The Lakers have Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum, backed up by Lamar Odom.  They have Character, Ratliff, Walton and Smith as insurance.  I doubt these guys see time in the playoffs unless there are some injuries. 
   The way I see it, we have the deepest front line in the NBA, WITHOUT Shaq.  Shaq is just bonus.  Can someone explain what the problem is?

[wdleehi]

That particular big man rotation you have mentioned has been killed on the boards, especially the other team collecting a lot of offensive boards. 


Krstic can't play defense.  Green is a SF.  Murphy is hurt. 

[Roy H.]

Here's the thing, though:  Bynum is much better than JO, and Odom is much better than BBD.  As much as we'd like to think otherwise, Gasol is probably better than KG, too, although KG still has the defensive edge.

[vinnie]

The "big" problem is that Danny and other Celts officials have talked about how important Shaq is to the team, especially to the offense. They talked about how much better Rondo is when Shaq is playing. How can it not be a problem? We have read tons of times on this forum that Perk doesn't matter because the Celts were actually a better team with Shaq than Perk. Now all of a sudden they might not have Shaq and we are supposed to believe that they are a better team with a pretty much untested JO and a 3rd-string center in Nenad Krstic?

[Hiero 3 Eyes Watch]

Here's the thing, though:  Bynum is much better than JO, and Odom is much better than BBD.  As much as we'd like to think otherwise, Gasol is probably better than KG, too, although KG still has the defensive edge.

Even though I disagree that no shaq is not a problem, I think you're wrong there. Yes Gasol puts up better numbers (partly due to getting about 6-7 more minutes a game) against other teams. But I think that at worst, that matchup is a wash for us this year. At best, KG can put up better numbers like 08, but not as much distance between those two like before

[BudweiserCeltic]

Here's the thing, though:  Bynum is much better than JO, and Odom is much better than BBD.  As much as we'd like to think otherwise, Gasol is probably better than KG, too, although KG still has the defensive edge.

The other side of it is that Gasol dominated the finals last year with Perkins in there too, including some lopsided rebounding games. Yet, in the final game without Perk it was pretty much our best defensive effort against them.

The problem in these match-ups have to go beyond whatever Perk brings to the table. For example, Ray and Pierce not shooting well, and having Shelden Williams behind Sheed (who actually played a very good finals game with his bad back).

Perk is not a miracle worker. This reminds me of the Posey argument that people kept bringing up, yet in the year without him we almost made it to the conference finals with a concussed Scal, KG who couldn't get on the floor, Powe who tore his MCL, Pierce and Ray completely fatigued, and Rondo a bit injured and tired.

I mean, seriously, how little credit are we going to give to our main for guys and their capabilities in these league? If the difference between a championship is having Perk then we might as well just trade the other starters away because it's meaningless to have them.

[More Banners]

As much as I love big guy play, I don't think we have a problem at all.  None.

First round, we play NYK, who have no center.  Not going to miss any bigs there.

Second round (if we get there), we play Miami, who have a hole at center as well.

*Both NYK and Miami, by necessity, play a lot of small ball.  We can match up well with that.

ECF:  If we play Chicago, we don't need a huge body on Noah, and Boozer can be neutralized if he is outworked for boards and position.

Finals:  Bynum/Gasol look like the only guys we would need a major big guy presence to match up with, and it's no sure thing that they'll be in the Finals.

Upshot:  It looks like the playoff seeding has ensured that if the Celtics don't go deep this year, it won't be because of any deficiency in the middle.

[j804]

The "big" problem is that Danny and other Celts officials have talked about how important Shaq is to the team, especially to the offense. They talked about how much better Rondo is when Shaq is playing. How can it not be a problem? We have read tons of times on this forum that Perk doesn't matter because the Celts were actually a better team with Shaq than Perk. Now all of a sudden they might not have Shaq and we are supposed to believe that they are a better team with a pretty much untested JO and a 3rd-string center in Nenad Krstic?

No, the trade was a fail and thank Danny for it even if we do get that far which I have high doubts without Shaq and were to face LA forget about it. Well pretty much be in the same spot as last year with JO a la Sheed giving us all he can but it just not being enough.

[Eja117]

One of the big problems is that even if our bigs match up ok if our pg gets dominated (By Rose?) or our wings get dominated we need our Bigs to be even BETTER than the other bigs and it's hard to see that happen.

[Roy H.]

As much as I love big guy play, I don't think we have a problem at all.  None.

First round, we play NYK, who have no center.  Not going to miss any bigs there.

Second round (if we get there), we play Miami, who have a hole at center as well.

*Both NYK and Miami, by necessity, play a lot of small ball.  We can match up well with that.

ECF:  If we play Chicago, we don't need a huge body on Noah, and Boozer can be neutralized if he is outworked.

Finals:  Bynum/Gasol look like the only guys we would need a major big guy presence to match up with, and it's no sure thing that they'll be in the Finals.

Upshot:  It looks like the playoff seeding has ensured that if the Celtics don't go deep this year, it won't be because of any deficiency in the middle.

I see arguments like this a lot, and honestly, I don't understand them.  Yes, one aspect of having a good big man is to play defense on other good big men.  That's not going to be a huge issue against either NY or Miami.

However, aren't big men also important in terms of cutting off penetration from perimeter players?  When you have an intimidating center in the league, it makes it a lot harder for opposing teams to penetrate.  Stopping perimeter penetration will be a huge part of the challenge against the Knicks, Heat, and Bulls.

Similarly, the battle of the boards is very important.  I don't relish the thought of JO and Krstic having to battle Noah for rebounds.  Rebounding, after all, was one of the main reasons we lost last year.

[More Banners]

As much as I love big guy play, I don't think we have a problem at all.  None.

First round, we play NYK, who have no center.  Not going to miss any bigs there.

Second round (if we get there), we play Miami, who have a hole at center as well.

*Both NYK and Miami, by necessity, play a lot of small ball.  We can match up well with that.

ECF:  If we play Chicago, we don't need a huge body on Noah, and Boozer can be neutralized if he is outworked.

Finals:  Bynum/Gasol look like the only guys we would need a major big guy presence to match up with, and it's no sure thing that they'll be in the Finals.

Upshot:  It looks like the playoff seeding has ensured that if the Celtics don't go deep this year, it won't be because of any deficiency in the middle.

I see arguments like this a lot, and honestly, I don't understand them.  Yes, one aspect of having a good big man is to play defense on other good big men.  That's not going to be a huge issue against either NY or Miami.

However, aren't big men also important in terms of cutting off penetration from perimeter players?  When you have an intimidating center in the league, it makes it a lot harder for opposing teams to penetrate.  Stopping perimeter penetration will be a huge part of the challenge against the Knicks, Heat, and Bulls.

Similarly, the battle of the boards is very important.  I don't relish the thought of JO and Krstic having to battle Noah for rebounds.  Rebounding, after all, was one of the main reasons we lost last year.

This is all true, but for heaven's sake, Roy...  

There is more than one way to win (and quite a few ways to lose), after all. The Bulls teams won multiple titles without a dominant big, offensively or defensively (though they did take in Rodman, who devoted himself to D and boards, and we should, too).

And, like Aristotle argued (and Vico echoed), we can't study basketball with more precision than the subject allows.  The only stats that matter is the scoreboard.  The game is still deceptively simple:  we just have to score more than the other guys.  It's Doc's job to find a way for a team that starts FOUR ALL STARS to win basketball games, and I think Danny has given him quite a few tools to do so.

If cutting off penetration is the concern, size isn't the main consideration.  Position and timing are.  So...it doesn't take a big Center to fill that role.

Will it work?  There's only one way to find out.

[Marcus13]

Deep?  What?  Our starting Center averages like 4/4 a game.

Our hopes have been even farther removed going from Shaq to JERMAINE O'NEAL!?  Delusional.

[mgent]

Here's the thing, though:  Bynum is much better than JO, and Odom is much better than BBD.  As much as we'd like to think otherwise, Gasol is probably better than KG, too, although KG still has the defensive edge.

The other side of it is that Gasol dominated the finals last year with Perkins in there too, including some lopsided rebounding games. Yet, in the final game without Perk it was pretty much our best defensive effort against them.

The problem in these match-ups have to go beyond whatever Perk brings to the table. For example, Ray and Pierce not shooting well, and having Shelden Williams behind Sheed (who actually played a very good finals game with his bad back).

Perk is not a miracle worker. This reminds me of the Posey argument that people kept bringing up, yet in the year without him we almost made it to the conference finals with a concussed Scal, KG who couldn't get on the floor, Powe who tore his MCL, Pierce and Ray completely fatigued, and Rondo a bit injured and tired.

I mean, seriously, how little credit are we going to give to our main for guys and their capabilities in these league? If the difference between a championship is having Perk then we might as well just trade the other starters away because it's meaningless to have them.

Does that include the comeback?

[get_banners]

well. a seemingly health JO makes a big difference. agreed, size in the middle is important for cutting off penetration from other players (so it shouldn't just be a center-versus-center consideration), but JO makes a huge difference there. no, he's not indy-era JO, but if his knee is right (and it seems to be), he is not somebody you drive on. he can play D, can get boards, and can block shots. he's not as big as shaq, but he's big enough. i seem to recall he made life uncomfortable for dwight howard, and that was when he wasn't healthy. so...while shaq would be awesome to have back, i'm more concerned about JO. if he's right, we're in pretty good shape.

[Cman]

Here's the thing, though:  Bynum is much better than JO, and Odom is much better than BBD.  As much as we'd like to think otherwise, Gasol is probably better than KG, too, although KG still has the defensive edge.

Wow, kudos for thinking ahead.  And here I am, worried about the matchup against Stoudamire and Turiaf (who is better than people on this board like to admit).