Baynes needs to be part of the starting five

[smokeablount]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

[smokeablount]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

I agree that we are probably overrating Baynes' abilities on the basketball court. He is a fine rotation player that provides IQ and toughness, but he is not an Embiid-stopper.

That said, regardless of stats, Baynes did make several key plays against Embiid in that series. Those plays may not have advanced stats to back it up, but they caused or prolonged runs for the Cs.

You want guys on your bench that know how to make timely plays like that.

I like Baynes.  I'm fine with him starting against teams like Toronto, as I said.  I'd also add in Detroit, Cleveland, and Miami (off the top of my head), just based on match-ups and what not, but he is a bench guy that even when he starts doesn't get starter minutes for a reason.  That is his role. 

I've seen the elevation of Boston's bench players on this site reach pretty epic proportions lately.  We should all be scaling that back a great deal.

I've seen the elevation of anti-Celtics contrarianism reach pretty epic proportions lately, one person should be scaling that back a great deal, considering how his stances will look over time.

[Moranis]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

+- absolutely matters when discussing a players value to the team.  There is absolutely no question at all that Boston was significantly better in that series when Baynes was on the bench.  Embiid was also Philly's best player in that series. 

[Moranis]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

I agree that we are probably overrating Baynes' abilities on the basketball court. He is a fine rotation player that provides IQ and toughness, but he is not an Embiid-stopper.

That said, regardless of stats, Baynes did make several key plays against Embiid in that series. Those plays may not have advanced stats to back it up, but they caused or prolonged runs for the Cs.

You want guys on your bench that know how to make timely plays like that.

I like Baynes.  I'm fine with him starting against teams like Toronto, as I said.  I'd also add in Detroit, Cleveland, and Miami (off the top of my head), just based on match-ups and what not, but he is a bench guy that even when he starts doesn't get starter minutes for a reason.  That is his role. 

I've seen the elevation of Boston's bench players on this site reach pretty epic proportions lately.  We should all be scaling that back a great deal.

I've seen the elevation of anti-Celtics contrarianism reach pretty epic proportions lately, one person should be scaling that back a great deal, considering how his stances will look over time.

Since you are calling me out, which mind you is against site rules, go ahead and point out some of those stances that you think don't look great over time.  Aside from me thinking Jahill Okafor would be a good player or that Terry Rozier wouldn't amount to much, I think you will struggle to find many of those supposed stances that don't look great over time.

[playdream]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

I agree that we are probably overrating Baynes' abilities on the basketball court. He is a fine rotation player that provides IQ and toughness, but he is not an Embiid-stopper.

That said, regardless of stats, Baynes did make several key plays against Embiid in that series. Those plays may not have advanced stats to back it up, but they caused or prolonged runs for the Cs.

You want guys on your bench that know how to make timely plays like that.

I like Baynes.  I'm fine with him starting against teams like Toronto, as I said.  I'd also add in Detroit, Cleveland, and Miami (off the top of my head), just based on match-ups and what not, but he is a bench guy that even when he starts doesn't get starter minutes for a reason.  That is his role. 

I've seen the elevation of Boston's bench players on this site reach pretty epic proportions lately.  We should all be scaling that back a great deal.

I've seen the elevation of anti-Celtics contrarianism reach pretty epic proportions lately, one person should be scaling that back a great deal, considering how his stances will look over time.

Since you are calling me out, which mind you is against site rules, go ahead and point out some of those stances that you think don't look great over time.  Aside from me thinking Jahill Okafor would be a good player or that Terry Rozier wouldn't amount to much, I think you will struggle to find many of those supposed stances that don't look great over time.

Wow you thought Okafor would be a good player? i never understand why all the hype of him from the predraft times, bust written all over his body

[Moranis]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

I agree that we are probably overrating Baynes' abilities on the basketball court. He is a fine rotation player that provides IQ and toughness, but he is not an Embiid-stopper.

That said, regardless of stats, Baynes did make several key plays against Embiid in that series. Those plays may not have advanced stats to back it up, but they caused or prolonged runs for the Cs.

You want guys on your bench that know how to make timely plays like that.

I like Baynes.  I'm fine with him starting against teams like Toronto, as I said.  I'd also add in Detroit, Cleveland, and Miami (off the top of my head), just based on match-ups and what not, but he is a bench guy that even when he starts doesn't get starter minutes for a reason.  That is his role. 

I've seen the elevation of Boston's bench players on this site reach pretty epic proportions lately.  We should all be scaling that back a great deal.

I've seen the elevation of anti-Celtics contrarianism reach pretty epic proportions lately, one person should be scaling that back a great deal, considering how his stances will look over time.

Since you are calling me out, which mind you is against site rules, go ahead and point out some of those stances that you think don't look great over time.  Aside from me thinking Jahill Okafor would be a good player or that Terry Rozier wouldn't amount to much, I think you will struggle to find many of those supposed stances that don't look great over time.

Wow you thought Okafor would be a good player? i never understand why all the hype of him from the predraft times, bust written all over his body

Yeah during his rookie year, I thought he had a chance to be a long time starter in the league.  Obviously needed work defensively, but I liked his offensive potential and thought he had a chance to at least be mediocre defensively.  What we as fans obviously can't see is the day to day stuff, and it is now very apparent that he has had significant work ethic problems and just never put in the time to get better.  He is still pretty young, so maybe he matures and finds a role in New Orleans, but I just saw he got hurt again (minor, but he actually needs the time he is going to miss). 

[smokeablount]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

+- absolutely matters when discussing a players value to the team.  There is absolutely no question at all that Boston was significantly better in that series when Baynes was on the bench.  Embiid was also Philly's best player in that series.

Baynes was on the bench when Embiid was off the court, and Baynes was on the court when Embiid was on the court. Embiid is Philly's best player and a top 10-12 player in the league.  It's pretty obvious if Baynes' minutes represent Embiid's court time, they will be negative. 

You were all over Kyrie for his points per shot in a finals that he won as a big underdog.  Embiid is a nimble giant and in the ECSF, which he lost by the way while heavily favored, he put up 1.12 points per shot on 44% FG%.  Care to address that? 

[smokeablount]

Posted in another thread, where it seemed relevant... but it's much more relevant here:

_______

I'm preparing to get laughed at for this, but my predictions on this Blog for the past year and a half have been pretty darn good, so I'm prepared to take an L on this long shot:

I'm not advocating for this (yet), as I think it's remote, but within the realm of possibility that the C's starters could be better overall with a big, impactful center like Baynes.

Starting Baynes wouldn't maximize the talent on the court at the beginning of games, but it might maximize the talent that plays on both units and allow for a better blend of O and D.

Hayward has looked rusty, but still, the starters haven't looked good.  Brown and Irving have played well but Tatum and Hayward haven't and we need to see how they co-exist. 

We know that last year's starters with Baynes was great defensively and ok offensively.  I also think Robert Williams looks better than Theis did last year, and should be in the rotation.

So if Baynes started, who'd sit?

Right now, Hayward looks rusty, and last year's starters looked good, so he's an option.

But I think the nuanced choice is Tatum as 6th man.  When Hayward returns to form he should be better and more versatile than Tatum for a year or two, so he deserves to start.  IMO Smart and Rozier can be the 2 ballhandlers on BWA (Smart a playmaker, Rozier mainly a scorer). 

Hayward's playmaking is needed with the starters, where he & Kyrie are the 2 ballhandlers (GH a playmaker + scorer, Kyrie mainly a scorer).  GH should be able to score at least as well as Tatum when he's back to form, but this way both units would have 2 true ballhandlers.  Also, both units get a legit rebounding and defensive center in Baynes + Williams, and a dynamic scoring 2 way wing in Hayward and Tatum.  As 6th man, Tatum could still play plenty with the starters and with BWA he'd be the main man on offense, flanked by Rozier and Morris.  They'd all look to score.  Smart could focus on playing D and getting Tatum and Williams the ball.

So is KI-JB-JT-GH-Al more talented than KI-JB-GH-Al-AB?  Yeah.  But does #1 + Rozier / Smart / Morris / Theis / Baynes beat #2 + Rozier / Smart / Tatum / Morris / Williams?

I mean, it probably does.  Having the most talent start is probably best.  But I don't think we know for sure.  I don't think Brad knows for sure.  The team has played very poorly in preseason and the starters have been the worst.  Last year, our starters were our best asset and we had Baynes in there anchoring the D.  The roster balance of #2 could be really key.

[Moranis]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

+- absolutely matters when discussing a players value to the team.  There is absolutely no question at all that Boston was significantly better in that series when Baynes was on the bench.  Embiid was also Philly's best player in that series.

Baynes was on the bench when Embiid was off the court, and Baynes was on the court when Embiid was on the court. Embiid is Philly's best player and a top 10-12 player in the league.  It's pretty obvious if Baynes' minutes represent Embiid's court time, they will be negative. 

You were all over Kyrie for his points per shot in a finals that he won as a big underdog.  Embiid is a nimble giant and in the ECSF, which he lost by the way while heavily favored, he put up 1.12 points per shot on 44% FG%.  Care to address that?

You obviously haven't been paying attention at all to this thread or this discussion.  It is clear from this post, so there really is no point in discussing further with you since you aren't following along and keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the discussion, especially when you in fact proved the point I was making.

[smokeablount]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

+- absolutely matters when discussing a players value to the team.  There is absolutely no question at all that Boston was significantly better in that series when Baynes was on the bench.  Embiid was also Philly's best player in that series.

Baynes was on the bench when Embiid was off the court, and Baynes was on the court when Embiid was on the court. Embiid is Philly's best player and a top 10-12 player in the league.  It's pretty obvious if Baynes' minutes represent Embiid's court time, they will be negative. 

You were all over Kyrie for his points per shot in a finals that he won as a big underdog.  Embiid is a nimble giant and in the ECSF, which he lost by the way while heavily favored, he put up 1.12 points per shot on 44% FG%.  Care to address that?

You obviously haven't been paying attention at all to this thread or this discussion.  It is clear from this post, so there really is no point in discussing further with you since you aren't following along and keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the discussion, especially when you in fact proved the point I was making.

Not really.  You said Baynes couldn't guard Embiid, I'm telling you Embiid shot 44% which is horrible for a center and scored 1.12 points per shot which is horrible for any position.  He averaged 1.39 PPS in the regular season, elite, and 1.12 PPS vs Baynes. 

So, Embiid was guarded pretty well.  Your plus minus stats, which are less focused on Baynes and Embiid as individuals, and more focused on them fitting into lineups, don't refute the strong evidence in Embiid's actual performance- they're skewed by what his teammates did.

And I find it kind of funny, considering how much you relied on point per shot to slam Kyrie and ignored his dominant +/- numbers, and now to maintain an anti-Celtics view you're ignoring your own points per shot argument and focusing on the previously ignored plus minus. 

You can bow out of the debate, but it won't be because I wasn't paying attention.

[Eddie20]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

+- absolutely matters when discussing a players value to the team.  There is absolutely no question at all that Boston was significantly better in that series when Baynes was on the bench.  Embiid was also Philly's best player in that series.

Baynes was on the bench when Embiid was off the court, and Baynes was on the court when Embiid was on the court. Embiid is Philly's best player and a top 10-12 player in the league.  It's pretty obvious if Baynes' minutes represent Embiid's court time, they will be negative. 

You were all over Kyrie for his points per shot in a finals that he won as a big underdog.  Embiid is a nimble giant and in the ECSF, which he lost by the way while heavily favored, he put up 1.12 points per shot on 44% FG%.  Care to address that?

You obviously haven't been paying attention at all to this thread or this discussion.  It is clear from this post, so there really is no point in discussing further with you since you aren't following along and keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the discussion, especially when you in fact proved the point I was making.

Not really.  You said Baynes couldn't guard Embiid, I'm telling you Embiid shot 44% which is horrible for a center and scored 1.12 points per shot which is horrible for any position.  He averaged 1.39 PPS in the regular season, elite, and 1.12 PPS vs Baynes. 

So, Embiid was guarded pretty well.  Your plus minus stats, which are less focused on Baynes and Embiid as individuals, and more focused on them fitting into lineups, don't refute the strong evidence in Embiid's actual performance- they're skewed by what his teammates did.

And I find it kind of funny, considering how much you relied on point per shot to slam Kyrie and ignored his dominant +/- numbers, and now to maintain an anti-Celtics view you're ignoring your own points per shot argument and focusing on the previously ignored plus minus. 

You can bow out of the debate, but it won't be because I wasn't paying attention.

Moranis is a master at dodging so good luck getting a straight answer.

[Eddie20]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydy-pzs5uCA


Baynes' D on Embiid. It's going to be hard for Moranis to refute Baynes' effectiveness.

[Diggles]

Unless the fab 5 can figure it out, one of them should hit the bench and let the big guy set screens and pull the big man out of the lane and hit that corner THREEEEEEEE.... 

[Big333223]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

+- absolutely matters when discussing a players value to the team.  There is absolutely no question at all that Boston was significantly better in that series when Baynes was on the bench.  Embiid was also Philly's best player in that series.

Baynes was on the bench when Embiid was off the court, and Baynes was on the court when Embiid was on the court. Embiid is Philly's best player and a top 10-12 player in the league.  It's pretty obvious if Baynes' minutes represent Embiid's court time, they will be negative. 

You were all over Kyrie for his points per shot in a finals that he won as a big underdog.  Embiid is a nimble giant and in the ECSF, which he lost by the way while heavily favored, he put up 1.12 points per shot on 44% FG%.  Care to address that?

You obviously haven't been paying attention at all to this thread or this discussion.  It is clear from this post, so there really is no point in discussing further with you since you aren't following along and keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the discussion, especially when you in fact proved the point I was making.

Not really.  You said Baynes couldn't guard Embiid, I'm telling you Embiid shot 44% which is horrible for a center and scored 1.12 points per shot which is horrible for any position.  He averaged 1.39 PPS in the regular season, elite, and 1.12 PPS vs Baynes. 

So, Embiid was guarded pretty well.  Your plus minus stats, which are less focused on Baynes and Embiid as individuals, and more focused on them fitting into lineups, don't refute the strong evidence in Embiid's actual performance- they're skewed by what his teammates did.

And I find it kind of funny, considering how much you relied on point per shot to slam Kyrie and ignored his dominant +/- numbers, and now to maintain an anti-Celtics view you're ignoring your own points per shot argument and focusing on the previously ignored plus minus. 

You can bow out of the debate, but it won't be because I wasn't paying attention.

TP

[mmmmm]

Against Toronto, sure absolutely.  Baynes makes a lot of sense against that lineup going against Jonas while Horford takes on Ibaka.  Against Philadelphia, nope, Baynes has no real shot at guarding Embiid over the long haul and Tatum would do fine on Saric. 

So, sure a few matchups (and it is a few) it makes sense to start Baynes, but against most teams, Tatum will be the better start and better fit.

Someone didn't watch round 2 of the playoffs.

23/14/3.6, man Embiid sure was shut down.

How about these +- numbers.

Game 1 - Baynes -1 in 29 minutes, Boston +17 in the other 19 minutes
Game 2 - Baynes -16 in 21 minutes, Boston +21 in the other 27 minutes
Game 3 - Baynes -8 in 23 minutes, Boston +11 in the other 25 minutes
Game 4 - Baynes -9 in 19 minutes, Boston -2 in the other 29 minutes
Game 5 - Baynes -6 in 25 minutes, Boston +8 in the other 23 minutes

Embiid btw had the best +- of the Sixers starters (Redick was near him, no one else was close). 

No matter how you slice it, Boston won in spite of Baynes, not because of Baynes.  He was awful in that series because he can't guard Embiid.  Not at all.

Who cares about +/- team metrics when Embiid shot a measley 44% from the floor in the series and put up (gasp!) 1.12 points per shot and lost 4 of 5 games to half the Celtics team.

I mean, 1.12 points per shot from a center?? That's worse than Kyrie!  Given how much you rely on points per shot to grade good players, it looks like this debate is a wrap, eh?

+- absolutely matters when discussing a players value to the team.  There is absolutely no question at all that Boston was significantly better in that series when Baynes was on the bench.  Embiid was also Philly's best player in that series.

Your plus/minus analysis is overly simplistic.   I just went back and looked at the plus-minus logs for that series.

In that series, Baynes was on the floor only when Embiid was always also on the floor.   But when Baynes was off the court, Embiid was sometimes on and sometimes off.

This means that the Celtics w/o Baynes were against a PHI w/o Embiid for a huge share of those minutes.

Your analysis probably says less about Baynes effectiveness than it does about Embiid's overall impact on Philly's effectiveness.

EDIT:  I see smokeablount already made the same point.