Detroit- Celtics
4Quarters
is the Celtics in Detroit!
What a game. Great stuff from everyone involved. Things got dicey when
Garnett went to the bench. Pollard had a nice game. Not much can be
added to what has already been said about Big Baby's 4th quarter
explosion. He had a lot of easy shots, but at least he made them when
the opportunities were there. He was aware enough to put himself into
position for those passes from Pierce. He was ready with his hands up.
Good stuff.
In a separate thread there has been some talk about giving Perk's
minutes to Big Baby. I can't agree with that. Perk is a better defender
and is not that great of an offensive liability. His job is to get the
odd offensive rebound and keep the other team off the offensive boards.
He's pretty good at the few things that he needs to do well. Also, Davis
is far too small to play center. No amount of determination will make up
for his lack of height. (as an aside - one of my favorite performances
from a 'center' was in a game years ago when Antoine Walker had to play
center due to injuries and he out-played an aging Patrick Ewing).
I was a but disappointed in Chauncey Billups' comments after the game.
To paraphrase, he said that the Celtics were treating the game like a
play-off game while the Pistons were treating it like any just another
game. I think this is pretty disingenuous. Pierce pointed out all his
bruises and scratches in the post-game interview. I think that Rondo
ended up with a bandage on his head. Seems like a lot of physical play
from a team that wasn't playing its hardest. I think Chauncey's comments
were kind of bush-league, an attempt to take the sting out of a loss in
what was a very hyped game. I wonder if he would have made the same
commments if the Pistons had won.
I'm glad that the Cs had the 3 days off before Wednesday's game. They
can probably use the time to heal up.
JK
>
>In a separate thread there has been some talk about giving Perk's
>minutes to Big Baby. I can't agree with that. Perk is a better defender
>and is not that great of an offensive liability. His job is to get the
>odd offensive rebound and keep the other team off the offensive boards.
>He's pretty good at the few things that he needs to do well. Also, Davis
>is far too small to play center.
The thing is, playing center isn't strictly about height. It's also
about girth, which he has plenty of and he knows how to use it. Dave
Cowens? Ben Wallace? Tell me those guys couldn't/can't play center.
Oliver Miller was a 6'9" center and he did fine when he was healthy.
Hell, Unseld even played center for a couple of years and he was,
what... maybe 6'8" or a little less? There's absolutely no reason
Davis can't play center.
Robert Chin
news:gvh5o31317c9njghl...@4ax.com...
>
> The thing is, playing center isn't strictly about height. It's also
> about girth, which he has plenty of and he knows how to use it. Dave
> Cowens? Ben Wallace? Tell me those guys couldn't/can't play center.
> Oliver Miller was a 6'9" center and he did fine when he was healthy.
> Hell, Unseld even played center for a couple of years and he was,
> what... maybe 6'8" or a little less? There's absolutely no reason
> Davis can't play center.
He might can give the C's a few minutes here and there, but full time? Are
you kidding? He'd get KILLED. I'll give you some:
1) He can't jump well enough (a la Ben Wallace, Dave Cowens) to make up for
his lack of height.
2) When has he ever played that position? (Answer, maybe in HS)
3) He blocks shots by coming over to help, not by standing in front of
someone and going straight up with the shooter. He blind sides shooters.
4) He can't get up the court as fast as Perkins. I've seen them running
side by side.
5) I do not think he is a legit 6'9".
6) He is only beginning to learn how to use his body to carve out space
under the hoop in the NBA. He still gets a lot of his shots blocked.
Davis will get better. I can see him being a better all around PRO PLAYER
in a year or two than Perk. But today? No.
JK
wrote:
>"JK" <n...@way.net> wrote in message
>news:gvh5o31317c9njghl...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The thing is, playing center isn't strictly about height. It's also
>> about girth, which he has plenty of and he knows how to use it. Dave
>> Cowens? Ben Wallace? Tell me those guys couldn't/can't play center.
>> Oliver Miller was a 6'9" center and he did fine when he was healthy.
>> Hell, Unseld even played center for a couple of years and he was,
>> what... maybe 6'8" or a little less? There's absolutely no reason
>> Davis can't play center.
>
>He might can give the C's a few minutes here and there, but full time? Are
>you kidding? He'd get KILLED. I'll give you some:
>
>1) He can't jump well enough (a la Ben Wallace, Dave Cowens) to make up for
>his lack of height.
Davis is already a better rebounder than Perk.
>2) When has he ever played that position? (Answer, maybe in HS)
Most of THIS season.
>3) He blocks shots by coming over to help, not by standing in front of
>someone and going straight up with the shooter. He blind sides shooters.
So what? There's a lot more to playing center than blocking shots.
That's the ONE area where Perk clearly has the advantage in the stats
right now.
>4) He can't get up the court as fast as Perkins. I've seen them running
>side by side.
Please... Perk is NOT fast. It's like two midgets comparing who is
taller.
>5) I do not think he is a legit 6'9".
Either way, look at them next time you see them standing next to each
other. There's only maybe 1.5" difference, if that.
>6) He is only beginning to learn how to use his body to carve out space
>under the hoop in the NBA. He still gets a lot of his shots blocked.
Perk doesn't?
>Davis will get better. I can see him being a better all around PRO PLAYER
>in a year or two than Perk. But today? No.
He's already a better scorer/rebounder, especially on the offensive
glass.
4Quarters
news:kb46o39buk2eah6og...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:15:16 -0500, "Robert Chin" <bchi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"JK" <n...@way.net> wrote in message
>>news:gvh5o31317c9njghl...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The thing is, playing center isn't strictly about height. It's also
>>> about girth, which he has plenty of and he knows how to use it.
>>> Dave Cowens? Ben Wallace? Tell me those guys couldn't/can't play
>>> center. Oliver Miller was a 6'9" center and he did fine when he was
>>> healthy. Hell, Unseld even played center for a couple of years and
>>> he was, what... maybe 6'8" or a little less? There's absolutely no
>>> reason Davis can't play center.
>>
These are the exceptions to the rule. Big Baby is not in the same league as
Cowens and Wallace. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy. In the preseason I
started to feel that Davis should take Scal's minutes and that's exactly
what has happened. Davis deserves to be on the court. He's aggressive,
smart and productive. I just don't think his most productive position is
center. If he were made a starting center and had to match-up against
*every* center in the league it would weaken the team.
>
> So what? There's a lot more to playing center than blocking shots.
> That's the ONE area where Perk clearly has the advantage in the stats
> right now.
>
Perk may understand the team defense the Celtics are playing better than
any other player on the team.
>
>>Davis will get better. I can see him being a better all around PRO
>>PLAYER in a year or two than Perk. But today? No.
>
Yes. Davis' time is coming, but be patient.
> He's already a better scorer/rebounder, especially on the offensive
> glass.
True. Davis is definitely a more versatile offensive player.
Skeptic
Fact check:
Davis - 18.8 pts, 6.7 off rebs, 12.4 total rebs per 48 minutes
Perkins - 13.4 pts, 3.2 off rebs, 10.8 total rebs per 48 minutes
yep.
Ray O'Hara
"Skeptic" <bcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6TVgj.27348$Ux2.12832@attbi_s22...
never fall in love with stats. KC jones never had any stats, no one doubts
his effectiveness.
JK
<mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> > He's already a better scorer/rebounder, especially on the offensive
>> > glass.
>>
>> Fact check:
>> Davis - 18.8 pts, 6.7 off rebs, 12.4 total rebs per 48 minutes
>> Perkins - 13.4 pts, 3.2 off rebs, 10.8 total rebs per 48 minutes
>>
>> yep.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>never fall in love with stats. KC jones never had any stats, no one doubts
>his effectiveness.
>
One does not have to love them to interpret their meaning.
Bryant Durrell
5.6 fouls per 48 minutes.
8.3 fouls per 48 minutes.
OMG!
--
Bryant Durrell // dur...@innocence.com // dur...@gmail.com
JK
So what? Like I said. Davis isn't in a position where he has to
worry about fouls coming off the bench. In his only start he only had
2 fouls.
Bryant Durrell
JK <n...@way.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:23:36 -0000, dur...@innocence.com (Bryant
>Durrell) wrote:
>
>>In article <fgj8o3ds7nc8n21bf...@4ax.com>,
>>JK <n...@way.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:13:52 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>>><mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > He's already a better scorer/rebounder, especially on the offensive
>>>>> > glass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact check:
>>>>> Davis - 18.8 pts, 6.7 off rebs, 12.4 total rebs per 48 minutes
>>>>> Perkins - 13.4 pts, 3.2 off rebs, 10.8 total rebs per 48 minutes
>>>>>
>>>>> yep.
>>>>
>>>>never fall in love with stats. KC jones never had any stats, no one doubts
>>>>his effectiveness.
>>>>
>>>
>>>One does not have to love them to interpret their meaning.
>>
>>5.6 fouls per 48 minutes.
>>
>>8.3 fouls per 48 minutes.
>>
>>OMG!
>
>So what? Like I said. Davis isn't in a position where he has to
>worry about fouls coming off the bench. In his only start he only had
>2 fouls.
Sure. And if you're not worried about fouls, you can be more physical,
which makes a difference in how many rebounds you can get.
You can't just point at per 48 stats without considering a lot of context.
JK
Durrell) wrote:
Perhaps marginally, at best. If you rebound properly, you won't foul
in the process of doing so.
Bryant Durrell
I fundamentally disagree with you on this point, so there's probably not
much reason to continue this.
As Bob said: 29-3. Yeah, we should be making big changes.
JK
Durrell) wrote:
>>Perhaps marginally, at best. If you rebound properly, you won't foul
>>in the process of doing so.
>
>I fundamentally disagree with you on this point, so there's probably not
>much reason to continue this.
Very well.
rmrb
> You can't just point at per 48 stats without considering a lot of context.
>
I highly dislike (NYE resolution-no hating :<)-although I've broken it
already) the per 48 stat. It's unrealistic. Stats are what they are, Say
you rebound 5 in a minute but also foul 5 times? And if you rebound
properly, you should not foul goes out the window in the NBA where a call is
anyone's guess, especially when 'bounding.
No offense to whomever likes the 48 stat thing, just my 2 cents.