ImageImageImage

Big Baby at the 3

Moderators: sully00, UGA Hayes, Slartibartfast, 165bows, wetsthebed, Geoffrey P

Gant
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,785
And1: 817
Joined: Mar 16, 2006

Big Baby at the 3 

Post#1 » by Gant » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:14 am

I'm making this it's own topic because I think it's so cool. I've actually had this on my mind since last season but it didn't seem realistic until the nimble footed Baby showed he could hit the jumper and lost a lot of weight. Now both of those things have happened.

Here's a quote from a Frank Dell'Apa article at Boston.com: “It’s spreading the floor and giving my teammates more options,’’ Davis said. “Instead of 15-16 feet, 3-point range gives them another option out there. You’ve got to work on it. I’m going a little further, spreading it out. I’ve got stuff in my game people haven’t really seen yet.’’

Points of interest:
1) Baby has lost a ton of weight (an amazing amount in a short time).
2) He can hit the jumper and is extending his range.
3) Ryan Gomes made the exact same transition in Boston a few years ago.
4) If everyone is healthy there aren't enough minutes at the big man spots. If Perk, KG and Sheed get 30 each, that only leaves 6 for Baby and Shelden.
5) There ARE some minutes available at back up 3.

If this works here's the second "five:"
Center: Rasheed Wallace
PF: Shelden Williams
SF: (not so) Big Baby
SG: Marquis Daniels
PG: Eddie House.

It won't work against everyone but it could work some of the time.

And before anyone says How is Baby going to cover (whatever back up small forward) I would say- How will that back up small forward cover Big Baby?
Slartibartfast
Forum Mod - Celtics
Forum Mod - Celtics
Posts: 7,887
And1: 2,206
Joined: Oct 12, 2004
Location: Too far from Boston
Contact:

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#2 » by Slartibartfast » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:21 am

You and Elrod Enchilada should head to a sports bar and discuss this at length, because I'm pretty sure the idea has been fully renounced by almost everyone else.
User avatar
Banks2Pierce
RealGM
Posts: 12,247
And1: 1,676
Joined: Feb 23, 2004
     

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#3 » by Banks2Pierce » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:22 am

He doesn't have enough game to beat sf's. His post up game is not good enough.

Also, I can see a bunch of backup sf's shredding him on defense. Just off the top of my head with our competitors: Moon and Pietrus would destroy him with quickness.
Gant
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,785
And1: 817
Joined: Mar 16, 2006

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#4 » by Gant » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:23 am

Slartibartfast wrote:You and Elrod Enchilada should head to a sports bar and discuss this at length, because I'm pretty sure the idea has been fully renounced by almost everyone else.


Then everyone must renounce their previous thinking and join Elrod and me at the bar. I'm buying the first round!
User avatar
SeizeCoup
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,122
And1: 75
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#5 » by SeizeCoup » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:24 am

Ehhh, idk Gant. Seems like a little too much to expect. I see him being a space creating center. Boxing out, running the lanes, spreading the D. I think he would have big problems guarding smallforwards. He is an asset to us because he is strong enough to hold a spot against most big guys down in the paint. He's strong and he can take a bang but also takes good charges. So while he doesn't have vertical defense, he can fill up an area. He's quick as a center/pf, but he'd lose that advantage if matched with sf's. IMO.
Gant
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,785
And1: 817
Joined: Mar 16, 2006

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#6 » by Gant » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:25 am

I don't think he would get beaten. He was cutting off point guards on switches last year (and he'll be faster this season). He'd break those pipsqueaks in half on offense. All they could do is foul him.

Open your hearts. Come to the light. Baby at 3 is good.
User avatar
Avalanche
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,708
And1: 569
Joined: May 21, 2007
Location: Australia
Contact:
     

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#7 » by Avalanche » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:28 am

I could definitely see Sheed/KG/Davis out there for stretches without too much concern
Image
Gant
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,785
And1: 817
Joined: Mar 16, 2006

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#8 » by Gant » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:29 am

OK. I'm outnumbered here. I respect all of your opinions and my respect only soars higher when everyone is wrong. :D

I will patiently wait for the season and see if Doc and Danny agree with my master plan for world domination through playing Baby at the 3.

The first round is still on me! 8-)
KyleCleric
Rookie
Posts: 1,021
And1: 1
Joined: Jul 01, 2007

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#9 » by KyleCleric » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:53 am

If he really does get down to 260 or so, it's a possibility. We need someone who can be that bigger defensive option at the forward position. If it's Davis, our team is mostly all set other than another PG. If not, Walker could be that player. If not Walker, we still need a free agent.
lojowo
Rookie
Posts: 1,093
And1: 1
Joined: Aug 15, 2006

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#10 » by lojowo » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:24 am

If KG/Davis are in the floor at the same time, KG guards the 3 before Davis does. Davis can play the 3 role on offense and bull him around the lane.
chas0x01
Sophomore
Posts: 170
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 01, 2009

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#11 » by chas0x01 » Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:28 am

If Baby got his weight down to 260 or even close to that, he could easily handle covering the backup 3 for 5-10mpg.
User avatar
Dirty Water
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,783
And1: 7
Joined: Jan 29, 2005
Location: The future

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#12 » by Dirty Water » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:05 am

Not regularly but depending on who we are playing and the matchup we could possibly throw a big lineup out there with him.
User avatar
mzepol
Analyst
Posts: 3,375
And1: 42
Joined: Oct 13, 2004
 

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#13 » by mzepol » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:13 am

I like the idea, I just don't know if the coaching staff will give it a shot.
Image
User avatar
eris
Veteran
Posts: 2,743
And1: 38
Joined: Jul 16, 2004

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#14 » by eris » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:14 am

Even if he gets down to 270, I think it's worth a try. Davis does have quick feet, but he's trying to move a lot of mass around. Starting and stopping is always going to be a problem for him. I have my doubts about Baby's ability, at any weight, to guard SF's.

Thing is, if Baby gets down to 260 and becomes a mediocre backup 3, will his *lack* of mass also make him ineffective as a backup 5?
User avatar
Dirty Water
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,783
And1: 7
Joined: Jan 29, 2005
Location: The future

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#15 » by Dirty Water » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:30 am

eris wrote:Even if he gets down to 270, I think it's worth a try. Davis does have quick feet, but he's trying to move a lot of mass around. Starting and stopping is always going to be a problem for him. I have my doubts about Baby's ability, at any weight, to guard SF's.

Thing is, if Baby gets down to 260 and becomes a mediocre backup 3, will his *lack* of mass also make him ineffective as a backup 5?

Correct. It's a two way street.
User avatar
SeizeCoup
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,122
And1: 75
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#16 » by SeizeCoup » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:44 am

My point is he's more important to the team as a quicker but shorter center, than he would be a if he were to be a stronger but slower sf. If he is really working on threes then he can be like Rasheed, drawing the other teams' center out of the paint, opening up the lane for the true slashers. Also, he has a great handle for a center, a good one for a pf, and probably mediocre for a sf. He's not good enough in his postup game to make up for the quickness he'd be giving up to the opposition on the wing.

This is not Ryan Gomes we're talking about. It's too late in the game for Davis to completely change his role and responsibilities. Gant you are a god, but I just can't see how this one plays out as you've planned.
User avatar
Captain_Caveman
General Manager
Posts: 7,930
And1: 2,918
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
       

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#17 » by Captain_Caveman » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:45 am

He's not gonna cover anybody at SF. He could not stay with Shard at all in the playoffs, and Shard is basically a big 3. Doesn't have the quickness and it would be a big foul-prone liability on defense.

Since someone mentioned his name, Gomes is listed at 245, and he is barely mobile enough to play the 3 himself.
GuyClinch
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 427
Joined: Jul 19, 2004

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#18 » by GuyClinch » Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:17 am

Doc would never play BBD at the 3. You might as well just play Garnett at the 3 if you want to get all silly..
Hemingway
Banned User
Posts: 3,725
And1: 2
Joined: Jan 11, 2005

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#19 » by Hemingway » Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:36 am

He could probably spend a bit of time at the 3. When we have a matchup we can use, go for it as it gives PP more rest. Other than that we can probably play him for 5 or 6 minute stretches where a couple of those minutes are at the 3. Doc can be creative.
User avatar
thebirdman
Head Coach
Posts: 6,975
And1: 102
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Slovenia
 

Re: Big Baby at the 3 

Post#20 » by thebirdman » Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:23 am

Now that he signed the contract his weight is going up again...

Return to Boston Celtics