Start Big Baby

cfan79 · Post #21 » by **cfan79** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:37 pm

thebirdman wrote:What a terrible opening post...

You didn't exactly bring anything to the table with this awful post.

Keeping Perk as a starter because of our record is silly. That's like saying Doc Rivers is the reason we are winning. Baby brings more to the table then Perk.

theman · Post #22 » by **theman** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:11 pm

cfan79 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You didn't exactly bring anything to the table with this awful post.

Keeping Perk as a starter because of our record is silly. That's like saying Doc Rivers is the reason we are winning. Baby brings more to the table then Perk.

Doc is not getting fired anytime soon.

GreenGrizz wrote:Perk needs to start playing effectively. I would welcome some change after what I have seen him.

Perkins is shooting at 58.9% from the fields. How should he be more effective? The Celtics rank #2 in the number of Offensive and Defensive rebounds they give up to oppenents so the problem isn't there either.

Add to that, I don't think Davis (at this point) has the stamina to play 25+ minutes a game.

Did anyone notice in the Bobcat game Perkins was the only Celtic heading down court after Rondo turned the ball over to Wallace?

Now while Ray Ray is out I would consider this line up:

PG - Rondo
SG - Pierce
SF - KG
PF - Perkins
C - Pollard

Joselo16 · Post #23 » by **Joselo16** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:13 pm

Tricky Ricky wrote:Well I like Perkins toughness but I just wish he could catch the ball, we need Baby off the bench though. Lets get Powe some PT

Its kinda hard to do when you are barely involved in the scoring (for good reasons) and is usually looking to box out when the pass comes. We should all stop expecting anything offensively from Perk and just consider it gravy if it comes.

Joselo16 · Post #24 » by **Joselo16** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:19 pm

Why do you (CFan79) want more offense in our first unit which is already good in that department, Baby needs to come off the bench and provide that spark.

cfan79 · Post #25 » by **cfan79** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:22 pm

theman wrote:Perkins is shooting at 58.9% from the fields. How should he be more effective? The Celtics rank #2 in the number of Offensive and Defensive rebounds they give up to oppenents so the problem isn't there either.

He should be shooting a high percentage because he doesn't take many jumpshots. His offensive rebounding isn't good enough. Perk seems to give up easily on that side of the court.

Post #26 » by **darrendaye** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:24 pm

theman wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Did anyone notice in the Bobcat game Perkins was the only Celtic heading down court after Rondo turned the ball over to Wallace?

Yes. But, I tend to not respond to these types of reactionary threads. The TA stuff and, previously the Scalabrine stuff, I have jumped into the fray as the moaning has be more rampant and involve/involved a larger mob.

Criticism is one thing. But these wild proclamations generally dull my senses and stymie my willingness to engage in healthy debate.

Prophet_C · Post #27 » by **Prophet_C** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:28 pm

cfan79 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You didn't exactly bring anything to the table with this awful post.

Keeping Perk as a starter because of our record is silly. That's like saying Doc Rivers is the reason we are winning. Baby brings more to the table then Perk.

It's not about our record. It's the fact that Perk is a better fit to start because of defense and size. Baby brings more offense than Perk which is what we need.......FROM OUR BENCH!!!

BillessuR6 · Post #28 » by **BillessuR6** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:34 pm

cfan79 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You didn't exactly bring anything to the table with this awful post.

When you start a thread by calling a player a frickin moron, you lose all credibility no matter what the post is about.

And your reasoning shows that you only care about what players do on offensive end...Perk and KG are a great combo and it really angers me how people don`t see the importance and contribution of a role player like Perkins!

I usually enjoy your posts cfan but your opening post really :censored:

...

theman · Post #29 » by **theman** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:55 pm

Using the Lenovo +/- stat to top 5 player combo is PGA + RR and KP.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/le ... it=9&team=

For the four player combos #2-5 all include Perkins.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/lenovo_sort.jsp?pcomb=4&season=22007&split=9&team=

and the fourth best 3 player includes Perkins (guess which is #1)

http://www.nba.com/statistics/lenovo/lenovo_sort.jsp?pcomb=3&season=22007&split=9&team=

ARB729 · Post #30 » by **ARB729** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:21 pm

cfan79 wrote:He should be shooting a high percentage because he doesn't take many jumpshots. His offensive rebounding isn't good enough. Perk seems to give up easily on that side of the court.

Just wondering, but why are you always so negative?

GregB · Post #31 » by **GregB** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:06 pm

I personally think that Perk and KG starting with Baby offense off the bench is better than Baby starting with KG and expecting Perk to contribute offensively off the bench.

Also, To steal a Doc cliche: " It doesnt matter who starts the game, It matters who finishes the game". So even if Perk does start. If the matchup makes sense you should still expect so see Baby finishing off the game with the starters.

cfan79 · Post #32 » by **cfan79** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:18 pm

RedSoxFan729 wrote:Just wondering, but why are you always so negative?

Sorry, I guess I can't help myself. The weaknesses are really gnawing at me. We need another big or Baby has to show Doc he deserves that starting spot.

Celtics_History_Lesson · Post #33 » by **Celtics_History_Lesson** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:33 am

cfan79 wrote:Sorry, I guess I can't help myself. The weaknesses are really gnawing at me. We need another big or Baby has to show Doc he deserves that starting spot.

Isn't it really just being positive about Big Baby. Perkins has been in the NBA for 5 years, Big Baby for 5 months, and Big Baby is at least equal to Perkins already.

Trade Perkins, T Allen, and others for salary reasons to get a veteran center like Brad Miller, with Big Baby around it does make Perkins expendable.

For starting Big Baby or bringing him off the bench, the Celtics have been a great team for the tradition of the 6th man. So consider Big Baby a new McHale, and let Perkins start and get a couple of fouls and then the team gets a big lift from Big Baby off the big bench with big minutes.

Post #34 » by **SuperDeluxe** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:40 am

Celtics_History_Lesson wrote:Isn't it really just being positive about Big Baby. Perkins has been in the NBA for 5 years, Big Baby for 5 months, and Big Baby is at least equal to Perkins already.

I'd rather have Perk alongside Garnett in the starting lineup

dwestside · Post #35 » by **dwestside** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:45 am

Looks like I'm a little late to the party but ....

Just how effective do you expect Garnett to be playing the 5? And what makes you think he'll just slide over without a fuss after a 30-4 start? He's clearly gone on record as hating banging down low with players who have 50 lbs on him.

Perk has played just fine. We need Baby's offensive production for the second unit, and relegating Perk to that unit would be counter-productive.

dwestside · Post #36 » by **dwestside** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:54 am

Celtics_History_Lesson wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Isn't it really just being positive about Big Baby. Perkins has been in the NBA for 5 years, Big Baby for 5 months, and Big Baby is at least equal to Perkins already..

In height and defense?! It's not just about being better, it's about team chemistry. Perk can anchor the defense down low, while Garnett can wander a bit to help. You really think BRAD MILLER is going to come in and be a serviceable upgrade? He won't be effective defensively, and also doesn't really compliment Garnett in terms of inside/outside. They're both extended/perimeter offensive players.

EDIT: OHHHHHHH I remember now. It's CHL. That's the only possible reason someone could consider a Tony Allen + Perkins swap for Brad freaking Miller a fair exchange.

cfan79 · Post #37 » by **cfan79** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:22 pm

Brad Miller doesn't look that bad in comparison to Perk, but I'd rather go with a defensive big. Perks 1 point and 1 offensive rebound against the Nets is unexplainable. No one can defend it.

Post #38 » by **sunshinekids99** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:29 pm

I see no reason to change anything. Perk is playing fine as a starter and Big Baby is adding something off the bench. Plus of course the team is winning, no reason to fix what is not broke.

Post #39 » by **UGA Hayes** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:21 pm

Are you nuts. We should be starting threads about how Perk has transformed himself into one of the 5 best defensive centers in the league. That Bobcats game seemed like the first time all year someone has scores consecutive points in the paint against us. KG has benn getting a lot a credit and frankly IMO a disproportionate amount of it esp when it comes to Perk.

Also his offense is so much better this year its not even funny. He is dunking way more now than ever and has developed a very reliable hook shot in the center of the key. Yes he can turn the ball over if he puts it on the floor but in the grand scheme of his improvements that is a very trival quibble. Lets just be happy that we have a damn good center who is loyal to the team locked up at a discount price.

What a "frickin" ridiculous post.

ARB729 · Post #40 » by **ARB729** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:03 pm

cfan79 wrote:Brad Miller doesn't look that bad in comparison to Perk, but I'd rather go with a defensive big. Perks 1 point and 1 offensive rebound against the Nets is unexplainable. No one can defend it.

Wait I forget, did we beat the Nets cfan? Remind me.