Scal is now the odd man out

[Scal for 3]

-= original quote snipped =-



Wow. Why would anyone want to watch a terrible basketball player play basketball?

Well, beside the fact that I explained it in the post that you quoted, he's probably the hardest worker on the team. That gets him my respect.

And I agree to a point that Scal may be more valuable in the playoffs than Powe and Davis. He's a veteran who has been known to come up in the clutch in the playoffs (in New Jersey) and can stretch the interior defense because he has a decent 3 point shot. He also plays decent defense, sets picks, and does the little things that teams need in the playoffs.

[Pogue Mahone]

A) Just ignore the ignorant. There a plenty of smart posts around here. Dumb posters existed back in the day (I've been reading this board since 03) but there are just more people here now - more observant ones and more clueless ones.

You are probably right.

B) To say Scal is in a shooting slump is like saying Bush is having a bad year as president. Scal was always a horrible shooter. Statistically this his his worst year but his career best year is 40%. That's career best... It's unfortunate, and I think it's all mental with him, since he has excellent shooting form and gets open a ton in the course of a game. If he could drain some with any consistency he'd have a place on just about any roster in the league.

See, I disagree with this, at least in part. I think he is a good shooter when playing off of more talented teammates.

1. Scalabrine had a hot streak at the end of his time in New Jersey. It also coincided with the first consistent regular burn of his career.

To wit, over his last 40 games he put up the following line:

.501 TS% .458 eFG% .437 2P% .372 3P% .754 FT% 24.4 AsR 18.1 ToR 11.6 Usg-R

Those last 40 games constituted 28% of his career minutes played.

Granted, the sample size is not optimal but it was also the first extended period of regular burn in his career. It is sometimes hard to calibrate your shot in spot minutes and blow-outs. Not to mention what the extended minutes do for a player, confidence-wise. Even so, he is not a lights out shooter.

2. Upon signing with Boston, he experienced the "Orien Greene Effect". To wit, as opposed to those extended minutes in New Jersey when he was taking 68% of his shots from six feet and out, he was now taking 81% of shots from six feet and out. Furthermore, in New Jersey he was shooting only 11% (about league average) of his shots with less than 4 seconds remaining on the shot clock. His first year in Boston, he took 21% of his total shots with less than 4 seconds remaining. For a guy who was signed to be a floor spreader and mobile PF defender, that is an awful lot to ask, I should think. For the record, he made shots at other times through-out the shot clock. He did particulary well early to midway through the clock.

3. Seeing somewhat consistent burn last season, Scalabrine put up the following:

.537 TS% .518 eFG% .407 2P% .400 3P% .783 FT% 19.7 AsR 14.4 ToR 10.3 Usg-R

Now, granted, I do recognize that Scalabrine doesn't create for himself very well. That wasn't the reason he was signed. He does find others within the context of the offense, though. He can make shots when playing with competent teammates. He is also adapt at playing as a third player off the pick-and-roll because he knows where to be and how to provide space.

But, unfortunately for him he doesn't fit much anymore.

See, I think he does. Neither Powe or Davis can cover mobile PFs. While Posey can and does for us currently, an injury to Posey or if he opts-out would leave us needing another frontcourt defender. We have Scalabrine on a good contract, especially when you consider his versatility, ability to create scoring opportunities for others within the flow of the offense and ability to hit his outside shot.

To be honest, though, I think the best thing for Scalabrine, as an individual, would be for a change of scenery. He is too good of a player and doesn't deserve the treatment he has received in Boston. Some say that his play has warranted it but I have to wonder why he was boo'ed from jumpstreet. Actually, I don't wonder, I know. It was the end of Antoine Walker v2.0.

The booing has clearly affected his confidence, though. Since he has been with the Celtics, he has played 83 games (1208 MP) on the road and has an .480 eFG%. At home, he has played 83 games (1179 MP) and has an .468 eFG%. League average is about .495 eFG%.

I tend to think that his road performance is closer to his actual performance. I think the incessant boo'ing has made him unconfident in playing his game. I mean, why would there be such a difference in all of his counting stats, across the board, between away and home? So much for the 'Boston fans are the most knowledgeable fans in Sports' bit.

[AWalkerREMIX]

When's the party? I'm gonna get wicked smashed.

[Mahoney_jr]

@Pogue Mahone

Do you have a blog or website, where you publish more of your insightful stats?

[Chief]

"is now" ?

he should never be in the first place..he is a basketball disaster.

[IEcelticfan]

this is waaaaaay off topic (and maybe mentioned already before) but with scal on the IR, looks like there isn't a white player on the active roster. i think just abt every other roster in the league has 1 in their top 12. hmmm...

just saying.

[GuyClinch]

The problem with Scabs is that Posey duplicates his entire skill set - with slightly more athleticism, length and better shooting.

As I have said before coaches look for guys who bring "something" off the bench thats very basic. Bench players essentially have to fill a niche.

With the Posey/Scabs role you don't need alot of guys. The team has chose to "overstock" on the rebounder/enforcer role with Powe and Davis and I think that's a wise choice.

Scabs is overvillified - don't get me wrong. Every guy in the NBA on his second contract can play - even guys who get scant minutes. But sometimes they just lose minutes battles to other players.

Pete

[billfromBoston]

[quote="Pogue Mahone"][/quote]

....Pogue, i'd be dying to know what you feel Scalabrine's optimal role and playing time would be, and it what situations...

I admire your dilligence with the stats, though i'm not sure they prove much more than he is a slightly below average shooter instead of terrible...but I have one major problem with Scalabrine and it is this:

1. No matter what intangibles you bring to the table, (and trust me, i don't ball watch much these days and I typically study the game tape after watching the initial game) a player MUST PRODUCE STATISTICALLY if he is to be a top 8-9 player in a rotation, or a player that plays 20+ minutes.

Scalabrine is a dedicated defender who plays top-notch team defense with fluctuating levels of success in man situations, (sorry, but he does get burned on the perimeter a decent amount.)

Scal is probably the BEST perimeter defender of the 3 true back up 4's and he is extremely helpful on offense by being in proper position, moving intelligently to avoid crowding the ball-handler, and by effectively setting picks to free others..he's a cerebral player to be sure...

...I also give TREMENDOUS credence to the theory that Scal is uncomfortable playing at home because of his treatement by the fans...I've seen this with Mike Dunleavy JR in GS and we've all seen how that's worked out...

BUT

Scalabrine is a PF and that is a PRODUCTION POSITION...the intangible production that he provides most likely accounts for a some tangible statistics, but there simply aren't enough of these to counter his utter lack of tangible statistics himself.

Rebounding is an essential element of a PF's game and if a PF isn't going to be scoring on the inside then he must be hitting his shots consistently enough to keep his defender away from the interior player...even with the intangible stats he produces, its not as if the other players don't produce those intangible stats themselves...both Powe and Davis produce LESS than Scalabrine in this regard, but the differential added to their production on both ends of the court surpasses Scalabrine aggregately on a far more consistent basis.

Scalabrine is a great situational bench player for his versatility and know-how, but NOT A SINGLE GM IN THE LEAGUE would pay him what he's paid or play him on a nightly basis unless injury necessitated it...

For YEARS now i've talked with scouts and GM's around the league and the first thing they always said when I told them I liked the Celtics direction is: "How do you explain the signing of Brian Scalabrine?"

...he was a low-risk, high reward signing by Ainge because Danny thought he saw untapped potential there...it didn't work out that way...what he got was a smart player with GREAT locker room and bench presence who practices hard and helps younger players learn-that alone probably made his contract worthwhile for this team the past few years...

...but Scalabrine's biggest value now is the 3.5 million dollar figure that will help this team to make a trade this off-season or next...his time playing consistently for the Celtics is at an end because superior options with greater potential to help the team win have supplanted him...

...no, Scal isn't a "terrible" basketball player, but the man would be much better if he actually decided to maximize his physical potential by leaning down and becoming more of an athletic specimen...its doubtful he'll ever d o that as it is doubtful he'll find another opportunity in this league to play as often as he did with Boston these past few years...

...that is the reality of Scalabrine's career...solid bench presence and a great "team guy" who was never destined to play more than 10-15 minutes a game...

[Pogue Mahone]

....Pogue, i'd be dying to know what you feel Scalabrine's optimal role and playing time would be, and it what situations...

Optimally he fulfills the role James Posey is currently holding; obviously Posey does it better, though. He can also be used in other instances, match-ups dictating.

I admire your dilligence with the stats, though i'm not sure they prove much more than he is a slightly below average shooter instead of terrible...

I know what you are getting at and I will address your other points below. Basketball is a synergistic game and often a player's performance, especially one who is less skilled in creating his own shot, is often dictated by the actions of his teammates.

Intuitively, offensively talented teammates should make it easier for less talented teammates, who are less adapt at scoring off of their own creation, to be more effective on the offensive end. This is true, for the most part, but there are definitely outliers.

For instance, Rick Davis is an incredibly talented offensive player. He can score, he can even garner a bunch of assists but the game is more about him and plays break down more often than they should. It's just the nature of the beast.

In other scenarios, poor ball-movement, weak spacing and ineffective execution causes lower efficiency. In the recent past, the Celtics were just about league average defensively yet it was because of offensive futility that they couldn't consistently win. Sure, the defense could have and should have been better.

Personally, I am a fan of offensive, free-flowing, fast-paced basketball. I think it is just much more fun to watch. That being said, being a long-suffering Celtic fan, I have seen both sides of the spectrum. As an NBA fan, in general, and overall student of the game, I long ago came to the realization that you can't have one without the other. Well, not if you want to win, at least.

1. No matter what intangibles you bring to the table, (and trust me, i don't ball watch much these days and I typically study the game tape after watching the initial game) a player MUST PRODUCE STATISTICALLY if he is to be a top 8-9 player in a rotation, or a player that plays 20+ minutes.

I agree. And I am telling you that Scalabrine's defensive impact and overall floor awareness are impacting games at very real levels, in spite of the fact that he has been pretty much offensively futile this season.

Scalabrine is a dedicated defender who plays top-notch team defense with fluctuating levels of success in man situations, (sorry, but he does get burned on the perimeter a decent amount.)

Every player gets burned. One reason I like statistics is that they take emotion out of the equation.

Scal is probably the BEST perimeter defender of the 3 true back up 4's and he is extremely helpful on offense by being in proper position, moving intelligently to avoid crowding the ball-handler, and by effectively setting picks to free others..he's a cerebral player to be sure...

...I also give TREMENDOUS credence to the theory that Scal is uncomfortable playing at home because of his treatement by the fans...I've seen this with Mike Dunleavy JR in GS and we've all seen how that's worked out...

BUT

Scalabrine is a PF and that is a PRODUCTION POSITION...the intangible production that he provides most likely accounts for a some tangible statistics, but there simply aren't enough of these to counter his utter lack of tangible statistics himself.

First off, I don't give much credence to positional classification, at least in the accepted sense. I think it does more harm than good. I find that it pigeon-holes players into roles they are often not suited to be fulfilling. Sure, they give a general appearance of where a player will be in the line-up and on the floor but, for the most part, they do nothing more than obfuscate and limit. Therefor, I tend to classify players by role. When talking with someone else about a player, I tend to use positions more as adjectives than nouns. So and so was a former PG ie> This player has retained a lot of the skills normally associated with a PG.

Secondly, ignoring defense for a second, Scalabrine does help an offense far more than his own personal offensive contribution. The same goes for Perkins. It may seem counter-intuitive but it's true. The reason being, imo, is that they create for others by utilizing picks, spacing and traditional passes. That they don't get credit for creation doesn't mean it isn't happening and I think we both realize that.

Thirdly, a player's offense need only be good enough to support his defense. The inverse is also true and I think it is a point that is often forgotten. I guess that has been my general theme in this thread. People love the ability to score and it's what pays the bills but if you are not stopping anyone it doesn't mean jack.

Scalabrine isn't pretty playing basketball but he has varying levels of effectiveness in a myriad of applications. That versatility, perhaps mediocre in some situations, is still more valuable to a team than many are giving him credit for.

Rebounding is an essential element of a PF's game and if a PF isn't going to be scoring on the inside then he must be hitting his shots consistently enough to keep his defender away from the interior player...even with the intangible stats he produces, its not as if the other players don't produce those intangible stats themselves...both Powe and Davis produce LESS than Scalabrine in this regard, but the differential added to their production on both ends of the court surpasses Scalabrine aggregately on a far more consistent basis.

As I mentioned above, I don't pay attention to positions, really. Anyways, Scalabrine does need to rebound better. Part of his poor rebounding numbers in the beginning of the season was that he playing the Loscutoff role to Garnett's Russell. With that being said, on the defensive glass he has been a better rebounder than Davis. Hell, House is out-rebounding Davis defensively. Now factor in that Scalabrine has spent more time on the perimeter defending than Davis and that early in the season, Perkins and Scalabrine were clearing out offensive rebounders so Garnett could make plays. On the offensive end, Scalabrine is outside the arc 90% of the time. And that may be a tad conservative of an estimate. Posey is similar. Scalabrine has been a better offensive rebounder than Posey.

In the spirit of full disclosure, though, Davis has been a very good offensive rebounder and Posey a very good defensive rebounder. As I stated to start off, Posey is better suited to the role that Scalabrine is best suited to fill. That doesn't make him a bum.

Scalabrine is a great situational bench player for his versatility and know-how, but NOT A SINGLE GM IN THE LEAGUE would pay him what he's paid or play him on a nightly basis unless injury necessitated it...

If his defensive impact is as great as I think it is, I would pay him what he is making and be quite happy about it. Then again, I find it funny that people bring up Scalabrine making $3M this season and despite his shooting woes we would have gotten close to $2.2M in performance (assuming he played the same mpg and wasn't a nightly DNP) yet we are only getting $12.2M or so performance out of the $16M player, Ray Allen. Don't get wrong, I like Ray Ray and I value him but his overall play has been largely disappointing in the grand scheme of things. At least commensurate with his actual salary.

Just for Schlitz and giggles, below if the projected fair salary computations for each player on the Celtics. It is currently estimated on a mpg basis; I don't figure in missed games until the end of the season because it is a lot easier to say compare current performance to the player's yearly compensation.

Code: Select all

Player         Projected $      Actual $
allen,ray      $12,200,541.87      $16,000,000
allen,tony      $2,839,354.73      $1,868,141
brown,pj      $610,034.12      $474,285
cassell,sam      $8,810,820.32      $433,632
davis,glen      $1,998,124.69      $427,163
garnett,kevin      $23,143,014.23      $23,750,000
house,eddie      $4,710,761.37      $1,500,000
perkins,kendrick   $6,445,869.49      $4,480,912
pierce,paul      $17,870,510.69      $16,360,095
pollard,scot      $955,466.16      $1,219,590
posey,james      $4,608,305.69      $3,206,000
powe,leon      $3,709,031.70      $687,456
pruitt,gabe      $1,087,553.06      $650,000
rondo,rajon      $12,796,543.67      $1,372,320
scalabrine,brian   $2,203,174.60      $3,000,000


...no, Scal isn't a "terrible" basketball player, but the man would be much better if he actually decided to maximize his physical potential by leaning down and becoming more of an athletic specimen...its doubtful he'll ever d o that as it is doubtful he'll find another opportunity in this league to play as often as he did with Boston these past few years...

See, that flies directly in the face of everything I have heard and that is that Scalabrine is one of the hardest workers on the team and has been since he got here. It has more to do with his body type than anything else.

...that is the reality of Scalabrine's career...solid bench presence and a great "team guy" who was never destined to play more than 10-15 minutes a game...

And I think you are under-selling him. I think he is a 15-20 mpg player who is capable of spot-starting, depending on match-ups.

[sully00]

The Ray Allen comparison is killing me. Trust me I am not some Scal hater I saw him play at USC and he does do some good things here and there. But essentially what is the minimum salary a guy could be worth if he plays 14 % of his teams mins?

Beyond that you aren't even reading your own instrument correctly. Ray Allen is worth 76% of his salary and Scal is only worth 73% of his. But that is ridiculous in itself because there probably isn't 5 and certainly not 10 SGs in the NBA doing a better job on either side of the ball than Ray Allen at any price while I can find 50 guys at the PF spot making less than Scal and playing better even with your warped evaluation system.

Scal is a mop up man on this team and his stats are all relative to that.

[tombattor]

Please, stop with all the Scal BS. The only reason he's popular when he's in the game is because he's white and has red hair. He stands out, but that doesn't mean he's any good. No team going for a championship should have this guy play a major or any role, except the one ML used to have.

Bill is right. I don't care what intangibles he brings. If he wants to play, he actually has to have tangible production.

[GuyClinch]

But that is ridiculous in itself because there probably isn't 5 and certainly not 10 SGs in the NBA doing a better job on either side of the ball than Ray Allen at any price while I can find 50 guys at the PF spot making less than Scal and playing better even with your warped evaluation system.

I agree. The salary scale metric is off. You could sign 5 NBDL guys at league min - play them a ton of minutes and have huge "bargains". You need to reward to flight people more then they are worth.

Pete

[floyd]

No offense intended and maybe it's just because I do stats for a living so I really don't want to think about them in an entertainment aspect of my life, but basketball stats in general just seem pretty useless beyond "this guy's a good scorer" or "this guy's a good rebounder". You can't control for anything so it's pretty hard to prove anything. You're almost never comparing anything under the same conditions, there's so much correlation that you can't model, and so much utility is qualitative.