Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time

TJ, I don't know how much you saw Brian play during the critical 9 game stretch while KG was out, but he did some things exceptionally well, and not just on defense. When an opponent scored, BS would quickly, like IMMEDIATELY, take the ball out of bounds and pass it into Rondo's hands so RR could move the ball up court. Rondo loved this as it really sped up the offense and set the tempo at which Rajon likes the team to play. That was just one little thing Scal did, no dawdling on the inbounds pass. I wish the rest of the Celts would learn that one lessson from him.

So, Scal inbounded the ball quickly? I will have to take your word on that.
Every player in the NBA can have 3-7 minute stretches where they play well.

Yes, Scal was very smart about that, a trait that doesn't require physical prowess, just savvy. It's crucial for a running game, yet so many players just lollygag when it comes to inbounding. This has a been a big flaw in Perk's game and Big Baby was guilty of it too - but he improved as the season past went on.

tjmakz wrote:So, Scal inbounded the ball quickly? I will have to take your word on that.
Every player in the NBA can have 3-7 minute stretches where they play well.

TJ,

Absolutely true and correct. Every player in the NBA can have 3-7 minutes stretches where they play well. The problem is that many players need to play 20+ minutes to come up with them. Scal usually came in and did his job, admittedly toiling against his own limitations, in the 10 mpg or so he might be lucky enough to play.

bob

.

Sam wrote:Bob,

Rodman's PER was 14.6. You can find anyone's PER by googling the player's name and adding the word "reference." The first listing will be the one you want. Just go to the "Advanced" section under that player's name, and you'll be "treated" to Hollinger's PER. I believe he even shows them for the original Celtics....the ones in Ireland.

I think the secret to why Wilt's PER is so high is that the term really refers to "Performance Erectosis Repetitio."

Sam

sam,

14.6, huh? Considering the league average is 15.0, that means Hollinger deems The Worm as being slightly below average.

Considering Rodman was a 2x DPOY, 7x NBA Defensive First Tea and 7x NBA rebounding champion and just generally well-known lockdown defensive stopper, it would appear that Hollinger's PER calculation is somewhat, shall we say, myopic.

bob

.

bobheckler wrote:

tjmakz wrote:So, Scal inbounded the ball quickly? I will have to take your word on that.
Every player in the NBA can have 3-7 minute stretches where they play well.

TJ,

Absolutely true and correct. Every player in the NBA can have 3-7 minutes stretches where they play well. The problem is that many players need to play 20+ minutes to come up with them. Scal usually came in and did his job, admittedly toiling against his own limitations, in the 10 mpg or so he might be lucky enough to play.

bob

.

bob,

When you look at Scal's game logs, you will see that in most games he didn't contribute offensively or rebounding at all.
This doesn't even factor in that his defender could help out on other players because Scal was not a threat to score unless he had an open 3 point shot.

tjmakz wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

tjmakz wrote:So, Scal inbounded the ball quickly? I will have to take your word on that.
Every player in the NBA can have 3-7 minute stretches where they play well.

TJ,

Absolutely true and correct. Every player in the NBA can have 3-7 minutes stretches where they play well. The problem is that many players need to play 20+ minutes to come up with them. Scal usually came in and did his job, admittedly toiling against his own limitations, in the 10 mpg or so he might be lucky enough to play.

bob

.

bob,

When you look at Scal's game logs, you will see that in most games he didn't contribute offensively or rebounding at all.
This doesn't even factor in that his defender could help out on other players because Scal was not a threat to score unless he had an open 3 point shot.

TJ,

Once again, I repeat, NOT HIS JOB. His job was to defend 4s and prevent penetrations off of pick-and-rolls out on top. It's hard to get rebounds when you're 20' away from the hoop with your man, like Nowitski. If he put his body on Gasol and kept him away from the boards because that's his job then the only way he'd get a rebound is if the ball came to him, not the other way around. Paul Pierce had his worst rpg and ppg of the playoffs in the conference semis against Cleveland. That's because he was focused on keeping LeBron away from the basket and not on going for the boards or even shooting. In that series, those were not his jobs. Scal was inserted to do specific jobs. That's why he played so relatively few minutes, Doc didn't put him in to guard a low post player like Bosh or Varajao unless he had no choice due to injuries or fouls.

As far as his defender being able to help out because Scal was not a threat to score unless he had an open 3 point shot that's true of Derek Fisher too (34.8% last year, only 38% total fg% including 2s, only 40% fg% career. So he's not a very good 2pt shooter). Who leaves him alone for long? If Scal is only a threat when he's left alone at 3 (he shot .327 from 3 last year and is .350 lifetime), then leaving him alone there has some risk. It might be a lower risk than leaving Pierce go one-on-one, true, but there's at least one player like that on every team. One player where it's better to double him and leave someone open than let him work his will. Shooting 32.7% from 3 is an efg (effective field goal) percentage of 49%.

bob

.

tj,
its your job to create value with what you find in your environment, not mine. sorry my posts never measure up to your expectations. I will try to do better. of course this means you may no longer be my fave. lol

mulcogiseng wrote:tj,
its your job to create value with what you find in your environment, not mine. sorry my posts never measure up to your expectations. I will try to do better. of course this means you may no longer be my fave. lol

Just don't hide behind others like Sam and expect them to speak for you.
Other then describing your illnesses, I don't recall any posts that you have written about basketball that have added much to this board.
I am happy that you are on the road to recovery.

Bob,

Offense was not Scal's job because his offensive game is so weak.
When he was signed as a free agent from NJ I am sure Boston didn't think of him as a PF stopper that wouldn't score or rebound.
If he was on another team I bet you would view him as lucky to be in the NBA as long as he was.

TJ,

I thoroughly resent the crack about others hiding behind me. That's third grade crap (and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt). The general and basketball intellect on this board does not have to hide behind anything or anyone.

And, in case you think this message proves your point, it doesn't. By invoking my name and suggesting that I foster that kind of environment on this message board, you've insulted me personally. I'm not asking you; I'm telling you how I feel. When you say something, you cannot legislate how the recipient will take it.

Sam

Sam,

When someone makes no effort at making comments during these discussions but waits for you or others to do so, I take that as hiding behind them.

What happened to the edict of not being allowed to call others a Troll on this board?

The only comment that I have to make about Brian Scalabrine is that he was a true Celtic. Statistically his numbers reflect very limited and mostly inconsistent opportunities to play.

I have seen enough negative Scal threads to last a lifetime. Quite frankly it sickens me because he is an easy target for anyone that measures a players worth numerically.

dboss

TJ,

I'm not aware of any behavior involving people hiding behind my back, and I guarantee I study the dynamics of this board constantly. How about supporting the validity of that accusation? I'm still thoroughly insulted.

"Troll" may not be the nicest word, although it has come to mean "nuisance" on this board, in comparison to what it implied on BDC. On this board, I seldom see anyone identified in that manner.

Sam

Sam,

Here is a little more accurate definition of a troll:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

There is no difference in the intent of the word troll here on or bdc.
The person that used that word in this thread just used it on a thread this weekend on bdc with the same intention.

PS: You shouldn't be "thoroughly insulted" by someone waiting for you to make comments. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

TJ,

I found a couple of definitions myself:

"Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the Internet, generally on message boards."

"Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone."

Actually, those are pretty good descriptions of how you seem to be regarded generally by a number of people on this board who have contacted me on the subject. I actually thought the "troll" term on this thread was imbedded in a message that otherwise had a tone of good humor, with perhaps just a tad of chiding intended. It was nothing like the contentious, pejorative way in which the word tends to be used on BDC.

You contribute some good stuff to this board—some REALLY good stuff. I've enjoyed off-the-board discussions with you—especially the ones about baseball. Perhaps that's not so strange because baseball is a topic that isn't defined by opposing allegiances between us.

Maybe the problem is that, when you introduce topics involving the Celtics, there often sometimes seems to be a little dig involved. Even the title of this thread seems to be intentionally a little sensationalistic, with a Celtic being the butt of your headline. Sure, you included Lakers in the body of the post, but I didn't believe they received the same prominence as a Celtic did. There's just that little dig here and jab there. Small wonder that perceptions are what they are, particularly in light of natural skepticism engendered by your Lakers allegiance on a Celtics board.

I hope you can shed some constructive light on how to avoid the little tinge of suspicion or apprehension that a number of board members seem to feel when they see you posting. It doesn't appear to exist at all when other Lakers fans post here. I'm honestly not trying to diss you; I'm hoping that, perhaps if I put this subject on the table, we can all be adult enough to arrive, at the very least, with some sort of detente, if not outright mutual agreement.

If you would prefer a private discussion, that would be fine. I just feel that perhaps, if all could participate (with nothing but constructive suggestions please) or at least monitor a conversation, better all-around understanding might result.

Sam

tj,
Anyone who knows me, which here means everybody on this board, none of whom have I met, knows that I don't hide behind anyone. When I called you our favorite troll, it wasn't meant to inflame you or cause you to make an emotional response, although you did. it was to recognize your position here as a fakerfan (Oh, should I not use faker or lacker? )

Now perhaps we can clear this up and put it behind us? Perhaps you think I was waiting for someone to defend me when I said I was looking for Sam's response, but in reality, what I meant, was that I was looking for Sam's response on the statistical bs you were using to prove a point. And of course, he didn't disappoint. For my part, I think you are a jerk and a troll and from what I have seen you engage from a spirit of disruption in order to inflame the passions of the Celtics fans this board was created to serve. But others seem to like you so I will apologize for any and all offenses and promise to never engage, communicate, respond or otherwise have anything to do with you here on this forum. Fair enuf?

Sam: sure didn't mean to cause a commotion, sorry to you and the other members here for doing so. Feel free to boot me off for the worthless malcontent that I am. But please, if you wish to address this further, do so privately, the others don't need this kind of distraction. OR not, as you wish, its your board. LOL

mulcog,

When you bring some relevant basketball knowledge or analysis to this board then we can resume our friendship. Sound good?
Feel free to post your own statistical analysis.
You will cool off and we will chat again. That's the way this cycle works.

Mulcogi, you've got me pegged. Ask a guy out to lunch one week and boot him off the board the next week. LOL.

A tough thing, communicating via only the written word. It's so easy for people to misread the intent in others' posts. It's a real coup when it goes well, but it can be a bitch at other times.

It's always a tough call as to do things on the board or more privately. I usually lean toward privacy. But sometimes I believe others deserve to know that something is being addressed. Sorry if I made the wrong choice this time.

It's supposed to hit 80 degrees up here on Wednesday. My wife and I went swimming in one of our beautiful glacier-carved ponds yesterday, and the water was still amazingly warm. I hope it stays nice for your trip.

Stay well,

Sam

tjmakz wrote:Sam,

Here is a little more accurate definition of a troll:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

There is no difference in the intent of the word troll here on or bdc.
The person that used that word in this thread just used it on a thread this weekend on bdc with the same intention.

PS: You shouldn't be "thoroughly insulted" by someone waiting for you to make comments. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

TJ-

when you create a thread on a Boston board titled "Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time" you shouldn't be surprised that someone would call you a troll.

It's certainly an inflammatory thread. (Imagine the reaction on Lakersground if a Celtics fan started a thread called "Josh Powell least productive Laker ever".) And since the "analysis" in that article was so lame, it should also probably be considered extraneous. So by your definition of a troll, that post definitely qualifies.

You reap what you sow, and you were asking for it with this one.

I really don't give a rat's about Scal or those lists. My only comment is that Gary Payton is the worst Laker ever because of his destructive effect on team chemistry (which was already fragile) in 2004. But of course, he's not even on the list, because it would take someone with actual basketball knowledge to create a real list- not the dimwit who came up with this list.


But back to the real point- if you're going to walk into someone else's neighborhood and call the denizens out to fight, don't act surprised when someone takes you up on it. You can post whatever you see fit- it's a grown man board with grown men (plus Rosie) on it. But don't cry about being defamed as a troll when you act like one.

Sam,
I am really looking forward to the trip. Thanks about the heads up about the temps in the 80s. I will be sure to bring some warmer clothes. LOL

I agree, it can be difficult to decide correctly when confronted by certain situations. I think you do a great job, no more so than when you own your own mistakes. (has that ever happened? you making a mistake, I mean lol)
I'm all for open debate, just don't want to be a distraction to the others. So if this is over, fine. If not, than feel free to start a new thread to discuss it and how we do things. Or do it in private as you wish. Yes indeed, it is difficult to discern the motivations of an other. I thot I was being complimentary by crediting him with a thread that was generating good discussion and being well thot of. I guess I am just plain wrong on all accounts. LOL Oh well...
Mulcogi

bsh,

For every controversial thread I start, I also start a pro-Celtics thread. Are Lakers fans not allowed to post anything that is not pro-Celtics?
There are many negative things that I read that I choose not to post such as the story about Shaq being sued by his IT guy. Not a flattering article for Shaq.

I don't care at all about being called a troll. But when Sam sets the language and conduct boundaries that we are expected to follow and one person goes beyond what is expected and Sam then doesn't say anything, well I am going to address that.

I would have no problems with a Celtics fan posting something negative about Powell. If it's true, then it's true.

For what it's worth, I think Gerald Green was the worst Celtic I've ever seen.

tjmakz wrote:bsh,

For every controversial thread I start, I also start a pro-Celtics thread. Are Lakers fans not allowed to post anything that is not pro-Celtics?
There are many negative things that I read that I choose not to post such as the story about Shaq being sued by his IT guy. Not a flattering article for Shaq.

TJ- you can post whatever you want, but I go back to your definition of a troll.

It would be one thing to start a thread saying "How Much Do You Guys Think Shaq will Help the Cs ?". You could say you don't think he'll be much help, and express a negative opinion about the Shaq acquisition, but that would be a basketball discussion worth having. And the purpose of the thread would be to have a discussion and hear what the other side thinks.

What would be the primary purpose of posting the article about Shaq and his IT guy on a Boston board ? It would be to provoke and inflame. It wouldn't have anything to do with basketball. So to me it makes sense to not post it, and I'm glad you didn't. If a Boston fan posts it, then it's obviously fair game to comment, but I think a Laker fan posting a steady stream of negative threads on a Celtics board is going to seem trollish. If it was major news that was breaking, and you posted it once in a while, that would be one thing, but to post a series of negative things about the Cs resulting from nonsense articles goes against the spirit of the board in my opinion. It doesn't seem very convivial.

I'd rather have a better overall atmosphere in which to discuss and argue about what really maters (actual basketball issues) than a lot of petty little battles over trivial nonsense such as the "worst player" article. And even that article wouldn't have been so bad if it had been presented differently. If the title of the thread had been "ESPN Geniuses strike again", I think it would have gotten an entirely different reaction. But when you title it "Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time", you are looking to provoke people. Maybe not consciously, but if you can't see the difference in tone between those two thread titles it's going to be a long season.

Because there will be plenty of legit arguments to be had on this board, and some of them will get heated. But the way a community such as this one survives the big fights is by having a general atmosphere of grace and respect- a place where the discussions are convivial, and where the participants from both sides build enough respect and credit with each other that when there is a blow up, everyone gets over it quickly and goes back to normal, daily interaction because they think the guy on the other side of the argument is (on balance) a good guy.

I'd rather save the inevitable fights on this board for the things that are worth fighting about than on nonsense articles that have no bearing on anything.

Because if the normal daily interaction becomes contentious due to an endless series of fights over what is ultimately petty nonsense, the board will suffer a "death of a thousand cuts", as the atmosphere will become poisoned and there will be no reservoir of good will to smooth over the inevitable, occasional big explosion.

And voila, this place turns into a version of BDC. For me, that's a big NO THANKS.

TJ,

Based on your post of yesterday, I had hoped things were going in a better direction. But, if you really want to go toe-to-toe about my moderating style, I'll be more than happy to accommodate you either on or off the board.

You could prepare for that match by heeding what BSH mentioned about recognizing your unique position on the board and the fact that you may say things that take on a troll-like aura because it's someone in your posiition saying them. No, everything is not equal, which you knew when I counseled you about the possible pitfalls of membership when you first joined.

If you somehow think that someone in your position can make inflammatory statements about the Celtics and expect to make everything okay by "balancing" them with less inflammatory statements, your reasoning is sadly out of whack.

Seriously, if you really want to go at it, let me know, because I'm really getting fed up with this. I don't believe it's something either I or the members of this board deserve.

Sam