00-01 Player Evaluations

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

Some thoughts, broken down player-by-player.  I don't do grades.  I get 
paid to assign grades, and this I do for fun.

(Some of the included statistics were compiled before the last game, so 
they might be off a little bit.)


Antoine Walker (81 games, 41.9 mpg, 41.3%FG, 36.7%3P, 71.6%FT, 8.9 rpg 
(1.9 off), 5.5 apg, 1.70 spg, 3.71 TO, 23.4 ppg)

Cancerous?  You bet.  Antoine's a workhorse (missed one game because his 
grandma died).  An ultra-competitive freak as Joe H. likes to bring up 
every now and again.  Yet, he is still a flawed player who needs to 
improve his game, because there are aspects of it that are less than 
helpful to the team.  The numbers are, for the most part, good.  A high 
scoring average, somewhat offset by the low shooting percentage.  This 
is the area that needs the most improvement in Antoine's game -- shot 
selection and overall scoring efficiency.  Antoine, all too often, 
drives against 2-3 defenders, or takes the early perimeter shot.  Not 
helpful to the team.  But, he gives you plenty of good things, too.  I 
know some on the list are always down on him, some think he can do no 
wrong, but most, I think (I hope), land somewhere between.  I know that, 
for me, each and every time I'm down on Walker, or his game, he shows me 
something, like shooting the hell out of Portland in the Rose Garden, or 
going on a wild tear with triple-doubles and such.

There's talk of the amount of shots Walker takes.  28 shots is a bit 
much.  On the other hand, Antoine only averaged 21 shots a game for the 
year.  This is more than acceptable.  He and Pierce were the only 
high-caliber offensive players we had.  They needed to take many shots.  
Many were threes.  Big deal.  Acquire (or improve) more players who can 
score and the need for Antoine and Paul to combine for 50 shots a game 
is lessened.

Defensively, Walker is still average, at best.  Just as on the offensive 
end, though, Antoine doesn't have "average" kinds of games.  Either he's 
good or he's bad.  Not a great defender, Walker still comes up with big 
defensive plays (like the end-of-game steal 3 or 4 weeks ago).  He could 
improve his defense.  He's not the full-time matador on defense that 
many make him out to be.  That's not to say that he doesn't whip out 
that red cape on occasion, though, because he does.  (While I'm at it, 
he could also improive his decision-making, especially on the break.  
I'd like to have Antoine run the wing more, get the benefit of those 
easy baskets.  Antoine could also curry the favor of the refs more in 
order to get to the line -- and make no mistake about it, it's not as if 
he's _not_ taking it to the hole and getting hammered, it's mostly that 
the refs don't call it for him.)

Antoine gets a lot of crap, as opposed to Pierce, who essentially gets a 
free ride in the media and on lists such as this.  It's Walker who is 
the focus for the team's failure in many eyes, probably more so now that 
the Ricktator has departed.  Some would like to blame Antoine for 
everything, including a bad economy, the ozone layer disappearing, and 
the high cost of Pabst Blue Ribbon.  But it just ain't so.  As a power 
forward, it seems as if we wished for 22/10/5 averages for Walker.  My 
wish is for him to play the other forward spot and average more like 
22/8/7.  At any moment, he could explode for a triple-double.  He could 
also go 5-22.  It's the nature of the beast.  The beast could improve, 
too, just as he has done every season.  To quote Ah-nold, though, "it's 
definitley not a too-mah!"


Paul Pierce (82 games. 38 mpg, 45.4%FG, 38.3%3P, 74.5%FT, 6.4 rpg (1.1 
off), 3.1 apg, 1.68 spg, 3.2 TO, 25.3 ppg)

Another workhorse, and this from a guy who got stabbed multiple times 
right before the start of the season.  While PP may not have unleashed 
the "full" dragon, he did let it out of the cage upon occasion.  My 
summer dream is for Paul to lift weights.  Lift, Paul, lift.  See Paul 
lift?  A stronger Pierce that retains his quickness will be a tough 
cover for all but a few guys in the league, and maybe even those guys, 
too.  Paul only averaged 18.4 shots a game.  Take more, Paul, take 
more.  The shooting percentage is acceptable, the rebounds are great for 
a guy playing swingman, three-point percentage is also great -- where 
can this guy improve?

Defensive intensity, for one.  There are times when Pierce can look like 
a dominating defensive player.  I don't think he will be a full-time 
great defender, but some improvement in the consistency of his defense 
would be good.

Passing out of the double-team.  This will come, undoubtedly.  What 
amazes me is that Pierce often drives to the hoop between the oncoming 
double-team.  He's very quick, and sometimes, it seems as if he can get 
to any spot on the court he wishes to shoot from at any time.  But he 
could improve his passing, in preperation for when the C's acquire 
players who can make the open jumper.  (OK, cheap shot, couldn't 
resist.)  As with Walker, though, I think there are things that are just 
Paul Pierce.  Like the way in which Paul can seem to disappear on the 
court for a while, usually in the middle of games.  If he starts off 
really well, he will probably end really well, but there's a point in 
the middle of the game where he doesn't seem to affect the game very 
much.  Maybe this is "letting the game come to him" I don't know.

Who's the better player, Paul or Antoine?  I don't know.  In my mind, 
each time I decide that one is better, the other tends to do something 
on the court that makes me waver.  If pressed, I'd have to say Pierce.  
Better offensively, better defensively, less versatile, not as good a 
passer.  At any rate, both of these guys ought to be untradeable, unless 
you get a sweet one-for-one deal (for like a Garnett, Webber, etc.).  In 
other words, not gonna happen.  (The Bibby/Rahim for Walker idea is 
tempting, I'll admit, but as Jim M., has said, the team who acquires the 
best player generally wins out in trades like that.  Walker better than 
Rahim?  Yes.  Better than Bibby?  Yes, though Bibby plays a more 
important position, and it's harder to acquire a really good PG, as 
we've seen.)


Tony Battie (40 games, 21.1 mpg, 53.7%FG, 63.8%FT, 5.8 rpg (1.8 off), 
1.5 bpg, 6.5 ppg)

Battie had a better season than previous years.  Too bad he was only 
available for half the season, and the wrong half for that.  Still, what 
worries me is that C's management thinks of him as a center, a starting 
center, no less.  Tony's shown some improvement in rebounding, and a 
little shotblocking, but he's hardly the next coming of Dave Cowens, or 
even Marcus Camby.  If he's a pivot player, where's his low-post moves?  
He does have a nice short baseline jumper, but what's the deal with 6.5 
points off of almost 54% shooting?  I still think Battie is a power 
forward.  Let him hang around the glass for bounds, feed him on the 
penetration.  Let him work on some back-to-the-basket moves.

It was a more consistent Battie this year, though.  Growing up, Tony 
played guard/forward before he grew inches, not so?  I think Battie 
needs a few years more to season himself as a "big man" in the NBA.  
Pete Newell's big man camp, anyone?  Why do none of our players ever go 
to this?  Am I alone in thinking that Battie (and V, and Blount, and 
maybe Moiso) would benefit greatly?

One things for sure, one way or the other, it'll be a different year for 
Battie next year.  Though he's done well to virtually eliminate the "El 
Busto" tag, there's still room for lot's of improvement.  Battie as a 4 
could be a key to Celtic victories.  As our starting center, he's more 
like a target in the eyes of opposing pivotmen.


Vitaly Potapenko (82 games, 47.6%FG, 72.8%FT, 6 rpg (2.5 off), 2.8 pfpg, 
7.5 ppg)

Good improvement for V this year.  Less bobbled passes, more rebounds.  
Still, he misses more bunnies and layups than a big white stiff has a 
right to.  On the other hand, everytime I watch an opposing team's TV 
guys, they always notice V taking that top of the key jumper and say 
"that's not his shot!" or "we'll give that to him."  Good, because that 
_is_ his shot.

He seems to have become better at position rebounding, too.  As a 
starting center, he'd still be somewhat disappointing, but as a backup 
center/power forward, this guy is good stuff, especially if he improves 
more next season.  He works hard, and he's tough.  We need mean players 
who aren't going to take any guff.  Sure, you move him to get a better 
big man (like you'd do with virtually any of our players), but if that 
doesn't happen, V could be an important key for a playoff-caliber team.  
Improve defensively, and work on that Palacio/V pick-and-pop.  Also, I 
saw some nice outlet passes from V after the coaching change.  If V 
worked even more on his rebounding, with those outlet passes, he could 
be very useful.  Only 2.8 fouls per game, too, not bad.  And I didn't 
notice him doing anything differently, either; the refs just give 
players who've been around longer a break.


Mark Blount  (63 games (49 starts), 17 mpg, 50.8%FG, 71%FT, 3.5 rpg (1.5 
off), 1.17 bpg, 3.9 pgg)

I am suitably impressed.  Remember, this is some IBL guy who only played 
two years in college (oh, if there was _ever_ a poster boy for staying 
in college in order to refine one's game, it's Mark Blount).  Good 
shotblocking skills, but I'd like to see him whip them out on the court 
more.  Not a good rebounder, which is just amazing  to me.  That's a 
serious flaw.  On the other, hand, this guy is dirt cheap so the team 
ought to keep him around.  I suspect that, after Battie went down, 
Blount was the starter so as not to mess up the V-as-Sixth-Man-type 
thing they had going, but Blount is not starting-center quality.  That's 
the problem with our big men: they're decent players, pretty good 
backups, but none of them are really all that good.  They might get 
there, but maybe not.  And it's a talent league.  If you have the chance 
to move all but one for an exceptional big man, then you must do so.  
That's the Holy Grail of almost all teams in the league, and especailly 
our conference.

Anyway, Blount's got a loooong way to go, but, in his first year, he did 
well.  Easily the best of the "big men" brought in throughout the 
Poultrino era -- you know, the Eric Rileys, Schintziuses, et al of the 
world.


Milt Palacio (58 games, 6 starts, 19.7 mpg, 47.2%FG, 33.3%3P, 83.9%FT, 
1.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.38 TO, 5.9 ppg)

Well, ya gotta love Milt.  What's not to like?  Another minor-league 
kind of guy who makes good.  Now, I know a lot of you watch the FSNE 
broadcast, and I can't agree with the gushing praise Tommy Gun gives 
Milt, but I still approve of the way Palacio has played.  For instance, 
he is not the second coming of Eric Snow (yet?), but he is the best 
north-to-south PG we've had on the team since ... um ... wait ... it'll 
come to me ... .

Obviously, he needs to work on his outside shot, as well as all aspects 
of his game, as it _is_ only his first year, but it's a good start.  
Look at the numbers: 47% from the field for a guard?  Good job.  (A lot 
of that is his ability to get to the basket.)  The three point 
percentage is also suprisingly good -- 33.3%?  Keep shooting them, 
Milt.  Like Blount, clearly the best of the crop of guys who have 
paraded through the team in order to attempt to play his position.  Tyus 
Edney, Wayne Turner, Rick Brunson, etc, etc, etc.  Milt's a better find 
than any of them.


Chris Herren (25 games, 7 starts, 16.3 mpg, 30.2FG%, 29.1%3P, 75 FT%, 
2.2 apg, 0.8 TOs, 3.3 ppg)

I think Herren's got something to give to the team, and, not being from 
the NE, I've got no hometown axe to grind.  I just think he's a tough 
kid who plays hard, all the time, and does have some skills -- outside 
shooting, willingness to drive to the hoop, ability to pass -- that 
could make for a good point guard in years to come.  This year, injuries 
and some bad numbers combine to make him seem less attractive to the 
team.  I mean, 30% from the field?  29% on three-pointers?  Yikes.  I'd 
still like to see him around next year, though, even if we do acquire 
another point guard (and we should, I think).  If Kenny and Brown 
return, that'd be five guys, though, and something's got to give.  It'd 
probably be Herren, but I'd rather have a guy on the upswing than one or 
two on the downward turn.


Kenny Anderson (33 games, 28 starts, 25.7 mpg, 38.8%FG, 33.3%3P, 83%FT, 
4.1 apg, 1.58 TOs, 7.5 ppg)

Kenny, Kenny, Kenny.  I don't what's going on, and I don't really care.  
This is what I feared when the team got Kenny: a salary-cap albatross 
who eventually won't be useful to the team.  Kenny Anderson's supposed 
to be a decent point guard in this league, and this year, he was not.  
Can Anderson turn it around?  Maybe, but my vote would be to cut him, or 
allow him to languish on the bench (if the team can handle what that 
might to do to the chemistry of the team), unless he shows a return to 
form early on next year (as in the pre-season).  The Anderson/Williams 
for Baker/Patterson trade is attractive simply because we rid ourselves 
of two salary cap anchors and only get one in return, plus an actual 
player in Ruben.  Using the Meninno Method (tm), we also win, getting 
the best player (again, Patterson) of the four guys involved.

Anyway. Kenny makes me dream of these sorts of things, which is unusual 
for me.  Final analysis: I like Kenny, I really do, but I'd rather he 
excuse himself from the team and see if he can regain what remains of 
his career with another team.  An owner who actually would be willing to 
spend money for the good of the team would be beneficial right about 
now, because he/she could buy the hell out of Kenny's contract and still 
have some left over to purchase that first-class ticket out of town for 
him.


Bryant Stith (78 games, 74 starts, 32.1 mpg, 40.1%FG, 37.6%3P, 84.5%FT, 
3.6 rpg, 1.19 spg, 1.15 TOs, 9.1 ppg)

Our third-leading scorer can't average ten points a game and shoots 40% 
from the field.  Not good.  My brilliant observation is that Stith ought 
not to be our third option on offense.  He's a shooting guard who 
doesn't shoot all that well.  This is not to say that I don't want Stith 
on the team; far from it.  If the team can sign him for reasonable 
money, I say bring him back.  He gives you actual veteran leadership, 
tough, all-out play on the court, defensive savvy, and yes, he can 
score.  It's just that if he's the third option, that's not very 
efficient.  I'd like to see him come off the bench as a sparkplug for 
the team.  At this point in his career, he's probably maxed out his 
potential, but if he could improve that shooting percentage, he'd be a 
real factor next year.  Plus, he does a lot of things for the team that 
don't show up in the statistics.


Eric Williams (81 games, 21.5 mpg, 36.2%FG, 33.1%3P, 71.4%FT, 2.6 rpg, 
6.6)

Paging Eric Williams, paging EWilliams... .  I'll admit that EWill 
intrigued me when he first rejoined the team.  He's not the same type of 
player he was in his first go-around in green, but he had promise.  
Then, Mr. "I Didn't Even Pickup a Basketball During the Offseason" 
showed up and I lost what little interest I had in him as a player.  Can 
still shine, as in that shot he made (forget against which team) to help 
ice it in the last month of the season, but let's talk turkey.  36% from 
the field?  Only 71% on free throws?  Only getting the line 231 times?  
What up with that?  Whither Eric Williams?

I must have also missed that chrysalis transformation he underwent to 
become the team's defensive stopper.  Now _there's_ an example of the 
hype making the thing so.  Williams isn't even a very good defender, but 
there he was, being touted as a great defender late in the season.  
Sorry, I must have missed it.  (In a brilliant move, Obie had EW guard 
Iverson in that last Philly game.  Now, I know, I know, this is AI, and 
he does get away with that carry/crossover, and he is very quick, but he 
left Eric going one way, giving him a bus ticket to Atlantic City, while 
there was only a cartoon puff of smoke in the place where Iverson was.  
Hey, look, isn't that AI
driving unimpeded to the basket?)  I know this is only one time, but I 
just don't buy EWilliams as a defensive stopper.

And if he isn't, then the team is paying a lot of money (a lot of money) 
for a guy who's giving you 6.6 ppg on 36% in over 21 minutes a game.  
Not good.  Like most of our players who don't produce as much as we'd 
like, though, his large salary makes him virtually unmoveable.  Then 
again, that's what they said about Juwan Howard and Rod Strickland.  We 
need management to come up with a bold move to rid ourselves of some of 
these contracts.  Now is the time, the time is now.


Jerome Moiso (24 games, 5.6 mpg, 40%FG, 42%FT, 1.8 rpg, 1.5 mpg)

Woeful.  Just woeful.  There's nothing in his stats to make me think 
Moiso is even a decent NBA player, much less a top pick in the draft.  
On the other hand, stats don't tell the whole story.  Many an NBA player 
has a bust for a first year (Baron Davis, anyone?), but, for some 
reason, I think Moiso's "bustness" might continue for a few years.

I know many see a lot of potential in Jerome.  So do I.  But potential 
isn't performance.  Plus, what's this crap about wanting to play for 
another team in the summer league?  Like hell.  The Celtics pay his 
salary, he ought to play for the squad the team wants him to.  Don't 
want to play for us?  Fine, we'll just take our garaunteed contract here 
and rip that puppy up.  Bye, bye, multi-million dollar, multi-year 
contract.  Have fun trying to make that other team's season roster.

Ok, I'm better now.  I understand the fan's wanting to see more of 
Jerome in the last games; so did I, but if a guy doesn't show he's ready 
for the show in practice, then he ought not to play.  I've gotta think 
that the coaching staff, who sees more of him than you or I combined, 
has a better handle on his progress than we do.  I hope so, at least.


Adrian Griffin (44 games, 8.6 mpg, 34%FG, 34.6%3P, 75%FT, 2 rpg, 2.1 ppg)

Well, what can you say?  In trying to find soemthing good to say about 
AG's season, I can come up with: "well, it's over, at least."  Talk 
about your woeful regressions.  Was this the same guy we saw the in the 
early part of the year before?  Injuries and family problems probably 
had a lot to do with it.  Guy's probably exhausted, as well.
I sure hope Old School can turn it around, though, because, like Stith, 
Griffin just does good things on the court.  Need a rebound, a steal, a 
defensive stand?  Griffin's a good man for the job.

Still, it's obvious Adrian performed poorly during the year.  Strangely, 
he shot almost the same percentage from in front of the arc as behind 
it.  Maybe that's something to look at as a positive, I don't know.  Can 
I say it again?  I really hope AG turns it around early next year.  
Really.


Chris Carr (35 games, 8.8 mpg, 47.3%FG, 45.9%, 76.7%FT, 4.8 ppg)

Carr's problem is the team's problem: this glut of talent at the 2/3 
positions.  Our cup runneth over, in quantity, if not amazing quality.  
On the other hand, our two best players seem to be best suited for the 
swingman positions, as well, so Carr may never get a chance to show off 
his suprisingly not terrible defense and offensive efficiency (look at 
those shooting percentages -- across the board, field goals, three 
pointer, free throws -- not bad at all).  Did I mention that his defense 
didn't stink?

Still, we've got a ton of swingman, and we'll probably draft one or 
maybe even two more.  A few people are just going to be left out in the 
cold, and Carr's probably one of them.


Walter McCarty (60 games, 8 mpg, 35.7%FG, 33.9%3P, 78.6%FT, 1.4 rpg, 2.2 
ppg)

Compared to Moiso, Wallah looks like he has a clue.  Ah, whaddaya gonna 
say? I will admit that he did seem to play the third-string center 
position reasonably (if suprisingly) well.  In lighter moments, I 
actually think McCarty might have a place on the team.  His defense can 
be good.  He can help when the team wants to press.  Maybe he could be a 
decent "utility player" like in baseball.  He can play 3, 4 or 5 
(depending on the matchup, he could also get really beaten really badly, 
too).  I hear he has a nice voice ... .


Randy Brown (54 games, 35 starts, 22.9 mpg, 42.2%FG, 0%3P%, 57.5%FT, 1.8 
rpg, 2.9 apg, 4.1 ppg)

I like Randy Brown.  He brought some veteran leadership to the team, 
scrambled on defense, and passed the ball well enough.  But it's over, 
Randy.  Retire.  Become a coach.  Injuries and age have combined to end 
your useful career.  The C's need a PG who can do what a younger Randy 
Brown could, plus hit the outside shot.  Palacio (and/or Herren) could 
be like that.  Let Randy  coach from the sidelines, where he won't take 
up cap space.  Thanks for the tough play last year, here's a nice job.  
Please take it.  (Now, If Brown can avoid injuries ... I say again, if 
he can _avoid_ them ... next year, he might prove me wrong.  Love him 
to.)


(I didn't mention Overton or Brunson because they were only around for 
seven games each, and they're not in the picture now.  Stats from 
www.bostonceltics.com.)

So these are my thoughts, yours are welcome in response.


Regards,

(The Celtic "Tird",
  Celticus "tirdius")
mailto:celtictird@yahoo.com