leon

[Ryan W]

Kim, you're usually spot on with everything you post,
but I gotta disagree with your claim that Scal's not
cutting into Leon and Baby's minutes.  That's exactly
what he's doing and I don't see how you can argue
otherwise.  Baby, Powe, Posey, KG, and Scal all play a
hybrid 4/5 position.  When Scal plays this hybrid
position, it's more like a 3/4 with no rebounding,
slightly better ball movement, and supposedly better
outside shooting.  When Baby and Powe play it, it's
more like a 4/5 with tough-nosed rebounding and
defensive muscling position, with more layups/dunks,
and better interior passing (in the case of Baby). 
Posey is Scal if Scal had actual talent, athleticism,
and giant brass balls and KG is a combination of
Scal/Posey/Powe/Baby with great intensity,
determination, athleticism, and without their faults
(or the fat asses, a term I use endearingly).  While
Scal plays a different (and seriously less-effective)
version of the 4/5 than do Baby or Powe, they
effectively play the same position on the court and
thus when Scal starts in the absence of KG, he's
taking minutes away from Posey, Powe, and Baby.  I
would argue that those minutes would be better spent
on Baby, Powe, and Posey, both in the short term and
long term view of things.  Pollard has no place in
this discussion, as he's completely entrenched in the
5 position and is pretty much Perk's backup, if
anything.  It's about Scal playing over Powe and Baby
and what that potentially does to both their
development and our ability to win games.

I will agree with you that we're not losing games
because of Scal, mainly because we're not losing many
games period.  And even in those games we do lose,
Scal isn't playing enough to be the scapegoat.  But,
if we look at the games we do win, I think there are
several games where we can point to the play of Powe
or Baby and say it was their play that made
such-and-such win possible (Friday's Timberwolves win
an example of a game Powe helped win, and the Spurs
game an example of one that Baby has helped win).  Can
the same be said of Scalabrine?  Absolutely not.  And
that's where the complaining stems from--Scal ain't
winning us games with his play.  At most, he does
nothing.  And that's when he's doing the 'intangibles'
so very much celebrated by his coach.  

Small intangible digression:  lauding anyone's
intangibles should be done sparingly.  Intangibles are
only intangibles if they've got tangibles to affix
themselves to.  Nobody at the bakery is lauding
Sally's intangibles--that she's always got a smile on
her face, is willing to listen to everyone's problems,
is never taking her breaks, etc...--if she can't
fucking bake a fucking cake.  Scalabrine can't bake a
fucking cake out there, but Doc wants to spent half
his press conference lauding him for shadowing the
ball and taking time of the shot clock.  Yes, Doc,
that was great, but he also didn't collect a rebound
in 22 minutes while playing a position that pretty
much demands rebounding.  When we talk about
intangibles, we are really talking about invisible
things that add to what can be seen.  When we say KG
or Posey have great intangibles, we're really saying
that in addition to their good shooting, rebounding,
defensive prowess, they do the little things that
can't be measured and thus their shooting, rebounding,
defensive prowess is actually better than the
statistics would say.  In Scal's case, he doesn't get
numbers and so even if you try to say that he does the
little things that can't be measured you're aren't
saying much because basically when you add something
that can't be seen to something else that equals zero
(Scal's statistical output), well, you're pretty much
going to get zero no matter what kind of math you're
practicing.

If everybody's effectiveness was measured as
Scalabrine's is on this team, we'd have one horrible
team.  Sure, he *sometimes* does the little things,
but that is NOT a reason to give him playing time. 
Especially when the guys he's playing in front of are
actually contributing to wins.  Powe and Baby have
intangibles too; and in contrast to Scal's, these
intangibles are in addition to the actual tangibles,
like scoring and rebounding.  

I'll leave you with this: in our two biggest wins (at
Detroit and yesterday against San Antonio), an
unheralded, overweight rookie named Glen Davis has
come out of nowhere and surprised the other team and
directly led us to victory.  Those kind of big game
performances are exactly the kind of intangibles that
I'm looking for--the one's that produce wins.  

Ryan
--- Kim Malo <kmalo17 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> Gotta admit I don't understand the continued
> obsession this year with 
> Scal and the sky is falling moaning should he step
> foot on the court. 
> Past years, fine, valid case. But he's spent most of
> this season on 
> the bench where he belongs, getting sparse minutes
> in only a few 
> games, and the only person whose minutes he's really
> taking is 
> Pollard's because he's healthier. He's NOT cutting
> into Leon and BB's 
> development / minutes and he's not losing us games.
> People assume if 
> Scal wasn't out there that they'd be playing and I
> don't think you 
> can do that. The only reason he's seeing a bit more
> play now is to 
> add height that they don't bring and fill a small
> role that Pollard 
> would probably get first shot at if he was healthier
> because he's 
> more of a true center. KG and Perk come back and
> based on what Doc's 
> actually done this season, not just wishful
> thinking, Scal goes back 
> to spending most of his time in the best seat in the
> house to watch the game.



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ