Fan favorite Scalabrine

Tue Feb 12 06:04:32 CST 2008

Scal was mush to begin with and now has turned to drool. He has to go down 
as one of the biggest flops in Celtics History. Sure he's a nice guy (as far 
as we know). There has to be someone out there for grabs that can pull down 
1 rebound and score a point. Funny so many were against the dancers but want 
a Human Mascot.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bosox18 at charter.net>
To: "The Boston Celtics Mailing List" <celtics at igtc.com>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:52 PM
Subject: Fan favorite Scalabrine

>I have to agree with Ryan on this particular occasion. Scal is playing 
>terribly even by his own standards. He's the poorest rebounding 4 in the 
>league and his supposed strength -- besides his intangibles -- is his 
>non-existent perimeter shooting, in which he has absolutely no confidence.
>
> I almost could have kissed Jeff Van Gundy Sunday when one announcer talked 
> about Scal's 3-point marksmanship and Van Gundy took him to task, mocking 
> the redhead's wretched 32 percent shooting.
>
> At least three or four times during that game, though, they talked about 
> how Scal was a huge fan favorite. Can this possibly be? I've taken the 
> cheers for Scal to be good-natured support for the handicapped JV kid who 
> comes in with a 45-point lead. Now that we're winning, he's a lovable 
> victory cigar, right? Has it become something more? Is he really a fan 
> favorite to the uninformed masses?
>
> Steve O
>
>
> ---- Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Boston Celtics Mailing List
>> celtics at igtc.com
>> http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Boston Celtics Mailing List
> celtics at igtc.com
> http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics 