I'm pretty satisfied with this Stiemsma, however, I think it will benefit him a lot if he bulks up say 10-15 lbs
other than that, hes blocking shots, taking charges, and has a nice sweet jumper
Not even close. He'll never be the force that Perk was inside defensively.yeah, i am with you on this one.
He's giving us some really good minutes lately, but I have a hard time rating him above Perk when:
a) He can't stay on the court for starter's minutes due to fouling
Perk is arguably the most limited player to start for a championship team. Mind you as a starter he didn't play that many minutes or finish out games. Hard working guy but a center that can play low post defense really well, block shots and sometimes set good picks (I seem to remember lots of foul calls on picks); well it doesn't take much to have better potential.
One of my most dreadful perk era memories was perk getting the ball on the top of the key, he couldn't shoot it, dribble it or pass it that well. Stiemsma can hit the outside shot, you have to guard him. His shot blocking is on par with best in nba and his passing is nice. His foot speed is way above a healthy Perk and he simply seems to have a better basketball iq or understanding of the game.
I'm glad Perk got the contract because OKC is probably cringing.
:O) yes i can hear tommy now, perk would always want to dunk, take the ball low gather himself.....and get strippedPerk is arguably the most limited player to start for a championship team. Mind you as a starter he didn't play that many minutes or finish out games. Hard working guy but a center that can play low post defense really well, block shots and sometimes set good picks (I seem to remember lots of foul calls on picks); well it doesn't take much to have better potential.
One of my most dreadful perk era memories was perk getting the ball on the top of the key, he couldn't shoot it, dribble it or pass it that well. Stiemsma can hit the outside shot, you have to guard him. His shot blocking is on par with best in nba and his passing is nice. His foot speed is way above a healthy Perk and he simply seems to have a better basketball iq or understanding of the game.
I'm glad Perk got the contract because OKC is probably cringing.
Perk also has that slow gather and gets stripped because of that. I don't know if Stiems has that slow gather though.
He is a better shot blocker and shooter but he falls short on low post positional D. Neither was anything but average rebounders for their size.
He is a better shot blocker and shooter but he falls short on low post positional D. Neither was anything but average rebounders for their size.
good points. and neither really should be starting on an nba team.
the steamer is a very nice backup center. but unless he suddenly develops better athleticism, gets tougher under the basket, and lowers his number of fouls, i dont see him as moving beyond that level in the future.
i wish he could rebound better than he does, as well as block out more effectively. maybe the coaches can improve his play in these areas.
I put undecided.
Perkins did some nice things here. Yes he is way over rated by some Celtic fans. His defense benefited a great deal from playing alongside of KG(as does Stiemsma's). Offensively other then setting picks he was just about useless and many of his picks were of the moving, offensive foul variety. He was someone you didn't want to see in the paint if you were a slasher because he was going to hammer you. He made opposing players earn everything they got in the paint.
Stiemsma is a different kind of player. He is a very good shot blocker. He moves his feet better then Perkins does. He isn't nearly as much of a liability on offense as Perkins is. He also at least at this point isn't the deterrent to opposing players driving to the hole that Perk was.
Stiemsma at this point isn't better then Perkins was before Perk tore his knee up but if he works hard he could be as good or even better IMO.
:O) yes i can hear tommy now, perk would always want to dunk, take the ball low gather himself.....and get strippedPerk is arguably the most limited player to start for a championship team. Mind you as a starter he didn't play that many minutes or finish out games. Hard working guy but a center that can play low post defense really well, block shots and sometimes set good picks (I seem to remember lots of foul calls on picks); well it doesn't take much to have better potential.
One of my most dreadful perk era memories was perk getting the ball on the top of the key, he couldn't shoot it, dribble it or pass it that well. Stiemsma can hit the outside shot, you have to guard him. His shot blocking is on par with best in nba and his passing is nice. His foot speed is way above a healthy Perk and he simply seems to have a better basketball iq or understanding of the game.
I'm glad Perk got the contract because OKC is probably cringing.
Perk also has that slow gather and gets stripped because of that. I don't know if Stiems has that slow gather though.
I like perk as a player and love his work ethic but he is highly overvalued by some here
so limited players to start for championship teams? after a shower & coffee I come up with the bulls duo Luc Longley & Bill Winnington, I believe they were both starters. Longley was a good all around player but not someone I would consider a starter, Winnington who I could have the last name wrong, ran floor good, had a jumper and banged
any other names come to mind?
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.
I think Stiesma has already passed Perk's skill level. Perk is a better defender, I think, but I can't think of anything else he does better than Stiesma on the court.
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.
I realize how many he blocks/alters. I think your forgetting about the years where perk averaged 8ppg 8 rpg and 2 blks.
Perk also altered alot of shots and did things that don't show up on the stat sheet
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.
I realize how many he blocks/alters. I think your forgetting about the years where perk averaged 8ppg 8 rpg and 2 blks.
Perk also altered alot of shots and did things that don't show up on the stat sheet
Perk was my favorite Celtic every year he was on the team. But he only averaged 8 8 2 one year: '08-'09.
He's also never averaged more than 0.4 steals per game. Stiemer's 50% higher than Perk's peak at that playing 12 minutes per game.
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.
I realize how many he blocks/alters. I think your forgetting about the years where perk averaged 8ppg 8 rpg and 2 blks.
Perk also altered alot of shots and did things that don't show up on the stat sheet
Perk was my favorite Celtic every year he was on the team. But he only averaged 8 8 2 one year: '08-'09.
He's also never averaged more than 0.4 steals per game. Stiemer's 50% higher than Perk's peak at that playing 12 minutes per game.
RyeNye said that Steamer has better defensive stats than Perk at any point his career. I only needed one year to prove my point. And the year after that Perk average 10 ppg, 7.6 rpg and 1.7 blk, again, not too shabby.
Im pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.
I realize how many he blocks/alters. I think your forgetting about the years where perk averaged 8ppg 8 rpg and 2 blks.
Perk also altered alot of shots and did things that don't show up on the stat sheet
Perk was my favorite Celtic every year he was on the team. But he only averaged 8 8 2 one year: '08-'09.
He's also never averaged more than 0.4 steals per game. Stiemer's 50% higher than Perk's peak at that playing 12 minutes per game.
RyeNye said that Steamer has better defensive stats than Perk at any point his career. I only needed one year to prove my point. And the year after that Perk average 10 ppg, 7.6 rpg and 1.7 blk, again, not too shabby.
Your claim about "all those years" wasn't true, and somehow my guess is RyeNye wasn't just talking about rebounds and blocks per game. PPG isn't a defensive stat and Stiemer clearly already has better stats on blocks than Perk ever had.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Under the Total QBR, Tim Tebow performed better on Sunday than Aaron Rodgers.
Rodgers, whose Packers won at the Georgia Dome, completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns. His Total QBR was 82.1.
Tebow, whose Broncos lost at home to the Chargers, completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown. And he ran the ball six times for 38 yards and a touchdown. And his Total QBR was 83.2.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.
It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.
Furthermore the eye test fails a ton in baseball because the difference between a great fielder and a terrible one is 30 runs prevented over 100+ games of baseball. How in the world can you truly note that level of defensive record keeping. Instead you notice how fast a guy is or how many memorable plays he makes (which are only tangentially related to his overall defense).
One statistic has an outlier (in your mind), thus all are invalid. Great logic their Lou.Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Or how about this one,QuoteUnder the Total QBR, Tim Tebow performed better on Sunday than Aaron Rodgers.
Rodgers, whose Packers won at the Georgia Dome, completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns. His Total QBR was 82.1.
Tebow, whose Broncos lost at home to the Chargers, completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown. And he ran the ball six times for 38 yards and a touchdown. And his Total QBR was 83.2.
my eyes tell me that Rodgers is a better QB than Tebow, but how can I ignore this EVIDENCE!?!?!?!
He has had one bad defensive year of his career, the year was 2009. His numbers before that were stellar and the numbers since have been stellar.It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.
Furthermore the eye test fails a ton in baseball because the difference between a great fielder and a terrible one is 30 runs prevented over 100+ games of baseball. How in the world can you truly note that level of defensive record keeping. Instead you notice how fast a guy is or how many memorable plays he makes (which are only tangentially related to his overall defense).
Im not making anything up. please see the attached link, this was a very big deal in boston a few years back. And was the reasoning for Theo signing a 40 year old center fielder to a 2 year deal. Please get your facts straight before accusing me of making something up.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/314011-the-limitations-of-defensive-metrics-jacoby-ellsbury
One statistic has an outlier (in your mind), thus all are invalid. Great logic their Lou.Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Or how about this one,QuoteUnder the Total QBR, Tim Tebow performed better on Sunday than Aaron Rodgers.
Rodgers, whose Packers won at the Georgia Dome, completed 26 of 39 passes for 396 yards and two touchdowns. His Total QBR was 82.1.
Tebow, whose Broncos lost at home to the Chargers, completed four of 10 passes for 79 yards and a touchdown. And he ran the ball six times for 38 yards and a touchdown. And his Total QBR was 83.2.
my eyes tell me that Rodgers is a better QB than Tebow, but how can I ignore this EVIDENCE!?!?!?!
But lets look more closely at it, this really is a matter of a rate statstic looking strange. QBR is based on yards per play not total prodution:
Rogers was sacked 4 times for 27 yards and lost one yard on a rush attempt. So he produced 368 yards on 44 plays where he passed, dropped back, or ran. Thats around 8.3 yards per action play and he had two touchdowns in 44 plays. Additionally an element of QBR is that YAC aren't weighted as highly as yards through the air so some of those yards are discounted.
Tim Tebow wasn't sacked and had a total of 117 yards on 16 action plays. That's 7.31 yards per action play, and he also produced two touchdowns but in 16 action plays.
So the yards were slightly in Rodgers favor but Tebow produced more scores per play by a wide margin.
If it makes you feel better Tebow ended up with the total QBR near the very bottom and Rodgers was at the very top:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr
That's my point though, you can't just say "eye test thus its not worth looking at". All the eye test is at its core is a previously held opinion. Instead look at the overall body of evidence and make your judgments from there. Just saying: the numbers are stupid I know player X is better than player Y is overall awful way to process information.
Im just saying that in my mind defensive stats in general are flawed and using stats as hard evidence when they don't pass the eye test isn't the correct way to look at things.
And I don't think I said that because on stat is flawed all are flawed, I just used it as an example to show that they can be flawed and shouldnt be taken as the end all be all. But I do appreciate the strawman.
He has had one bad defensive year of his career, the year was 2009. His numbers before that were stellar and the numbers since have been stellar.It'd help if you weren't making up a false example. His defensive numbers are flat out good for every year but one.Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
Ah, yes, the elusive eyeball test, whereby one person can just dismiss every bit of evidence that runs contrary to what he thinks is the case with vague mumblings of "Well, *I* see it differently ..."
EDIT: I am not saying that Stiemsma is definitely better than Perk, by any means. The sample size is still too limited to really say one way or the other. I am also not saying that stats are everything in basketball. Still, I hate it when people dismiss stats with the 'eyeball test,' because it is such an utterly meaningless term that just brings us back to everyone can say whatever they want. "I think Avery Bradley is better than Dwyane Wade. After all ... EYEBALL TEST!"
Right because stats that say the Jacoby Ellsbury is a subpar defensive centerfielder hold alot of water.
Furthermore the eye test fails a ton in baseball because the difference between a great fielder and a terrible one is 30 runs prevented over 100+ games of baseball. How in the world can you truly note that level of defensive record keeping. Instead you notice how fast a guy is or how many memorable plays he makes (which are only tangentially related to his overall defense).
Im not making anything up. please see the attached link, this was a very big deal in boston a few years back. And was the reasoning for Theo signing a 40 year old center fielder to a 2 year deal. Please get your facts straight before accusing me of making something up.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/314011-the-limitations-of-defensive-metrics-jacoby-ellsbury
You're making up a false example because you're claiming an entire metric is flawed because one player you love had one bad year based on it. In baseball that happens, players have bad defensive or hitting years. Its just with Ellsbury it was his first big inning year and it casued the Red Sox serious concern committing to him long term.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4727&position=OF#fielding
I'm too lazy to do it, but shouldn't someone have posted numbers from MySynergySports.com by now?I'm at work, so no silverlight sadly.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
I think Stiesma has already passed Perk's skill level. Perk is a better defender, I think, but I can't think of anything else he does better than Stiesma on the court.
Perkins was a better defender, better rebounder and better low post scorer.
Perkins turned it over a lot in the post, but he still converted at a fairly respectable clip when he got his shot off.I think Stiesma has already passed Perk's skill level. Perk is a better defender, I think, but I can't think of anything else he does better than Stiesma on the court.
Perkins was a better defender, better rebounder and better low post scorer.
I disagree that Perk was a better low post scorer. I won't believe that any player in the NBA is a worst low post scorer than Perk, until I see it and I don't see Stiesma being a worse scorer than Perk.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
Elsbury wasn't Dwight circa now though, he was more like Dwight in 2005-2006 (his second year) or Greg Monroe now (his second year).And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.
Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.
I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.
Yeah but both DRTG and on/off court numbers should have the same amount of minutes next to KG, neither are adjusted for teammate quality from what I understand.I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.
Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.
I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.
I bet ya his defensive numbers when he's playing with KG (like Perk) are much better.
Elsbury wasn't Dwight circa now though, he was more like Dwight in 2005-2006 (his second year) or Greg Monroe now (his second year).And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
There is no comparison and never will be. Two completely different players.
Steimsma will never be strong enough to anchor a defense. Perk anchors the defense and directs traffic on arguably the best team in the NBA.
Steimsma will have a long career as a solid backup center. His skill level will get better but he's not going to get stronger.
Yeah but both DRTG and on/off court numbers should have the same amount of minutes next to KG, neither are adjusted for teammate quality from what I understand.I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.
Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.
I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.
I bet ya his defensive numbers when he's playing with KG (like Perk) are much better.
Has to be.Yeah but both DRTG and on/off court numbers should have the same amount of minutes next to KG, neither are adjusted for teammate quality from what I understand.I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.
Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.
I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.
I bet ya his defensive numbers when he's playing with KG (like Perk) are much better.
Yes, I was somewhat answering a different question. But the difference between the two stats you quote is the 'per possession' aspect of one, no?
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and say that the hypothesis that Stiemsma is better than Perkins on defense right now does not fail the eyeball test. I don't think that it is blindingly obvious who is better just from casually watching several games, so I am open to the numbers persuading me in either direction. So, if there are metrics that say Stiemsma is the better defender, I don't think that is evidence that those metrics are flawed.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and say that the hypothesis that Stiemsma is better than Perkins on defense right now does not fail the eyeball test. I don't think that it is blindingly obvious who is better just from casually watching several games, so I am open to the numbers persuading me in either direction. So, if there are metrics that say Stiemsma is the better defender, I don't think that is evidence that those metrics are flawed.
Take a look here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2012.html
Stiemer has the best defensive rating on the team and he is tied for third on the team in win shares per 48.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and say that the hypothesis that Stiemsma is better than Perkins on defense right now does not fail the eyeball test. I don't think that it is blindingly obvious who is better just from casually watching several games, so I am open to the numbers persuading me in either direction. So, if there are metrics that say Stiemsma is the better defender, I don't think that is evidence that those metrics are flawed.
Take a look here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2012.html
Stiemer has the best defensive rating on the team and he is tied for third on the team in win shares per 48.
Using the same metric Pierce and Sasha are equally good defensively. Interesting
I think if you gave most GMs a stratigh up choice for this season between Perk or Stiems, money not a factor, most would take Perk.
I think if you gave most GMs a stratigh up choice for this season between Perk or Stiems, money not a factor, most would take Perk.
GMs tend to have a bias towards veterans over rookies (especially rookies who aren't first round picks), so that's not a great argument in favor of your point. Those same GMs would take Keyon Dooling over E'Twuan Moore, a choice that would have been strongly disputed on this board a few weeks ago.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and say that the hypothesis that Stiemsma is better than Perkins on defense right now does not fail the eyeball test. I don't think that it is blindingly obvious who is better just from casually watching several games, so I am open to the numbers persuading me in either direction. So, if there are metrics that say Stiemsma is the better defender, I don't think that is evidence that those metrics are flawed.
Take a look here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2012.html
Stiemer has the best defensive rating on the team and he is tied for third on the team in win shares per 48.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and say that the hypothesis that Stiemsma is better than Perkins on defense right now does not fail the eyeball test. I don't think that it is blindingly obvious who is better just from casually watching several games, so I am open to the numbers persuading me in either direction. So, if there are metrics that say Stiemsma is the better defender, I don't think that is evidence that those metrics are flawed.
Take a look here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2012.html
Stiemer has the best defensive rating on the team and he is tied for third on the team in win shares per 48.
You also have to consider that, beyond the fact that many of Steamer's minutes come against backups, he's 11th on the team in minutes per game. When he's in a bad matchup he won't play a lot, when he's playing well he'll get more minutes.
And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.
We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.
Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."
You know what? I'm just going to go ahead and say that the hypothesis that Stiemsma is better than Perkins on defense right now does not fail the eyeball test. I don't think that it is blindingly obvious who is better just from casually watching several games, so I am open to the numbers persuading me in either direction. So, if there are metrics that say Stiemsma is the better defender, I don't think that is evidence that those metrics are flawed.
Take a look here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2012.html
Stiemer has the best defensive rating on the team and he is tied for third on the team in win shares per 48.
You also have to consider that, beyond the fact that many of Steamer's minutes come against backups, he's 11th on the team in minutes per game. When he's in a bad matchup he won't play a lot, when he's playing well he'll get more minutes.
Like other players, Stiemer tends to play better with the other starters though as a backup that's not where he gets most of his minutes. Perk, for example, almost always played with the benefit of KG beside him.
Perkins is better.
Perkins is a starting caliber C in the NBA.
Perkins is better.
Perkins is a starting caliber C in the NBA.
This season, Perk is averaging 4.8 pts, 6.3 boards, 1.2 blocks and just under 50% from the field in over 26 minutes a game. That's a "starting caliber C" in the sense that Erick Dampier has been a starting caliber center over the last 6 years.
Perk's a much greater physical force and seems to be a better rebounder. Stiems is a vastly superior shot blocker and seems much more fluid on the offensive end. I'd say Perk's the better starter, but Stiems' talents actually make him more effective off the bench than Perk would be.
Mike
too soon to say
I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.
Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.
I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.
Yeah but with Perk I think there were a lot of guys that had to think twice about even going into the paint to be blocked in the first placeIm pretty suprised that so many people think that Stiemsma can be as good or better than Kareem Abdul Perkins.
Well, Stiemsma already has better defensive efficiency ratings than Perk ever has during his career. Granted, it's on a small sample size, but that's still pretty impressive.
Any stats that show that Stiemsma is a better defender than Perk in his prime are flawed. I don't really give defensive metrics much creedence in basketball and baseball, many times they don't pass the eyeball test.
I think you're forgetting how many shots the Stiemer blocks or alters.
Well..WHAT is Perk doing NOW......where are his big #'s..?Now's not his prime. He's very banged up now.
If they practiced, then the C's would lose more. What would their calendar say then?Get over it..huh...nice...We like to stay in the maturity zone here...growing up isn't easy, but ya gotta do it sooner or later..pal.
Mon - Practice
Tue - Game
Wed - Practice
Thu - Game
Fri - Practice
Sat - Game
Sun - Game
??? Pfft. No thanks. I want them rested for when it counts. Not exhausted by the time they have to suit up. It's not Doc's fault that there was a lockout that caused a jam packed season. Get over it.
Hollins got some one on one time with KG. Stiemsma already has his stamp of approval when he said that the Celtics should resign him.
I think KG plans on coming back to Boston next season and is just desperate for the Celtics to have as many centers on the roster as possible so he doesn't have to play at the 5 so much.probably closer to the truth than KG would like to admit
I think KG plans on coming back to Boston next season and is just desperate for the Celtics to have as many centers on the roster as possible so he doesn't have to play at the 5 so much.probably closer to the truth than KG would like to admit
KG playing the center position is the best way for him to extend his playing career.Hollins got some one on one time with KG. Stiemsma already has his stamp of approval when he said that the Celtics should resign him.
I think KG plans on coming back to Boston next season and is just desperate for the Celtics to have as many centers on the roster as possible so he doesn't have to play at the 5 so much.
Boston Celtics @celtics
Doc Rivers says that Greg Stiemsma doesn't participate in practices or shootarounds due to foot issue; Says that means he can be even better
Perkins is better.
Perkins is a starting caliber C in the NBA.
Perkins is a better low post defender. Perkins is a better team defender.
Stiemsma is a better shot blocker, but not the better defender. He is a backup big man in the NBA. Nothing wrong with that. He has a role, and he is playing it.
instead of draining kg & Bass thru the whole game.Doc is going to need a couple of years before he can trust Hollins in a game.
i don't see why hollins and stiemsma, can't be added as PF & C Off the bench from time to time.
instead of draining kg & Bass thru the whole game.Doc is going to need a couple of years before he can trust Hollins in a game.
i don't see why hollins and stiemsma, can't be added as PF & C Off the bench from time to time.
Stiemsma's potential is slightly less then perks. Perk has dealt with alot of injuries already in his carrier but at his best he is one of the top 3 post defenders in the NBA. Steimsma best skill is his shot blocking but I would take an elite post defender over an elite shot blocker any day.
However i'm a big steimsma fan. I see him at his full potential be a weaker but much more mobile Greg Ostertag.
As much as i love perk, Stiesma at times this year has looked better than Perk ever as in his career.
Stiesma is not as strong as Perk, not yet anyways, but i rarely see him get mandled inside.
Also he has a better mid range shot, bc of length and some more speed is a better shot blocker and rebounder, when you see touch passes he makes for example like the one to kg yesterday it proves he has high basketball iq (can't be said about perk).
Perks intimidation and intensity factor is far greater. Not many in the nba can match this. Has shows great leadership also.
But right now i'm enormed by stiesma. Ainge did a super job finding this kid and he fits well with the team. Remember cavs tried him out a year or two ago and waived him fast. Kudos to kg for also working with him. I seriously think we have found our centre for the future to play along bradley and rondo.
I loved that Stiemsa looked comfortable taking his shot in a big game on the road last night.
I think the bigger question is "Why haven't we gone to the d league more often"?
There seems to be a lot of talent there. Stiesma came out of no where and has done more for us than any rookie has done in years (ps I love our rookies this year). If there is talent out there why haven't we gone to the d-league before, or is Stiesma really a diamond in the rough?
I think the bigger question is "Why haven't we gone to the d league more often"?
There seems to be a lot of talent there. Stiesma came out of no where and has done more for us than any rookie has done in years (ps I love our rookies this year). If there is talent out there why haven't we gone to the d-league before, or is Stiesma really a diamond in the rough?
I loved that Stiemsa looked comfortable taking his shot in a big game on the road last night.
it was awsome. No hesitation. I rarely seen him miss a jumper so far. Excellent shooter. People state he has a near non existent inside game. But honestly i don't even see him needing one as long as he can shoot the mid range and run the fast break.
I think the bigger question is "Why haven't we gone to the d league more often"?
There seems to be a lot of talent there. Stiesma came out of no where and has done more for us than any rookie has done in years (ps I love our rookies this year). If there is talent out there why haven't we gone to the d-league before, or is Stiesma really a diamond in the rough?
Most d leaguers don't pan out in the nba. Guys like Lasme and Miki Moore where defensive players of the year in the d league at one point. Hardly that great defensively when they played in the nba.
Its rare to find a career d leaguer to be able to do well in the nba. Thats why stiesma is such a great find.
Most d leaguers don't pan out in the nba. Guys like Lasme and Miki Moore where defensive players of the year in the d league at one point. Hardly that great defensively when they played in the nba.
I think the bigger question is "Why haven't we gone to the d league more often"?
There seems to be a lot of talent there. Stiesma came out of no where and has done more for us than any rookie has done in years (ps I love our rookies this year). If there is talent out there why haven't we gone to the d-league before, or is Stiesma really a diamond in the rough?
Most d leaguers don't pan out in the nba. Guys like Lasme and Miki Moore where defensive players of the year in the d league at one point. Hardly that great defensively when they played in the nba.
Its rare to find a career d leaguer to be able to do well in the nba. Thats why stiesma is such a great find.
I loved that Stiemsa looked comfortable taking his shot in a big game on the road last night.
it was awsome. No hesitation. I rarely seen him miss a jumper so far. Excellent shooter. People state he has a near non existent inside game. But honestly i don't even see him needing one as long as he can shoot the mid range and run the fast break.
I think the bigger question is "Why haven't we gone to the d league more often"?
There seems to be a lot of talent there. Stiesma came out of no where and has done more for us than any rookie has done in years (ps I love our rookies this year). If there is talent out there why haven't we gone to the d-league before, or is Stiesma really a diamond in the rough?
Most d leaguers don't pan out in the nba. Guys like Lasme and Miki Moore where defensive players of the year in the d league at one point. Hardly that great defensively when they played in the nba.
Its rare to find a career d leaguer to be able to do well in the nba. Thats why stiesma is such a great find.
We also haven't really been in "development mode" for a while. I don't think Steimer was brought aboard as much more than a practice body; if all had gone according to plan (with good health from JO and Chris Wilcox), he probably never would have gotten any floor time.
I'm not sure they even knew that Steimer was this good, or expected him to even make the team out of camp. Sure seems like Doc and Danny have been more (pleasantly) surprised with his development than "oh, this is exactly why we signed him!"
For most of the past five years, there really haven't been that many roster spots to dedicate to young, developmental players (and all things being equal, a young D-leaguer is usually going to be better-off signing with a team with fewer veterans in front of them).
Well, I think KG plans to retire after this year and wants to go out with another ring. He needs Hollins and Stiemsma to be good enough to eat up some playoff minutes NOW and is willing to just about do anything needed for that to happen.I think KG plans on coming back to Boston next season and is just desperate for the Celtics to have as many centers on the roster as possible so he doesn't have to play at the 5 so much.probably closer to the truth than KG would like to admit
Well, I think KG plans to retire after this year and wants to go out with another ring. He needs Hollins and Stiemsma to be good enough to eat up some playoff minutes NOW and is willing to just about do anything needed for that to happen.I think KG plans on coming back to Boston next season and is just desperate for the Celtics to have as many centers on the roster as possible so he doesn't have to play at the 5 so much.probably closer to the truth than KG would like to admit
OTOH, I *hope* he wants to come back to the Celtics next year.
In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
He's not very good on the defensive glass for a C.In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
can;t agree with you roy. Look perk this year, and his stats on avg are no better than Stiesma. Stiesma also has played some games 10 mins and others 20. But perk consistantly plays/played 25-30 minutes as a starter.
Like i stated its the type of defender you prefer. Both are good, but i still like stiesmas style a little better. Not sure about the criticism about stiesma rebounding. Offensively not as good as perk but defensively he has been a vacuum.
He's not very good on the defensive glass for a C.In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
can;t agree with you roy. Look perk this year, and his stats on avg are no better than Stiesma. Stiesma also has played some games 10 mins and others 20. But perk consistantly plays/played 25-30 minutes as a starter.
Like i stated its the type of defender you prefer. Both are good, but i still like stiesmas style a little better. Not sure about the criticism about stiesma rebounding. Offensively not as good as perk but defensively he has been a vacuum.
Edit: He's 44th and out 57 qualifying centers, just ahead of Perkins this year who's having the worst rebounding year of his career (as a rotation player). In fact he's rebounding at essentially the exact same rate as Perkins this year.
He's not very good on the defensive glass for a C.In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
can;t agree with you roy. Look perk this year, and his stats on avg are no better than Stiesma. Stiesma also has played some games 10 mins and others 20. But perk consistantly plays/played 25-30 minutes as a starter.
Like i stated its the type of defender you prefer. Both are good, but i still like stiesmas style a little better. Not sure about the criticism about stiesma rebounding. Offensively not as good as perk but defensively he has been a vacuum.
Edit: He's 44th and out 57 qualifying centers, just ahead of Perkins this year who's having the worst rebounding year of his career (as a rotation player). In fact he's rebounding at essentially the exact same rate as Perkins this year.
numberic wise thats fine. But it is understood that this is officially this kids first year in the league. As every game has gone by , he has been better and better. Last 5 games, he has been a vacuum on the boards (esp defensive end). Even if he loses a chance, he will block the putback anyways =]
Let me put it this way, Jermaine O'Neal had a better rebound rate this year than Stiemsma.
He's not a rebounder, people keep pumping up his rebounding and its just not there. I've seen some of the same people in game threads who'd groan that O'Neal was useless and never got rebounds, freak out when "Steamer" isn't in the game because of "all the rebounds he gets".
numberic wise thats fine. But it is understood that this is officially this kids first year in the league. As every game has gone by , he has been better and better. Last 5 games, he has been a vacuum on the boards (esp defensive end). Even if he loses a chance, he will block the putback anyways =]No he hasn't. Since the all-star break:
I think its both.Let me put it this way, Jermaine O'Neal had a better rebound rate this year than Stiemsma.
He's not a rebounder, people keep pumping up his rebounding and its just not there. I've seen some of the same people in game threads who'd groan that O'Neal was useless and never got rebounds, freak out when "Steamer" isn't in the game because of "all the rebounds he gets".
I'd argue that's more a problem of people undervaluing JO rather than people overvaluing Stiemsma. He's an upgrade in DRB% over some of the bench bigs in the previous two seasons, such as Troy Murphy, Nenad Krstic, Semih Erden, and Glen Davis. Stiemsma's not as good at rebounding as Shelden Williams, though.
Stiemsma does give a nice semblance of action that impresses people who overvalue hustle.
Also, are those rebound rates raw numbers or adapted to pace of play or percent of opportunities?
Also, are those rebound rates raw numbers or adapted to pace of play or percent of opportunities?Rebound rates adjust for pace in that it accoutns for shots taken and shots made. Its an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player gets when he is on the court.
In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
Why, in a thread about Stiesma's potential compared to Perkins' ability, should we take the stats from Perkins' penultimate year as a professional and compare it to Stiesma's first year in the NBA and not adjust it for minutes played, and say that Stiesma has "a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level?"
In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
Why, in a thread about Stiesma's potential compared to Perkins' ability, should we take the stats from Perkins' penultimate year as a professional and compare it to Stiesma's first year in the NBA and not adjust it for minutes played, and say that Stiesma has "a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level?"
Here's how I look at it. Perkins should be in his NBA prime right now. He is 27 years old with some 8-9 years of experience, and has played on NBA championship caliber teams.
Right now, Perkins is statistically one of the worst centers in the league, and probably is one of the worst contracts in the league.
Right now, Stiesma is putting up superior numbers, playing in his rookie season, on a team where he was basically thrown into the fire because of injury.
Right now, Stiesma is better than Perkins. Plain and simple.
In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
Why, in a thread about Stiesma's potential compared to Perkins' ability, should we take the stats from Perkins' penultimate year as a professional and compare it to Stiesma's first year in the NBA and not adjust it for minutes played, and say that Stiesma has "a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level?"
Here's how I look at it. Perkins should be in his NBA prime right now. He is 27 years old with some 8-9 years of experience, and has played on NBA championship caliber teams.
Right now, Perkins is statistically one of the worst centers in the league, and probably is one of the worst contracts in the league.
Right now, Stiesma is putting up superior numbers, playing in his rookie season, on a team where he was basically thrown into the fire because of injury.
Right now, Stiesma is better than Perkins. Plain and simple.
Wow. We're in a true parallel universe.
mctyson, you need only look at the difference in every OK City defensive category after acquiring Perk as opposed to before.
I would take a contract as "worst" as Perk's on my team anytime....Or a center as statistically bad as Perk's..If his presence...(and overt nastiness)... transforms my team into one of the NBA's best defensive teams.
We should be so fortunate.
I liked Stiemsma's demeanor last night. His confidence is growing steadily. But better than Perk? Really?
I think its both.Let me put it this way, Jermaine O'Neal had a better rebound rate this year than Stiemsma.
He's not a rebounder, people keep pumping up his rebounding and its just not there. I've seen some of the same people in game threads who'd groan that O'Neal was useless and never got rebounds, freak out when "Steamer" isn't in the game because of "all the rebounds he gets".
I'd argue that's more a problem of people undervaluing JO rather than people overvaluing Stiemsma. He's an upgrade in DRB% over some of the bench bigs in the previous two seasons, such as Troy Murphy, Nenad Krstic, Semih Erden, and Glen Davis. Stiemsma's not as good at rebounding as Shelden Williams, though.
Stiemsma does give a nice semblance of action that impresses people who overvalue hustle.
The upgrade Greg provides over Jermaine is in his better ability to score (both with his jump shot, finishing at the rim, and free throws) and his shot blocking. Plus overall mobility of course.
I realize the question is potential, but it's hard to get away from present day comparison. And in truth, the underlying interest here (the 'elephant in the room') remains how badly DA erred in trading Perk. And Stiemsma has some relevance in the conversation even though he was not part of the trade. If DA is able to effectively replace a traded part, a bad trade becomes more palatable.
I would trade Stiemer for Perk in a minute. But, if JG were healthy, I do not think I'd trade GS/JG for Perk. Also, thinking big picture, DA has replaced Perk, BBD and JG with Bass, Stiemer, and Pietrus. And he still has JG possibly returning and the Clipper pick. All in all, and in large part due to Greg's emergence, I am not missing Perk very much right now.
Perk better than Stiemsma
Offensive rebounding
Hard to beat one on one
Post game
Stiesma better than Perk
Blocking
Shooting
Open court basketball
Passing
and again, imo stiemsma is more than adequate defensive rebounder
This is my own little comparison , and stiesma scores more points than Perk. Stiemsma has a long way to go, to accomplish what perk has done, but if we are talking about overall package and potential, Stiemsma has the slight edge
. Perk is still the best 1 on 1 post defender in the NBA
From my recollection, everytime someone blew past a guard, Perk would just foul the person cuz he doesnt really have the lift to block their shot.
Yeah its strange.From my recollection, everytime someone blew past a guard, Perk would just foul the person cuz he doesnt really have the lift to block their shot.I'm surprised so many people have forgotten Perk's game already.
Yeah its strange.From my recollection, everytime someone blew past a guard, Perk would just foul the person cuz he doesnt really have the lift to block their shot.I'm surprised so many people have forgotten Perk's game already.
People also forget how good of a rebounder he turned himself into every year before the current season. I'm still bummed by his knee issues, before his mobility and lift went down a notch he was looking like he'd become more like a Tyson Chandler type on offense (better finisher in P&R and around the rim, plus a better help defender)
Then in 09-10 his knee tendonitis and other issues really started hampering him.
Quote. Perk is still the best 1 on 1 post defender in the NBA
Really, I doubt it on one knee. He was a good defender but he is not the same guy he once was folks.
I realize the question is potential, but it's hard to get away from present day comparison. And in truth, the underlying interest here (the 'elephant in the room') remains how badly DA erred in trading Perk. And Stiemsma has some relevance in the conversation even though he was not part of the trade. If DA is able to effectively replace a traded part, a bad trade becomes more palatable.
I would trade Stiemer for Perk in a minute. But, if JG were healthy, I do not think I'd trade GS/JG for Perk. Also, thinking big picture, DA has replaced Perk, BBD and JG with Bass, Stiemer, and Pietrus. And he still has JG possibly returning and the Clipper pick. All in all, and in large part due to Greg's emergence, I am not missing Perk very much right now.
Please don't go down that pathetic road again.
The Perk trade was the correct move at the time.
I wouldn't want to be paying him 9 million going into next year or the next 4 years. Forget it. He's a back up center at best. he can only complement good players. Enough ranting. There is no elephant in the room, and if there is, it certainly isn't Perkins being traded as a mistake.
So annoying hearing this repeated. One legged Perkins for Jeff Green, Krstic and a first round pick in a stacked draft.
Easy decision.
Re OP's question, yes he has the potential. He's improved light years in 6 months time. He needs to add bulk to guard starting Centers like Perk can, but it's possible.
Different skill sets, but he could ultimately be a better player and contributor than Perkins- probably not defensively in a 1v1 aspect, but he can get higher to the hoop and could become a better rebounder. He's only just starting to box out effectively and it's doing us wonders.
Yes, he definitely has the potential to be better.
Perk better than Stiemsma
Offensive rebounding
Hard to beat one on one
Post game
Stiesma better than Perk
Blocking
Shooting
Open court basketball
Passing
and again, imo stiemsma is more than adequate defensive rebounder
This is my own little comparison , and stiesma scores more points than Perk. Stiemsma has a long way to go, to accomplish what perk has done, but if we are talking about overall package and potential, Stiemsma has the slight edge
Good breakdown
Greg needs to cut down his fouls if he wants to become more than a 20 minute player. He's fouling 7 times per 36 minutes, such a high foul rate means he won't be able to stay on the court too often to be counted on.
I realize the question is potential, but it's hard to get away from present day comparison. And in truth, the underlying interest here (the 'elephant in the room') remains how badly DA erred in trading Perk. And Stiemsma has some relevance in the conversation even though he was not part of the trade. If DA is able to effectively replace a traded part, a bad trade becomes more palatable.
I would trade Stiemer for Perk in a minute. But, if JG were healthy, I do not think I'd trade GS/JG for Perk. Also, thinking big picture, DA has replaced Perk, BBD and JG with Bass, Stiemer, and Pietrus. And he still has JG possibly returning and the Clipper pick. All in all, and in large part due to Greg's emergence, I am not missing Perk very much right now.
Please don't go down that pathetic road again.
The Perk trade was the correct move at the time.
I wouldn't want to be paying him 9 million going into next year or the next 4 years. Forget it. He's a back up center at best. he can only complement good players. Enough ranting. There is no elephant in the room, and if there is, it certainly isn't Perkins being traded as a mistake.
So annoying hearing this repeated. One legged Perkins for Jeff Green, Krstic and a first round pick in a stacked draft.
Easy decision.
Re OP's question, yes he has the potential. He's improved light years in 6 months time. He needs to add bulk to guard starting Centers like Perk can, but it's possible.
Different skill sets, but he could ultimately be a better player and contributor than Perkins- probably not defensively in a 1v1 aspect, but he can get higher to the hoop and could become a better rebounder. He's only just starting to box out effectively and it's doing us wonders.
Yes, he definitely has the potential to be better.
I think you misundertood (or more likely I poorly communicated) my point. I was not trying to say that DA erred badly in the trade. I was trying to suggest that the reason a thread like this exists is that we are still trying to measure whether, or how much, DA erred. I realize it looks like I am suggesting DA erred badly, but my intent was more to your point -- that we can't let it go and are constantly trying to determine the quality of the trade.
I love Perk one of my all-time favorite Celtics, but come the freak on, he is a VERY limited guy. No lift, no athleticism. Not saying Steamer is Tim Duncan but I honestly think he is a better player.
Here's why I don't think so. When Perk was here, we were dependent on him. His biggest attribute was his physical strength. In that one aspect of the game, he was arguably the best in the league. It allowed him to be our enforcer, our low post presence, and the guy who did all the dirty work that let everyone else shine.
Stiemsma's a nice complementary player, and does a lot of things better than Perk. But there are a lot of guys who can say that. Stiemsma doesn't have the one special characteristic that can control games. I think for him to develop into a player better than Perk he would have to become a Mutombo like shot blocker which is a tough task. He's 26 and has slow feet (his footwork is already pretty good from what I see).
I don't think Steimsma has to be better than Perk to be a good player. And you don't have to build him up by putting Perk down. He's not going anywhere (I hope) so the question is going to answer itself. Right now we don't have a ton of info to go on and what we do know supports Perk. Will Kyrie Irving be better than Chris Paul? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Greg needs to cut down his fouls if he wants to become more than a 20 minute player. He's fouling 7 times per 36 minutes, such a high foul rate means he won't be able to stay on the court too often to be counted on.
I love Perk one of my all-time favorite Celtics, but come the freak on, he is a VERY limited guy. No lift, no athleticism. Not saying Steamer is Tim Duncan but I honestly think he is a better player.
Why, in a thread about Stiesma's potential compared to Perkins' ability, should we take the stats from Perkins' penultimate year as a professional and compare it to Stiesma's first year in the NBA and not adjust it for minutes played, and say that Stiesma has "a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level?"
The original question asked if Stiemsma can reach Perk's "ceiling". Thus, you have to look at what each player's ceiling to date has been. Perk's "ceiling" was a guy who averaged almost a double-double while playing elite defense as a starter on a championship-caliber team.
Will Stiemsma reach that level? Well, based on where he is now, I'd say it's not very likely. Stiesmma is less than a year younger than Perk; at this stage, I wonder how much room there is for drastic improvement in his game.
Let's be happy for what this kid is -- a very pleasant surprise as a backup center -- and not exaggerate him into something he's not. Stiemsma has a long way to go before he's as good as Perk was here.
In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.
In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench. Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.
Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level. It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere. However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.
Why, in a thread about Stiesma's potential compared to Perkins' ability, should we take the stats from Perkins' penultimate year as a professional and compare it to Stiesma's first year in the NBA and not adjust it for minutes played, and say that Stiesma has "a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level?"
Here's how I look at it. Perkins should be in his NBA prime right now. He is 27 years old with some 8-9 years of experience, and has played on NBA championship caliber teams.
Right now, Perkins is statistically one of the worst centers in the league, and probably is one of the worst contracts in the league.
Right now, Stiesma is putting up superior numbers, playing in his rookie season, on a team where he was basically thrown into the fire because of injury.
Right now, Stiesma is better than Perkins. Plain and simple.
Wow. We're in a true parallel universe.
mctyson, you need only look at the difference in every OK City defensive category after acquiring Perk as opposed to before.
I would take a contract as "worst" as Perk's on my team anytime....Or a center as statistically bad as Perk's..If his presence...(and overt nastiness)... transforms my team into one of the NBA's best defensive teams.
We should be so fortunate.
I liked Stiemsma's demeanor last night. His confidence is growing steadily. But better than Perk? Really?
My point is only this...if you want to compare players, you have to use the metrics available to you that are made fairly (unlike your opinion) without bias (unlike your opinion).
Stiemer is rated higher than Perkins in almost every measurable category for a center. I guarantee you that if you polled NBA GM's and asked them if they would want Perkins at $10M or Stiemer at a couple hundred thou...almost all of them would take Stiemer, and that includes Sam Presti.
It was pretty easy to get a perk replacement, just go grab one from the D-League.lol
It was pretty easy to get a perk replacement, just go grab one from the D-League.
Greg Stiemsa looks as if he has far more upside than Perk ever did. He's a far better mid-range shooter, a much better shot blocker, and seems every bit as aggressive on the defensive end.
We have to consider the legitimate possibility that Perkins wouldn't be the player that he is without KG being there to teach him so much.
Stiemsma doesn't have the one special characteristic that can control games. I think for him to develop into a player better than Perk he would have to become a Mutombo like shot blocker which is a tough task. He's 26 and has slow feet (his footwork is already pretty good from what I see).
Stiemer's career blocks/min is 27% higher than Mutombo's.
Why do so many Perk bashers continually get his contract wrong? It's easy laziness or intellectual dishonesty. Perk makes $7.1m this season, which isn't a ton of money for a starting center on a top team. Actually, he's the lowest paid non rookie contract center on a contender besides Joel Anthony.
One poster even alluded to Perk as a $10m player. His highest year on his new deal is $9.1m in 2015, according to hoopshype, which is an overpay, as are most lest years of deals.
Perk is a top low post defender, paint mucker, pick settler, attitude setter, and butt kicker at a very reasonable, a barely more than MLE paycheck of $7.1m.
Steamer has the potential to be a serviceable or better NBA center. He's an exceptional shot blocker, with great shotblocking instincts both in the paint and closing out on jumpshooters. He's a dead eye stationary shooter who is very reticent about shooting the basketball. He has almost no low post offense, and is to weak in the lower body to establish decent low box position. This lack of trunk strength hurts his low block one on one defense too. Once he gets established int he league, the refs will let him get away with more bump and grind, and that should help, but I don't see him becoming a great low block defender.
The think that intrigues me about Steamer is his standstill shooting. Many on here are too young to remember the reprehensible Bill Laimbeer, but he was a knock down shooter at the center position and was a tough cover for even the most athletic NBA centers, who hate straying out of the paint.
Will Steamer ever get the confidence to take 10 shots a game? He takes a shot every 6.5 minutes now (compared to 1shot/3min for Bass and 1shot/2.4min for KG). He hits half his outside shots, a great mark for a center, and even better than KG by percentage.
If Steamer can get a long term deal somewhere and build his confidence in his offense, he could be a very solid center. I don't see him putting on much beef (he's 26) but makes up for his lack of stoutness with long arms, good timing and tenaciousness.
His upside could Find him as a better player than Perk, but they're totally different players. the only thing they have in common is starting their careers in Boston and learning from KG.
I have purposely not posted in this thread (up till now), because the whole idea of Steamer being better than Perk is ludicrous. Just not worth my time to discuss this.
Still, I can't believe the thread has lasted as long as it has. I'm flabberghasted.
I have purposely not posted in this thread (up till now), because the whole idea of Steamer being better than Perk is ludicrous. Just not worth my time to discuss this.
Still, I can't believe the thread has lasted as long as it has. I'm flabberghasted.
Steams is better then Perkins.
I stand by my assessment. If given a choice, given their current contracts or possible pay going into next season, almost every GM in the NBA would take Stiemer over Perk, and I include Sam Presti in that group.
Steamer is better. I dont need to explain myself, I watch the games.
I have purposely not posted in this thread (up till now), because the whole idea of Steamer being better than Perk is ludicrous. Just not worth my time to discuss this.
Still, I can't believe the thread has lasted as long as it has. I'm flabberghasted.
Again, aside from how nonsensical it is to claim to know the thinking of nba GMs, all that would mean is that the GMs think that Steamer is more than 1/7 as valuable as Perk. Look into that crystal ball of yours and start naming all the GMs that would sign Steamer to a multi-year deal better than the MLE if they could.
This is a pretty tough argument.
My gut says I'd take Perk from 2 years ago over Steamer now. I think right this second you go with Steamer though.
And even going back to the Perk of old, while I buy the notion he was a better defender two years ago than Steamer is now, I think what this year is proving more than anything is that far and away the biggest reason our defense is so dominant is because of KG. Not that that is a news flash for anyone, but what I'm saying is that Perk might've matter less than we thought (including me).
And while I'm still conflicted, what also makes me hesitate about taking Perk in this debate is his poor offensive game. Even though I take pre-injury Perk over Steamer defensively, I might take Steamer now as the whole package. His ability to spread the floor and his ability to finish quite likely make up for whatever edge Perk had defensively.
Steamer has a better shot, but I kind of think if Perk hadn't been surrounded by so many scorers he would have shown himself to be a better scorer actually. I think at his peak he might have gotten as high as 14ppg. I don't see Steamer doing that, but I think Steams can score a little too
Well he was at 10 and then three all stars showed up, so without them an extra two baskets a game when he was in his prime...shoulda been doable.Steamer has a better shot, but I kind of think if Perk hadn't been surrounded by so many scorers he would have shown himself to be a better scorer actually. I think at his peak he might have gotten as high as 14ppg. I don't see Steamer doing that, but I think Steams can score a little too
Perk is probably one of the most offensively inept players in the league. I cringe everytime he gets the ball on offense and OKC fans feel the same. No way he ever averages 14ppg.
Steamer and Perk are totally different players but Steamer is better honestly.Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.
I love Perk have his old #43 jersey. But even I have come around to the fact that Perk sucks. He does nothing well anymore. At one time he was a tough 1:1 defender in the post who drove DH crazy. Now he's a stiff on a very good team. Poor OKC fans cant stand him and his ridiculous techs.
Steamer can block shots, hit the mif-range J, break to the basket. Come to think of it steamer is the best C of the Big 3 era..
Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.
I think you're reading sarcasm where none is indicated.Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.
I'd read Truth's post again. The last line gives the game away.
Well he was at 10 and then three all stars showed up, so without them an extra two baskets a game when he was in his prime...shoulda been doable.Steamer has a better shot, but I kind of think if Perk hadn't been surrounded by so many scorers he would have shown himself to be a better scorer actually. I think at his peak he might have gotten as high as 14ppg. I don't see Steamer doing that, but I think Steams can score a little tooSo the standard is what a guy was in the neighborhood of doing on one of the worst teams in the league?
Perk is probably one of the most offensively inept players in the league. I cringe everytime he gets the ball on offense and OKC fans feel the same. No way he ever averages 14ppg.
He gave so much to playing he is a shell of his former self I think
Steamer and Perk are totally different players but Steamer is better honestly.Perkins of 07-10 was better than Greg even if you think he's a stiff now.
I love Perk have his old #43 jersey. But even I have come around to the fact that Perk sucks. He does nothing well anymore. At one time he was a tough 1:1 defender in the post who drove DH crazy. Now he's a stiff on a very good team. Poor OKC fans cant stand him and his ridiculous techs.
Steamer can block shots, hit the mif-range J, break to the basket. Come to think of it steamer is the best C of the Big 3 era..
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
To add to that.. A 38 y.o. Shaq looked like an allstar the few times he got to play for us...
Perkins' value is overrated.
He's on OKC now.. and has been exposed. He sucks. He never was that good. He was just big. Thats it.
Not giving Jeff Green 30 minutes (giving most of them to Ibaka) and then giving all the shots Green took to Harden probably had more to do with that than Perkins.To add to that.. A 38 y.o. Shaq looked like an allstar the few times he got to play for us...
Perkins' value is overrated.
He's on OKC now.. and has been exposed. He sucks. He never was that good. He was just big. Thats it.
Except of course that team got better when they added him as their starting C.
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
Yeah, that's obviously not true. I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.
Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games?
Two. Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.
Chandler wasn't healthy during that period.The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
Yeah, that's obviously not true. I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.
Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games?
Two. Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.
What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.
You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins? Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
Yeah, that's obviously not true. I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.
Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games?
Two. Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.
What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.
You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins? Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
Yeah, that's obviously not true. I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.
Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games?
Two. Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.
What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.
You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins? Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.
So, if you add a near-max center to the team in place of Perk, he could have slightly exceeded Perk's production? Fantastic.
(By the way, Chandler has never averaged 2 blocks per game in his career, and he's only averaged a double-double once.)
I think this is your biggest problem, you look at Perkins play now and assume it is how he played with the C's. That isn't the case, especially pre-knee issues.The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
Yeah, that's obviously not true. I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.
Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games?
Two. Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.
What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.
You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins? Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.
So, if you add a near-max center to the team in place of Perk, he could have slightly exceeded Perk's production? Fantastic.
(By the way, Chandler has never averaged 2 blocks per game in his career, and he's only averaged a double-double once.)
He's averaging a double double now
The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
Yeah, that's obviously not true. I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.
Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games?
Two. Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.
What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.
You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins? Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.
So, if you add a near-max center to the team in place of Perk, he could have slightly exceeded Perk's production? Fantastic.
(By the way, Chandler has never averaged 2 blocks per game in his career, and he's only averaged a double-double once.)
He's averaging a double double now with 1.5 blocks a game on a team that doesn't play defense.
You're right though, you can't compare Perkins' to Chandler because Perkins' sucks and isn't in the same league as him.
The fact that Danny Ainge was willing to trade Perkins on the basis that a 38 y.o. injury prone Shaq was a better fit, speaks volumes to how much you guys are overvaluing Kendrick Perkins....
Just for clarification, NYK has the fourth-best defensive rating in the NBA right now. Not bad for a team that doesn't play defense, huh?Yeah since Chandler has arrived they've played solid to excellent defense. Not playing Amar'e at center does wonderful things for your defense.
I think this is your biggest problem, you look at Perkins play now and assume it is how he played with the C's in the past was the same its not.The Celtics of 07-10 could have used any big in the league 6'11 and taller and 250 plus, and would have been just as successful..
Yeah, that's obviously not true. I think you underestimate how hard it is to average 10 points, 8 rebounds, 60% shooting and 2 blocks in the NBA while playing excellent defense.
Since the 2008 season, guess how many players have had a season where they averaged at least 9.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 60% shooting while playing in at least 40 games?
Two. Dwight Howard and Kendrick Perkins.
What i meant was... If you put any other big in the league in Perkins' place... they would have been just as successful.. Meaning, a lot of Perkins' success had to do with the fact he was on the Celtics.
You think if Tyson Chandler were on this team from 07-10 he wouldn't have done as well as Perkins? Tyson Chandler would have averaged a double double on this team with 2 blocks a game on 60% shooting.
So, if you add a near-max center to the team in place of Perk, he could have slightly exceeded Perk's production? Fantastic.
(By the way, Chandler has never averaged 2 blocks per game in his career, and he's only averaged a double-double once.)
He's averaging a double double now
I think when comparing the two players, it makes the most sense to look at how good they are now and how good we think they'll be in the future.When you're comparing potential no it doesn't.
I think when comparing the two players, it makes the most sense to look at how good they are now and how good we think they'll be in the future.When you're comparing potential no it doesn't.
If you're saying which you'd rather have now, which this thread isn't, then your logic makes sense.
Even then there is a big difference in playing 15-20 minutes as a backup and being a starter. Especially given Greg's inability to avoid fouling 7 times per 36 minutes.
Most of the rookie calls are really rookie level mistakes by Greg.
Most of the rookie calls are really rookie level mistakes by Greg.
True. Which theoretically should improve with more experience...
In comparison, Perkin's third year, (the first he's averaged more than 10 minutes a game {Greg avg's 13 a game this year}), his fouls per 48 was 6.5.. and its decreased since then.
Greg should see the same trend.
I think when comparing the two players, it makes the most sense to look at how good they are now and how good we think they'll be in the future.When you're comparing potential no it doesn't.
If you're saying which you'd rather have now, which this thread isn't, then your logic makes sense.
Even then there is a big difference in playing 15-20 minutes as a backup and being a starter. Especially given Greg's inability to avoid fouling 7 times per 36 minutes.
Yes but he often played more minutes when needed. Greg has only played 27 minutes 3 times this year, and with his foul issues can't be counted on for more than 15 minutes a game on any given night.I think when comparing the two players, it makes the most sense to look at how good they are now and how good we think they'll be in the future.When you're comparing potential no it doesn't.
If you're saying which you'd rather have now, which this thread isn't, then your logic makes sense.
Even then there is a big difference in playing 15-20 minutes as a backup and being a starter. Especially given Greg's inability to avoid fouling 7 times per 36 minutes.
Perk has only averaged more than 27 minutes a game once ('08-'09) and that was only 29 minutes.
I'm a big Steamer fan, but on the big stage at MSG against the Knicks, he put up a stat line of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and 3 fouls in 10 minutes.
Before he's hailed as a better player than one of the toughest and most battle tested centers int he league, Steamer's going to have to prove he can get things done in big games and pressure situations.
He was just bad last night, fouled and gave up several easy dunks to Chandler due to losing him while watching the ball.I'm a big Steamer fan, but on the big stage at MSG against the Knicks, he put up a stat line of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and 3 fouls in 10 minutes.I didn't see the game, but it sounds like the greater defensive lapses by far were out on the perimeter, not inside.
Before he's hailed as a better player than one of the toughest and most battle tested centers int he league, Steamer's going to have to prove he can get things done in big games and pressure situations.
I'm a big Steamer fan, but on the big stage at MSG against the Knicks, he put up a stat line of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and 3 fouls in 10 minutes.
Before he's hailed as a better player than one of the toughest and most battle tested centers int he league, Steamer's going to have to prove he can get things done in big games and pressure situations.
Until I see Stiemsma put together a playoff year (or a long stretch) like Perk did in 08-09, I have to vote PerkThat was Perkins at his most impressive. He knew he couldn't afford to get into foul trouble and for the entire playoffs he managed to avoid it for the most part. This is while extending his minutes greatly beyond what he typically played.
14 games, 36.6 minutes. 11.9 points, 11.5 rebounds, 2.6 blocks and .575 FG shooting.
Until I see Stiemsma put together a playoff year (or a long stretch) like Perk did in 08-09, I have to vote PerkThat was Perkins at his most impressive. He knew he couldn't afford to get into foul trouble and for the entire playoffs he managed to avoid it for the most part. This is while extending his minutes greatly beyond what he typically played.
14 games, 36.6 minutes. 11.9 points, 11.5 rebounds, 2.6 blocks and .575 FG shooting.
Until I see Stiemsma put together a playoff year (or a long stretch) like Perk did in 08-09, I have to vote Perk
14 games, 36.6 minutes. 11.9 points, 11.5 rebounds, 2.6 blocks and .575 FG shooting.
I think when comparing the two players, it makes the most sense to look at how good they are now and how good we think they'll be in the future.When you're comparing potential no it doesn't.
If Greg Stiemsma keeps on working hard, stays healthy enough to play (bruised foot and plantar fasciitis, boots considered) in about 2-3 years, can he reach Kendrick Perkins ceiling? Can he be better? His play of the late, although skill-wise not on Perk's level yet, has been making me forget about Perk.The is the OP. His specific reference is can Greg reach Kendrick's ceiling.
In order for Stiemer to fill the Perk void he needs to rebound like Perk did, I think he is a better shot blocker, certainly a better shooter and probably a better finisher inside. Perkins however is much better on ball defender against the elite centers like Dwight and Bynum.The numbers say they're equal at the rim with Perkins haveing a better overall percentage on "inside" shots.
Yeah without looking at the numbers I remember perk as putting up a lot more shots inside (probably because KG went inside more which brought the big covering Perk to help, as well as playing more). However, I don't remember Stiemer fumbling as many.In order for Stiemer to fill the Perk void he needs to rebound like Perk did, I think he is a better shot blocker, certainly a better shooter and probably a better finisher inside. Perkins however is much better on ball defender against the elite centers like Dwight and Bynum.The numbers say they're equal at the rim with Perkins haveing a better overall percentage on "inside" shots.
The question is how many of Perkin's turnovers are when he has an easy dunk and fumbles it compared to Stiemsma's. Neither is all that great at the rim for a big man anyways.