Perk and Bynum. what's going on?

[BballTim]

Mark effing Blount had a 20-20 game with us (in his contract year, of course).  Just to point out the perils of a small sample size...

  Ugh. A perfectly good day somewhat spoiled by someone mentioning Blount, who I'm generally successful at blocking from my memory.

[Chris]

With Bynum, I think he has always been a great raw rebounder, but he was still developing a bit, and couldn't stay on the court long enough to get a real rhythm going.  So, I think we are just seeing the effect of having him be healthy, as well as just natural progression.

With Perk, I think it has more to do with the system.  The C's system really is not conducive to high rebounding numbers for big men.  It requires the big men to spend a lot more time blitzing the perimeter, and to do a lot more helping defensively, which often leaves them out of position for rebounding, forcing the perimeter guys to take a much larger role in that area.  This has always kind of kept Perk's rebounding numbers a bit lower than they could be. 

However, in OKC, their system is more traditional, where the big men really do stay down low more, and they really do rely on them for the rebounding a lot more. 

[OsirusCeltics]

With Bynum, I think he has always been a great raw rebounder, but he was still developing a bit, and couldn't stay on the court long enough to get a real rhythm going.  So, I think we are just seeing the effect of having him be healthy, as well as just natural progression.

With Perk, I think it has more to do with the system.  The C's system really is not conducive to high rebounding numbers for big men.  It requires the big men to spend a lot more time blitzing the perimeter, and to do a lot more helping defensively, which often leaves them out of position for rebounding, forcing the perimeter guys to take a much larger role in that area.  This has always kind of kept Perk's rebounding numbers a bit lower than they could be. 

However, in OKC, their system is more traditional, where the big men really do stay down low more, and they really do rely on them for the rebounding a lot more. 

Which makes Bill Russell that much more underrated 

[LB3533]

I'd rather have David Lee over Perk/Kristic.

Honestly when this Big 3 era is over, I'd give anything for a Rondo/Howard era.

[birdwatcher]

The Perk hate makes me sad.
 
Meanwhile, Jeff "the best player in the trade" Green, gets 7 rebounds the other night, half of them in garbage time, goes 3-9 from the floor (7-19 over his last 3 games), and people are talking about him like he is hall-of-fame player. Go figure. 

It's not hate. I just have an issue with people thinking that this guy is the messiah and a pivotal playoff piece in defense when he is a below average player post-injury and is getting yammed on and driven past at will by most guards.

And yet, his defense is so bad that since he's been in OKC, the Thunder's starting lineup with Perk in it yields fewer than 98 points per 100 possessions.  That's better than our starting four + Shaq, and is much, much better than OKC's previous starting lineup (109.5 allowed per 100 with Krstic/Green, 114 allowed per 100 with Krstic/Ibaka). 

Do you think this is just a coincidence?  That OKC went from one of the worst defenses in the NBA (particularly among playoff contenders), to one of the best?  How does that fit in with your assessment that Perk is routinely "getting yammed on and driven past at will by most guards"?

I don't like calling anybody a "hater".  However, I do think there are times when there's a pretty healthy bias at work, and I think a lot of Celtics fans have either become anti-Perk since the trade, or are using the trade as an excuse to let their long-held Perk scorn to show.  When I read some of the comments in this thread -- Perk only grabs easy rebounds, Perk gets blown past at will, etc. -- I wonder which Kendrick Perkins players have been watching the past several years.

To be fair the Thunder were an excellent defensive team last year. They have the talent to be a very good defensive squad, but it appears the hype got to Durant/Westbrook and they slacked off earlier in the year.

Removing the Green from the 4 spot probably has had just as big defensive impact than replacing Kristc with Perkins. Probably bigger in my opinion, moving Ibaka into the lineup is huge.

Combine protecting Ibaka with a physical defender like Perkins and I'm not surprised by the results.

Let's not forget how well Nazr Mohammad has played since he got to OKC, too. Perk is playing well for them and is a great fit, and the two of those guys together compliment each other and make quite a trio with Serge Ibaka. They should be able to give the Lakers a run for their money.

[Roy H.]

The Perk hate makes me sad.
 
Meanwhile, Jeff "the best player in the trade" Green, gets 7 rebounds the other night, half of them in garbage time, goes 3-9 from the floor (7-19 over his last 3 games), and people are talking about him like he is hall-of-fame player. Go figure. 

It's not hate. I just have an issue with people thinking that this guy is the messiah and a pivotal playoff piece in defense when he is a below average player post-injury and is getting yammed on and driven past at will by most guards.

And yet, his defense is so bad that since he's been in OKC, the Thunder's starting lineup with Perk in it yields fewer than 98 points per 100 possessions.  That's better than our starting four + Shaq, and is much, much better than OKC's previous starting lineup (109.5 allowed per 100 with Krstic/Green, 114 allowed per 100 with Krstic/Ibaka). 

Do you think this is just a coincidence?  That OKC went from one of the worst defenses in the NBA (particularly among playoff contenders), to one of the best?  How does that fit in with your assessment that Perk is routinely "getting yammed on and driven past at will by most guards"?

I don't like calling anybody a "hater".  However, I do think there are times when there's a pretty healthy bias at work, and I think a lot of Celtics fans have either become anti-Perk since the trade, or are using the trade as an excuse to let their long-held Perk scorn to show.  When I read some of the comments in this thread -- Perk only grabs easy rebounds, Perk gets blown past at will, etc. -- I wonder which Kendrick Perkins players have been watching the past several years.

To be fair the Thunder were an excellent defensive team last year. They have the talent to be a very good defensive squad, but it appears the hype got to Durant/Westbrook and they slacked off earlier in the year.

Removing the Green from the 4 spot probably has had just as big defensive impact than replacing Kristc with Perkins. Probably bigger in my opinion, moving Ibaka into the lineup is huge.

Combine protecting Ibaka with a physical defender like Perkins and I'm not surprised by the results.

Let's not forget how well Nazr Mohammad has played since he got to OKC, too. Perk is playing well for them and is a great fit, and the two of those guys together compliment each other and make quite a trio with Serge Ibaka. They should be able to give the Lakers a run for their money.

Nazr hasn't been that good.  The lineup of the starters + Nazr is actually getting outscored, and their defensive efficiency is around 105 points allowed per 100 possessions (much worse than the Perk lineup).

[SHAQATTACK]

Nice thread and reading.  Basically we all are on the same page , no matter WHICH big guy you'd like see on our team. 7 footers with hardhats are necessary.

We all seem agree in the NBA , your only going so far without a quality center/centers to anchor the defense..

 

[tenn_smoothie]

Your point with Bynum is valid.

Perk rebounds free throws and uncontested misses. Don't let the box score fool you.

Interesting. Why don't more players boost their stats this way, I wonder?

they just keep trying to convince themslves that losing Perk didn't hurt us that much - sorry guys, but Perk was grabbing 8 rebounds a night for the Celts after he came back this year - a career high. Danny screwed up.

[Vermont Green]

Offensively, we are harder to cover without Perk.

For whatever reason, this one is sound theoretically, but hasn't been true in actual practice.

Wow, I tried my best to make statements that noboby would disagree with.  Are you really suggesting that we are a better overall offensive team in terms of what the other team has to do to cover us with Perk on the floor over Krstic, or an O'Neal?  Or Davis or Green?

Don't you remember all the fumbles and moving pick fouls?

[Roy H.]

Offensively, we are harder to cover without Perk.

For whatever reason, this one is sound theoretically, but hasn't been true in actual practice.

Wow, I tried my best to make statements that noboby would disagree with.  Are you really suggesting that we are a better overall offensive team in terms of what the other team has to do to cover us with Perk on the floor over Krstic, or an O'Neal?  Or Davis or Green?

Don't you remember all the fumbles and moving pick fouls?

Like I said, theoretically it makes sense.  However, our offense hasn't looked as crisp.  I don't know why that is, and I'm not saying that it's necessarily due to Perk's absence.  However, there's also been no evidence that replacing Perk with Krstic and Green has made our offense better, based upon actual results.

[Cman]

Your point with Bynum is valid.

Perk rebounds free throws and uncontested misses. Don't let the box score fool you.

Interesting. Why don't more players boost their stats this way, I wonder?

they just keep trying to convince themslves that losing Perk didn't hurt us that much - sorry guys, but Perk was grabbing 8 rebounds a night for the Celts after he came back this year - a career high. Danny screwed up.

I think everyone has pretty much made up their mind one way or the other about the trade and its useless to try to convince someone about something they won't believe.

[Cman]

Don't you remember all the fumbles and moving pick fouls?

my favorite was:
pass Perk the ball, gather.... gather.... turnover, and ... cue the scowl.

[Vermont Green]

Offensively, we are harder to cover without Perk.

For whatever reason, this one is sound theoretically, but hasn't been true in actual practice.

Wow, I tried my best to make statements that noboby would disagree with.  Are you really suggesting that we are a better overall offensive team in terms of what the other team has to do to cover us with Perk on the floor over Krstic, or an O'Neal?  Or Davis or Green?

Don't you remember all the fumbles and moving pick fouls?

Like I said, theoretically it makes sense.  However, our offense hasn't looked as crisp.  I don't know why that is, and I'm not saying that it's necessarily due to Perk's absence.  However, there's also been no evidence that replacing Perk with Krstic and Green has made our offense better, based upon actual results.

At the end of games especially, Doc didn't want both Perk and Rondo on the court at the same time.  I think Rondo is a bigger issue than Perk but I think it is really a stretch to try and make the argument that we aren't better offensively.

It is like saying you can't say that the Red Sox are better offensively with Crawford and Gonzalez because they are 0-6.