next »

[kozlodoev]

And they all rapidly matured the second the trade happened. 

That sounds like quite the miracle coincidence.

Nope. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the team was already very good for a while before Perkins even played a game, as evidenced by their 92-55 record in the season and three quarters prior to his debut.

More specifically, they had 50 wins the prior season, and were on track for 52 wins prior to getting Perkins (and finished with 55). Then they were on track for 58 wins in the lockout season, and are likely to win 60+ this year.

So yeah, maybe adding Perkins got resulted in a couple of extra wins each season. But nothing "miraculously" happened the minute they made the trade. The evidence for gradual improvement, likely due to their best players coming into their own, much stronger.

What ignoring? 


I called them a playoff team before the trade?


I said the trade pushed them from playoff team (a strong one at that) to contender.

So what's the "miracle coincidence" you're talking about? There's miracle, because there's no coincidence. Their team improved gradually over time, it didn't magically transform with the advent of Perkins.

The fact that they managed to drop the rapidly calcifying remains of Nazr Mohammed from the starting lineup was a piece in that. But it didn't "push" them into anything that another average NBA center wouldn't have.

[kozlodoev]

The Celtics also have a much harder time winning the 08 championship with 12-13 Perkins replacing 08 Perkins.

I love Perk as much as the next guy, but the injury reduced him from a difference-maker on defense to an average, at best, contributor.

[D.o.s.]

No one is saying the Thunder are winning just because of Perk.  They are saying the trade that brought them Perk has made them a better team.

Actually I thought someone did just that by pointing out that they have 80 wins since the trade. I have no doubt they were made a better team -- they gave up a redundant piece for a player that addresses a need. But I'd say that 90% of the Thunder's is attributed to the emergence of Westbrook, Durant, Harden and Ibaka. That team would have probably been able to get 70 wins with someone like Brendan Haywood, Zaza Pachulia, or Emeka Okafor instead of Perkins.

To relate the same scenario to the 08 Celts. I think the Celts have a much harder time winning the 08 championship with one of these three replacing perk in  the playoffs.

This is either brilliant, borderline Kaufman posting, or sheer laziness.

The Perk trade helped the Thunder peak because they were able to give Harden and Ibaka more minutes, and those guys responded by growing into the players Presti and Brooks believed they could be.

That's why Danny was angling for Harden instead--his ceiling is/was much higher than Jeff Green. But the minute Marquis went down we needed a backup SF, and JG was the best one available.

[TripleOT]

I really have to question whether people posting in this thread actually watch a lot of Thunder games.  They talk about Perkins and his "injury" like he's walking around with a cane or something. 

This season, Perk is moving around pretty well, and is going a lot of the things he did in Boston - setting picks, mucking up the paint, boxing out, rebounding, playing team defense and bodying up low post offensive players. 

He takes very few shots, 3.6 a game, and only grabs a rebound every five minutes, but his rebounding role in OKC is to seal off the opposing big man, and let either skinny Ibaka or Durant sky to clear the glass.  That's their scheme, and it works for them. They're a team rebounding team, and they rely on their centers Perk and Collison primarily as box out guys.

Perk fills a vital role on OKC both on the court and in the locker room.  Critics can poo poo that role, and point to stats to bolster their argument, but everything I hear out of OKC is that they' re thrilled with Perkins. 

Basketball is a team game, and good synergy goes a long way. OKC, with Perkins instead of Green, has good synergy.  Boston, with Green instead of Perkins, has bad synergy.  That's undeniable.     

[wdleehi]

And they all rapidly matured the second the trade happened. 

That sounds like quite the miracle coincidence.

Nope. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the team was already very good for a while before Perkins even played a game, as evidenced by their 92-55 record in the season and three quarters prior to his debut.

More specifically, they had 50 wins the prior season, and were on track for 52 wins prior to getting Perkins (and finished with 55). Then they were on track for 58 wins in the lockout season, and are likely to win 60+ this year.

So yeah, maybe adding Perkins got resulted in a couple of extra wins each season. But nothing "miraculously" happened the minute they made the trade. The evidence for gradual improvement, likely due to their best players coming into their own, much stronger.

What ignoring? 


I called them a playoff team before the trade?


I said the trade pushed them from playoff team (a strong one at that) to contender.

So what's the "miracle coincidence" you're talking about? There's miracle, because there's no coincidence. Their team improved gradually over time, it didn't magically transform with the advent of Perkins.

The fact that they managed to drop the rapidly calcifying remains of Nazr Mohammed from the starting lineup was a piece in that. But it didn't "push" them into anything that another average NBA center wouldn't have.

Response to this.

Thunder are more sucessful and continue to become better in spite of Perk

and

sucess is just all the guys maturing and playing better as a team.

Which magically happened when the trade happened. 



Perkins completed that teams inside.  He filled a leadership role.  The Thunder improved because of it. 

[kozlodoev]

I really have to question whether people posting in this thread actually watch a lot of Thunder games.  They talk about Perkins and his "injury" like he's walking around with a cane or something. 

This season, Perk is moving around pretty well, and is going a lot of the things he did in Boston - setting picks, mucking up the paint, boxing out, rebounding, playing team defense and bodying up low post offensive players. 

I have to question this as purely subjective, as nothing I've seen supports it. Perkins' PER has markedly dropped since the injury. Moreover, last year, he was giving up 15 PER to opposing counterpart while having a 9 PER himself. This year, the situation is even worse (19 and 11).

Somewhat surprisingly, his rebounding rate has stayed the same over time. But he's no longer blocking shots, and his FG% has fallen off a cliff.

You can harp about his "mentoring role" all you want, but swap Zaza Pachulia for Perkins, and the Thunder will still be a contender.

[kozlodoev]

Response to this.

Thunder are more sucessful and continue to become better in spite of Perk

and

sucess is just all the guys maturing and playing better as a team.

Which magically happened when the trade happened. 



Perkins completed that teams inside.  He filled a leadership role.  The Thunder improved because of it.

1. I did not say this. Someone else did.

and

2. The maturation is a process that started long before Perk arrived, and has seemingly been continuing at a steady pace for the last ~4 years.

[wdleehi]

Response to this.

Thunder are more sucessful and continue to become better in spite of Perk

and

sucess is just all the guys maturing and playing better as a team.

Which magically happened when the trade happened. 



Perkins completed that teams inside.  He filled a leadership role.  The Thunder improved because of it.

1. I did not say this.

and

2. The maturation is a process that started long before Perk arrived, and has seemingly been continuing at a steady pace for the last ~4 years.

I know you didn't say it, but the quote you took of mine was a response to those quotes of another poster.
 

I agree the Thunder players have been maturing.  Just like I agree the talent level of the Thunder players.


The addition of Perkins improved their team.  They are happy about it. 

[D.o.s.]

Response to this.

Thunder are more sucessful and continue to become better in spite of Perk

and

sucess is just all the guys maturing and playing better as a team.

Which magically happened when the trade happened. 



Perkins completed that teams inside.  He filled a leadership role.  The Thunder improved because of it.

1. I did not say this.

and

2. The maturation is a process that started long before Perk arrived, and has seemingly been continuing at a steady pace for the last ~4 years.

I know you didn't say it, but the quote you took of mine was a response to those quotes of another poster.
 

I agree the Thunder players have been maturing.  Just like I agree the talent level of the Thunder players.


The addition of Perkins improved their team.  They are happy about it.

Sure, but it was addition by subtraction. Perk (as a player) was relatively unimportant to the trade.

[wdleehi]

Response to this.

Thunder are more sucessful and continue to become better in spite of Perk

and

sucess is just all the guys maturing and playing better as a team.

Which magically happened when the trade happened. 



Perkins completed that teams inside.  He filled a leadership role.  The Thunder improved because of it.

1. I did not say this.

and

2. The maturation is a process that started long before Perk arrived, and has seemingly been continuing at a steady pace for the last ~4 years.

I know you didn't say it, but the quote you took of mine was a response to those quotes of another poster.
 

I agree the Thunder players have been maturing.  Just like I agree the talent level of the Thunder players.


The addition of Perkins improved their team.  They are happy about it.

Sure, but it was addition by subtraction. Perk (as a player) was relatively unimportant to the trade.

I take it you are not a Green fan.

[Edgar]

Response to this.

Thunder are more sucessful and continue to become better in spite of Perk

and

sucess is just all the guys maturing and playing better as a team.

Which magically happened when the trade happened. 



Perkins completed that teams inside.  He filled a leadership role.  The Thunder improved because of it.

1. I did not say this.

and

2. The maturation is a process that started long before Perk arrived, and has seemingly been continuing at a steady pace for the last ~4 years.

I know you didn't say it, but the quote you took of mine was a response to those quotes of another poster.
 

I agree the Thunder players have been maturing.  Just like I agree the talent level of the Thunder players.


The addition of Perkins improved their team.  They are happy about it.

Sure, but it was addition by subtraction. Perk (as a player) was relatively unimportant to the trade.

he filled a role.............

just like.............
in here

[D.o.s.]

Response to this.

Thunder are more sucessful and continue to become better in spite of Perk

and

sucess is just all the guys maturing and playing better as a team.

Which magically happened when the trade happened. 



Perkins completed that teams inside.  He filled a leadership role.  The Thunder improved because of it.

1. I did not say this.

and

2. The maturation is a process that started long before Perk arrived, and has seemingly been continuing at a steady pace for the last ~4 years.

I know you didn't say it, but the quote you took of mine was a response to those quotes of another poster.
 

I agree the Thunder players have been maturing.  Just like I agree the talent level of the Thunder players.


The addition of Perkins improved their team.  They are happy about it.

Sure, but it was addition by subtraction. Perk (as a player) was relatively unimportant to the trade.

I take it you are not a Green fan.

I'm actually solidly in the Green camp. I think he's a much better fit for our team as we transition out of the KG/Pierce era and really start to key our team around Rondo. I thought the trade was a good idea (aside from the timing, but we needed a wing in the worst way possible).

The addition by subtraction comment was for the Thunder--for that roster, at that time, moving Green so Harden and Ibaka could get more minutes made perfect sense. The fact that they got Perkins to replace Mohammed was icing on the cake, but that's all it was--icing.

[mctyson]

I have to question this as purely subjective, as nothing I've seen supports it. Perkins' PER has markedly dropped since the injury. Moreover, last year, he was giving up 15 PER to opposing counterpart while having a 9 PER himself. This year, the situation is even worse (19 and 11).

Somewhat surprisingly, his rebounding rate has stayed the same over time. But he's no longer blocking shots, and his FG% has fallen off a cliff.

You can harp about his "mentoring role" all you want, but swap Zaza Pachulia for Perkins, and the Thunder will still be a contender.

I posted in this thread that Perk, using PER stats, is arguably one of the worst starting Centers in the league.  He has been for a few years now.

On Celticsblog, Perk defenders will constantly rebut any measure of Perk's play using conventional or advanced stats with subjective accounts of his greatness.  This is what happens when your primary contribution as a player is setting illegal picks, dropping passes, and missing free throws.  Defenders will talk about how great a leader he is, how he mentors OKC's benchwarmers, how he is mean and tough and scowls and rotates well on defense. 

The main stat they will use to back this up is OKC's record, and how they are a "better team" with since the day OKC traded for Perk.  Of course, there is no direct causal link - we could also say that OKC simply has gotten better as their stars have gained experience and Perk has simply gone along for the ride (much like he did in Boston.)  The one thing we do know, for certain, is that his production the past few years has been his worst since he became a starter in the league.  He is getting worse, not better, and his contract will be a terrible burden for OKC in the near future.  Actually, it already is.

[Celtics4ever]

That ship has sailed.

I too think Perk was a little more than mediocre on the boards and offensively.  He could play some D though and I liked his personality.

Trouble is today, there are not many centers.  So a guy like Perk looks better than what he is in reality and then you have the whole home town fan thing going.

[TripleOT]

I have to question this as purely subjective, as nothing I've seen supports it. Perkins' PER has markedly dropped since the injury. Moreover, last year, he was giving up 15 PER to opposing counterpart while having a 9 PER himself. This year, the situation is even worse (19 and 11).

Somewhat surprisingly, his rebounding rate has stayed the same over time. But he's no longer blocking shots, and his FG% has fallen off a cliff.

You can harp about his "mentoring role" all you want, but swap Zaza Pachulia for Perkins, and the Thunder will still be a contender.

I posted in this thread that Perk, using PER stats, is arguably one of the worst starting Centers in the league.  He has been for a few years now.

On Celticsblog, Perk defenders will constantly rebut any measure of Perk's play using conventional or advanced stats with subjective accounts of his greatness.  This is what happens when your primary contribution as a player is setting illegal picks, dropping passes, and missing free throws.  Defenders will talk about how great a leader he is, how he mentors OKC's benchwarmers, how he is mean and tough and scowls and rotates well on defense. 

The main stat they will use to back this up is OKC's record, and how they are a "better team" with since the day OKC traded for Perk.  Of course, there is no direct causal link - we could also say that OKC simply has gotten better as their stars have gained experience and Perk has simply gone along for the ride (much like he did in Boston.)  The one thing we do know, for certain, is that his production the past few years has been his worst since he became a starter in the league.  He is getting worse, not better, and his contract will be a terrible burden for OKC in the near future.  Actually, it already is.

If this is the case, why is almost everything I head or read out of OKC the opposite?  Why did Wojo take the time to write an entire column about Perk's positive influence on the Thunder?  Why are KD and Westbrooks so happy with Perkins?

I see the Perkins issue as a litmus test on fans.  Do you truly understand NBA basketball, how physical it is and how important it is to have a paint presence?  Or are you more of a stat guy, who is sued to suing stats to form your opinion? 

Advanced statistics has been the rage lately with the NBA, but basketball isn't like baseball.  The teamwork that goes on in basketball is different than baseball.  There's no stat that shows how many times a Perkins type boxed out the other team's best rebounder so that Westbrooks or KD could pull down a defensive rebound.    One can look at points per 100 possessions, but there isn't a true metric (that I know of anyways) to figure out how important a Perkins setting solid screens all game affects an opponents defense (especially later in games after running into him a bunch of times already).

The 89-24 record since OKC traded for Perk tells me a couple of things that are indisputable.  Jettisoning Jeff Green and Nedad Kristic, two soft players, and adding Perk and Muhammed, two physical players, changed the culture of the team.  Opening up more minutes and more of a role for Ibaka and Harden made the team more potent. Putting a wide body next to Ibaka helped him, as did having a widebody playing next to KG when Perk was in Boston.  Perkins championship pedigree and mentorship has helped the Thunder.

We can debate about Perk forever (and we probably will) but as long as that team wins around 80% of its games with Perkins as their starting center and "tough guy," I'm going to give him some credit for it.

As we (should have) learned in 2008, it's essential to have tough role players willing to do the dirty work on a championship team.