Author Topic: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...  (Read 6146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #120 on: December 12, 2012, 01:18:20 PM »

Offline RyNye

  • NGT
  • Jeff Green
  • Posts: 716
  • Tommy Points: 97
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.   

I don't think it is essential to have a tough role player. It's a load of hogwash. There have been plenty of championship teams without an enforcer or anything similar (the Spurs, the Heat, etc.).

That said, I think it is a matter of systems. In the Boston system, Perk, although not a very good basketball player, had an important role. His style of play (regardless of how you qualify it as tough or what have you) just happened to fit alongside KG and our defensive scheme. The biggest proof of this is the 2010 Finals, and our team performance pre- and post-injury.

You can't just plug Perk in on any team to fill that role, because he honestly isn't talented enough to adapt his play to fill even slightly different roles. Although his locker room presence may be welcomed in OKC, his on-court performance has mostly hurt them, unfortunately. Maybe it is because of the injury, but I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that he just isn't suited for their system as much as he was in Boston.

It irritates me when people say shallow things like "WE NEED AN ENFORCER LOL LOL". It's completely meaningless to say stuff like that. It has nothing to do with intimidation or being tough, it has to do with understanding and fitting the system, which Perk did once upon a time. No more, no less.

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #121 on: December 12, 2012, 01:55:16 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
That said, I think it is a matter of systems. In the Boston system, Perk, although not a very good basketball player, had an important role. His style of play (regardless of how you qualify it as tough or what have you) just happened to fit alongside KG and our defensive scheme. The biggest proof of this is the 2010 Finals, and our team performance pre- and post-injury.
2010 finals? You mean the one game sample, where after going 3-3 over the previous 6 games, the Celts had and lost a lead, where PP and RA couldn't hit a shot, but Artest couldn't miss?

Hardly proves the point.

I think we were a better team in 2011 when Shaq was healthy over Perk playing - (and Shaq 2011 was not close to Shaq 2000 or even Shaq 2006). A better summary IMO would be that Perk's glaring weaknesses were very well covered by the remaining starters in Boston - allowing his strengths to be taken advantage of. That was a unique situation, and his value is much lower elsewhere and even here would be less now than then.

If they magically added Shaq in place of Darko during training camp, I think Perk would have been KGs backup. At least that would've been the best use/role for him.

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #122 on: December 12, 2012, 02:16:59 PM »

Online Who

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30468
  • Tommy Points: 1282
That said, I think it is a matter of systems. In the Boston system, Perk, although not a very good basketball player, had an important role. His style of play (regardless of how you qualify it as tough or what have you) just happened to fit alongside KG and our defensive scheme. The biggest proof of this is the 2010 Finals, and our team performance pre- and post-injury.
2010 finals? You mean the one game sample, where after going 3-3 over the previous 6 games, the Celts had and lost a lead, where PP and RA couldn't hit a shot, but Artest couldn't miss?

Hardly proves the point.

I think we were a better team in 2011 when Shaq was healthy over Perk playing - (and Shaq 2011 was not close to Shaq 2000 or even Shaq 2006). A better summary IMO would be that Perk's glaring weaknesses were very well covered by the remaining starters in Boston - allowing his strengths to be taken advantage of. That was a unique situation, and his value is much lower elsewhere and even here would be less now than then.

If they magically added Shaq in place of Darko during training camp, I think Perk would have been KGs backup. At least that would've been the best use/role for him.

I think Perk's strengths and weaknesses are well compensated for and necessary to the success of the Oklahoma City Thunder.

Mainly Ibaka. That is the most important partnership for Perk and for Oklahoma's team defense. Ibaka lacks the physical size/bulk to handle bigger opponents + Ibaka's main strength is ability to roam defensively and create havoc with his team defense. To block and alter shots.

Perk's physical power based defense is the perfect complement to Ibaka's roaming defense. And likewise, Ibaka's quick footed defense is a necessary complement to Perk's plodding ways.

They need each other. They maximize one another's defensive skill-sets ... oh, and rebounding - with Perk great at boxing out and Ibaka brilliant at multiple effort plays and pulling down rebounds out of his area.

It was the same with Ben Wallace. He always preferred to play alongside someone with physical size/power who freed him up to roam defensively. It made him much more effective as a defender. Especially later in his career during the Chicago and Cleveland years. 

Offensively also, Ibaka's midrange and long two point jump-shooting is key to providing adequate spacing for his rest of the lineup. Without Ibaka's jump-shooting, Perk's limitations offensively would be a much larger issue.

Oklahoma have the right personnel and do a great job of incorporating and building around both Perkins' strengths and his weaknesses. Especially Ibaka. Ibaka and Perk do a great deal to help one another succeed on the court. They have a great partnership.

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #123 on: December 12, 2012, 06:27:42 PM »

Offline mctyson

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1819
  • Tommy Points: 133
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.   

I will ignore the not-so-subtle swipe that, because I use basic numbers to backup my opinions - opinions I derive from watching the NBA - that somehow I do not "truly understand NBA basketball."

I had season tickets before I left MA.  This was 2006-2007.  You know, the year they won less than 30% of their games, set a record for consecutive losses, etc.  I didn't see them win one game that year.  I left halfway through the season.

Perkins was on that team.  It was his 4th year in the league.  He was awful.  He did not play any role in making that team better.  In fact, he was a main reason they only won 24 games.  He had a PER of 9.5, the worst of his career up to that point.  He was playing 21 minutes a game.

Fast forward to next year - he is playing 24 minutes a game, an increase for sure, but nothing major.  The team wins 66 games, wins the NBA championship, and the rest is history.  Perk puts up a PER of 13.3, a much better year than the previous, but similar to the numbers he put up in 2005 and 2004.  In no way do I attribute his play on that 07-08 team to them winning a championship.  They won that year because of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen.

Fast forward some more to this year.  Perk has put up PERs of 9.1, 8.7, and now 10 in his 3 seasons in OKC.  His offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, blocks, and points are at all time lows for him.  He is actually producing less than the year the C's won 24 games.

Perks best years as a player were beside KG and being coached by Doc.  I understand why Celtics fans are attached to Perk.  He was a big, chubby, young high school kid who shaped himself into the best possible player he could ever be.  Plus, from what I read, he is a really nice person.  But the facts are that he has always been a very poor starting NBA center by almost every possible measure.  He is now paid close to $10M a year by OKC to be that very poor player, and OKC most likely had to trade James Harden (a member of our Olympic squad) to avoid using the amnesty clause on a guy they signed just 2 years ago.

The 89-24 record OKC had since Perk arrive tells me one thing:  Kevin Durant and Brian Westbrook and Serge Ibaka and (formerly) Harden are awesome.  That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #124 on: December 12, 2012, 06:35:37 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11111
  • Tommy Points: 2167
Quote
That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

So could Pachulia, Kristic or Nick Collison defend Dwight or Bynum?

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #125 on: December 12, 2012, 06:57:30 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9470
  • Tommy Points: 509
Quote
That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

So could Pachulia, Kristic or Nick Collison defend Dwight or Bynum?
I hear both Bynum and Howard have been bounced from the playoffs recently by teams that didn't have Kendrick Perkins. Shocker.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #126 on: December 12, 2012, 07:01:49 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10404
  • Tommy Points: 647
Quote
That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

So could Pachulia, Kristic or Nick Collison defend Dwight or Bynum?
I hear both Bynum and Howard have been bounced from the playoffs recently by teams that didn't have Kendrick Perkins. Shocker.

We had Kristic. We sucked with him. Perk stays instead of Kristic and we'd have number 18.
DKC: GM Boston Celtics: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuCTllmkG26udHRaa0xrWm1qZTExaHltaEdtZzVRNFE&usp=sharing#gid=50
PG:Rondo/Miller/Udrih/Dinwiddle
SG:Afflalo/Williams/Delladova
SF:Green/Young
PF:Hill/Powell
C:Hibbert/Nurcik/Bynum

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #127 on: December 12, 2012, 07:07:25 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9470
  • Tommy Points: 509
Quote
That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

So could Pachulia, Kristic or Nick Collison defend Dwight or Bynum?
I hear both Bynum and Howard have been bounced from the playoffs recently by teams that didn't have Kendrick Perkins. Shocker.

We had Kristic. We sucked with him. Perk stays instead of Kristic and we'd have number 18.
Leaving aside the fact that this statement is quite questionable, how is it related to the success of OKC?
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #128 on: December 12, 2012, 07:07:45 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • NCE
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9633
  • Tommy Points: 505
Quote
That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

So could Pachulia, Kristic or Nick Collison defend Dwight or Bynum?
I hear both Bynum and Howard have been bounced from the playoffs recently by teams that didn't have Kendrick Perkins. Shocker.

We had Kristic. We sucked with him. Perk stays instead of Kristic and we'd have number 18.


I 'd felt better about our chanced going for the banner with Perk .  Never cared for no-nads

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #129 on: December 12, 2012, 07:19:36 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11111
  • Tommy Points: 2167
Quote
That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

So could Pachulia, Kristic or Nick Collison defend Dwight or Bynum?
I hear both Bynum and Howard have been bounced from the playoffs recently by teams that didn't have Kendrick Perkins. Shocker.

Haha.

C'mon now, Kozlodoev...you watched OKC-LA in 2010-11 and 11-12, just like the rest of us.

The job that Perk (and Serge) did on Pau-Drew basically negated LA's strength, which WAS their twin towers.

Perk held Bynum to relatively modest gains in that series. He had a similar effect last yr. If OKC-LA meet again, and Pau and Dwight are still together, Kendrick-Serge stand a great shot at beating them once again - regardless of what Nash does.

Give him credit. He plays his role well - so well, in fact, that I bet that if you sat down with Sam Presti he'd tell you that he is ECSTATIC about Kendrick Perkins, his leadership, him anchoring OKC's defense, etc, etc...

I think the rub with Perk is that some of us here just find it hard to believe that, for once in a while -

Statistics just don't matter.

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #130 on: December 12, 2012, 07:48:19 PM »

Offline TripleOT

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 213

I will ignore the not-so-subtle swipe that, because I use basic numbers to backup my opinions - opinions I derive from watching the NBA - that somehow I do not "truly understand NBA basketball."

I had season tickets before I left MA.  This was 2006-2007.  You know, the year they won less than 30% of their games, set a record for consecutive losses, etc.  I didn't see them win one game that year.  I left halfway through the season.

Perkins was on that team.  It was his 4th year in the league.  He was awful.  He did not play any role in making that team better.  In fact, he was a main reason they only won 24 games.  He had a PER of 9.5, the worst of his career up to that point.  He was playing 21 minutes a game.

Fast forward to next year - he is playing 24 minutes a game, an increase for sure, but nothing major.  The team wins 66 games, wins the NBA championship, and the rest is history.  Perk puts up a PER of 13.3, a much better year than the previous, but similar to the numbers he put up in 2005 and 2004.  In no way do I attribute his play on that 07-08 team to them winning a championship.  They won that year because of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen.

Fast forward some more to this year.  Perk has put up PERs of 9.1, 8.7, and now 10 in his 3 seasons in OKC.  His offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, blocks, and points are at all time lows for him.  He is actually producing less than the year the C's won 24 games.

Perks best years as a player were beside KG and being coached by Doc.  I understand why Celtics fans are attached to Perk.  He was a big, chubby, young high school kid who shaped himself into the best possible player he could ever be.  Plus, from what I read, he is a really nice person.  But the facts are that he has always been a very poor starting NBA center by almost every possible measure.  He is now paid close to $10M a year by OKC to be that very poor player, and OKC most likely had to trade James Harden (a member of our Olympic squad) to avoid using the amnesty clause on a guy they signed just 2 years ago.

The 89-24 record OKC had since Perk arrive tells me one thing:  Kevin Durant and Brian Westbrook and Serge Ibaka and (formerly) Harden are awesome.  That team would be where they are with Perkins, Pachulia, Kristic, or Nick Collison.  I'd bet the ranch on that.

I went to many of the games in 07-08 and all the home playoff games, sitting 13 rows from the court.  It was apparent to me that the physicality Perk brought to the starting line up allowed KG to freelance for boards.  Perk boxed out, KG rose up for rebounds.  The past couple of years, KG has had to battle the hoards of offensive bigs crashing the boards because there's no big bodies playing next to him (KG is horrendous at boxing out). Is there a stat for that? Do you really think there's no value having a guy who can seal off the other team's big man on the boards? 

How about a guy who can play low post defense? I love how the stat heads who deride Perk never pull up that stat. One article I read quoted a Synergy Sports stat saying that Perk allowed only .77 points per shot in the post and held his opponent to 38% shooting. Can Krstic do that?

If a team can defend the low post one on one, it totally changes what the offense has to do to score. In a conference with a good amount of low post threats, there's a lot of value in that - about $7.8 million.

I know one way to settle this argument.  What do Pierce, Rondo and KG think about it?  I'm guessing the'd be in the pro-Perkins camp. I know KG benefits from playing next to a widebody.         

BTW, Perk makes $7.8m a year.  That's no where near $10m. 



Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #131 on: December 13, 2012, 06:50:25 PM »

Offline TripleOT

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 213
90-24 since jettisoning Jeff Green and adding Perkins. 

Re: Yeah, I wish we still had Perkins...
« Reply #132 on: December 13, 2012, 08:27:31 PM »

Offline European NBA fan

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 958
  • Tommy Points: 136
         

BTW, Perk makes $7.8m a year.  That's no where near $10m.

He makes $8.3 M this year, $9.0 M next year and $9.7 M the year after. You are using the numbers without likely incentives.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog