Perk's contributions will never be totally seen in the box score. He boxes out so teammates get rebounds. The OKC announcers see that because the night Perk got 13 rebounds they were talking about if they counted box outs or tips of rebounds he would have had 20. He clears out the area and that allows teammates to come in and get the rebounds. He also sets screens for his teammates to get open for shots. Their announcers were also mentioning how if you couldn't get a shot off with a Perk screen there was no hope for you.
Maybe that's why the Celtics' offense has been suffering. We don't have anyone aggressively setting screens (aside from that big green wall in the Spurs game. Krstic seems to be a little late on the screens, KG does set screens but doesn't have the bulk to really stop players and Big Baby has been too busy trying to get his shot to set good screens.
And to answer the original question, I've been visiting the OKC boards and they aren't pining for Green or Krstic back. They loved Green but realized that both players were soft and see the toughness that Perk brought to the team. They have been the top defensive team since Perk started playing. They are allowing over 10 fewer points per game than they were before the trade.
The OKC fans love Perk and what he brings to the team as well they should.
Agreed. I think that is a very underrated factor for the Celtics struggles. Their game is heavily reliant on off and on the ball screening. Not really top level clearout or post up player and they're not a transition team.
Another one is that the shot allocation get all messed up. That caused chemistry issues within their offense.
But again, if this was the case, then why were we so dominant without him in the first 1/2+ of the season?
Different team. They had Shaq and low usage players like Daniels and Erden in the rotation. Guys who are actually better doing the little things than Green/Krstic and that kept the shot allocation in place. There's a reason why most elite role-players are low usage, defensive minded, guys. Because there are always a limit on the amount of shots to be taken by the team but the opportunities to contribute outside of scoring are virtually limitless. I think this factor is generally underrated. People get blinded by scoring numbers.
Plus, they were able to go 4 deep with their big men consistently allowing everybody to play with more energy.
While I can appreciate that you miss Perk, can we keep this within the realm of reason here? Are you really going to argue that we miss Semih Erden's defensive presence? He can't even find time on the Cavs.
Minus the Shaq loss, it really isn't that much of a "different" team. Ray, Paul, and Rondo are still playing 36+ mpg, KG is still doing 32+, and Baby is still the sixth man. Jeff Green is an upgrade over Marquis and Delonte West is certainly an upgrade over Nate Robinson.
And let's not also forget that Rondo and KG also missed time while Perk was out and we still found ways to win.
Overall, I think our biggest problems are twofold:
1) First and foremost, our 4 All Stars aren't playing as well as they did in the first half. Attributing that to Perk doesn't make sense. He wasn't around in the first half when they played out of their minds and he was around last year when a skid worse than this occurred. And I think it has little to do with the surrounding players like Jeff Green and Nenad Krstic. Our four All Stars carried this team with Semih Erden starting at center and no backup big men.
2) I do think they miss legit big men in the middle. However, as you already have noted, Shaq can fix that problem, as can Jermaine O'Neal.
Topic: Thunder lose to Clippers; if only they had Jeff Green (Read 7420 times)