Bynum injured / Bynum vs. Perk

[GKC]

I bet Kupchack loves when Bynum is injured. He gets to recoup insurance money from the horrendous contract he gave Bynum to begin with. $58 million over 4 years for a guy nobody was bidding over $45 for?

Hurray.

Insurance doesn't cover most injuries, especially not the ones of the nature Bynum has had.

Actually, insurance doesn't cover injuries less that were prior injuries from signing the contract. So in Bynum's terms, those would be knee issues. I'm sure they get something back for the elbow.

[Mr October]

But Bynum is still better than Perk, everyone says.

I sort of compare it to Tracy McGrady vs. Paul Pierce.  Everyone says McGrady is so much better, when not injured.  But that's the problem, he's always injured, just like Bynum.  You can't NOT factor that in.

Perk>Bynum
Pierce>McGrady

Yes, I am a Celtics fan.  For life.

I love the Celtics! And I love the C's roster.

But... No one out side of Boston's fanbase would choose Perkins over Bynum. I doubt Perkins will ever evolve into a 14 and 10 guy. Or if he does that will be the absolute ceiling.

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

However, I still like whats going on between Perk's ears more than I like whats going on between Bynum's. 

[blackbird]

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

So does Kwame Brown. And Mark Blount, for that matter.

I'll take Perk's proven results over Bynum's potential. Once you've been in the league as long as Bynum has, you have to stop talking about potential.

[Mr October]

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

So does Kwame Brown. And Mark Blount, for that matter.

I'll take Perk's proven results over Bynum's potential. Once you've been in the league as long as Bynum has, you have to stop talking about potential.

Bynum is proven. The guy won a title as part of a great Laker team. In 30 minutes per game, he puts up 14 and 10 with ease. Yet he has the potential to be greater. Heck so far this year he is putting up 20 and 10.

He has much, much better hands than Kwame Brown. Better than Perkins.

Brown and Blount haven't come close to averaging 14 and 10 with any consistency.

[Eja117]

http://www.sbnation.com/2009/11/5/1117161/andrew-bynum-elbow-injury-lakers

So when they don't repeat we already know why, apparently Bynum is made out of some kind of glass or other brittle material.

I think that you're being awfully mean to glass and other brittle materials.

[Mr October]

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

So does Kwame Brown. And Mark Blount, for that matter.

I'll take Perk's proven results over Bynum's potential. Once you've been in the league as long as Bynum has, you have to stop talking about potential.

Bynum is proven. The guy won a title as part of a great Laker team. In 30 minutes per game, he puts up 14 and 10 with ease. Yet he has the potential to be greater. Heck so far this year he is putting up 20 and 10.

He has much, much better hands than Kwame Brown. Better than Perkins.

Brown and Blount haven't come close to averaging 14 and 10 with any consistency.

Personally I like Perkins more. I like how he makes the most out of his limited skills. I love his blue collar attitude! He epitomizes Boston that way. I hope he is a Celtic for life.

Meanwhile Bynum is playboy mansion going, wanna be celebrity superstar - epitomizing LA. But the guy can really ball.

[xmuscularghandix]

Who wants to lay down some odds for who misses major time first:  Bynum or Vince Carter?

Carter has played in 70+ games every year since 2003.

[liam]

http://www.sbnation.com/2009/11/5/1117161/andrew-bynum-elbow-injury-lakers

So when they don't repeat we already know why, apparently Bynum is made out of some kind of glass or other brittle material.

They call him Mr. Glass!

[blackbird]

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

So does Kwame Brown. And Mark Blount, for that matter.

I'll take Perk's proven results over Bynum's potential. Once you've been in the league as long as Bynum has, you have to stop talking about potential.

Bynum is proven. The guy won a title as part of a great Laker team. In 30 minutes per game, he puts up 14 and 10 with ease. Yet he has the potential to be greater. Heck so far this year he is putting up 20 and 10.

He has much, much better hands than Kwame Brown. Better than Perkins.

Brown and Blount haven't come close to averaging 14 and 10 with any consistency.

Oh yeah. I'm still in denial that it actually happened.

[crownsy]

But Bynum is still better than Perk, everyone says.

I sort of compare it to Tracy McGrady vs. Paul Pierce.  Everyone says McGrady is so much better, when not injured.  But that's the problem, he's always injured, just like Bynum.  You can't NOT factor that in.

Perk>Bynum
Pierce>McGrady

Yes, I am a Celtics fan.  For life.

I love the Celtics! And I love the C's roster.

But... No one out side of Boston's fanbase would choose Perkins over Bynum. I doubt Perkins will ever evolve into a 14 and 10 guy. Or if he does that will be the absolute ceiling.

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

However, I still like whats going on between Perk's ears more than I like whats going on between Bynum's. 

I don't think Cman's argument is based on the talent between the two being equal.

 His premise (which i agree with) is that a consistent player who is rarely injured (which may be a reach with perk's shoulder, granted) is better than a more talented player who is often injured.

To take perk and anti-laker ism out of the equation and illustrate Cman's point,  take this hypothetical:

Player A is a center who averages: 12 PPG, 10 RPG and 2 Blocks. He has little trouble with nagging injuries, and averages 75 games a year.

Player B is a center who averages: 20 PPG, 13 RPG, and 3 blocks. He has injury troubles however, often missing both major and minor stretchs of games. on average he plays 50 games per year.

Who would you rather have?

EDIT: games per year changed to be more realistic to wear and tear on nba players

[RAcker]

http://www.sbnation.com/2009/11/5/1117161/andrew-bynum-elbow-injury-lakers

So when they don't repeat we already know why, apparently Bynum is made out of some kind of glass or other brittle material.

They call him Mr. Glass!

I'm sorry, but this was crying out for a photo.

[Mr October]

But Bynum is still better than Perk, everyone says.

I sort of compare it to Tracy McGrady vs. Paul Pierce.  Everyone says McGrady is so much better, when not injured.  But that's the problem, he's always injured, just like Bynum.  You can't NOT factor that in.

Perk>Bynum
Pierce>McGrady

Yes, I am a Celtics fan.  For life.

I love the Celtics! And I love the C's roster.

But... No one out side of Boston's fanbase would choose Perkins over Bynum. I doubt Perkins will ever evolve into a 14 and 10 guy. Or if he does that will be the absolute ceiling.

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

However, I still like whats going on between Perk's ears more than I like whats going on between Bynum's. 

I don't think Cman's argument is based on the talent between the two being equal.

 His premise (which i agree with) is that a consistent player who is rarely injured (which may be a reach with perk's shoulder, granted) is better than a more talented player who is often injured.

To take perk and anti-laker ism out of the equation and illustrate Cman's point,  take this hypothetical:

Player A is a center who averages: 12 PPG, 10 RPG and 2 Blocks. He has little trouble with nagging injuries, and averages 75 games a year.

Player B is a center who averages: 20 PPG, 13 RPG, and 3 blocks. He has injury troubles however, often missing both major and minor stretchs of games. on average he plays 50 games per year.

Who would you rather have?

EDIT: games per year changed to be more realistic to wear and tear on nba players

Oh I get it completely. And Perk's shoulder / foul trouble is part of the package.

I'll take player B, Bynum if I am starting a new non Celtic team.

However I do agree that Pierce is/was a better player than McGrady. Pierce has been an iron man outside of one season; and brings/brought it every night (at least compared to McGrady).

[crownsy]

But Bynum is still better than Perk, everyone says.

I sort of compare it to Tracy McGrady vs. Paul Pierce.  Everyone says McGrady is so much better, when not injured.  But that's the problem, he's always injured, just like Bynum.  You can't NOT factor that in.

Perk>Bynum
Pierce>McGrady

Yes, I am a Celtics fan.  For life.

I love the Celtics! And I love the C's roster.

But... No one out side of Boston's fanbase would choose Perkins over Bynum. I doubt Perkins will ever evolve into a 14 and 10 guy. Or if he does that will be the absolute ceiling.

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

However, I still like whats going on between Perk's ears more than I like whats going on between Bynum's. 

I don't think Cman's argument is based on the talent between the two being equal.

 His premise (which i agree with) is that a consistent player who is rarely injured (which may be a reach with perk's shoulder, granted) is better than a more talented player who is often injured.

To take perk and anti-laker ism out of the equation and illustrate Cman's point,  take this hypothetical:

Player A is a center who averages: 12 PPG, 10 RPG and 2 Blocks. He has little trouble with nagging injuries, and averages 75 games a year.

Player B is a center who averages: 20 PPG, 13 RPG, and 3 blocks. He has injury troubles however, often missing both major and minor stretchs of games. on average he plays 50 games per year.

Who would you rather have?

EDIT: games per year changed to be more realistic to wear and tear on nba players

Oh I get it completely. And Perk's shoulder / foul trouble is part of the package.

I'll take player B, Bynum if I am starting a new non Celtic team.

However I do agree that Pierce is/was a better player than McGrady. Pierce has been an iron man outside of one season; and brings/brought it every night (at least compared to McGrady).

forget perk vs. bynum, i asked you a hypo to specifically eliminate that you would factor perk's shoulder in. I'm talking about the overall premise of the argument, while your focusing on the specifics you allege to Cman's argument.

you would really take a player who on average in this hypo misses 40% of the season every year for seven more points and three boards per game to start a franchise?

I think you would make some of the walking awful contracts in the NBA very happy as a gm with that logic  .

[Mr October]

But Bynum is still better than Perk, everyone says.

I sort of compare it to Tracy McGrady vs. Paul Pierce.  Everyone says McGrady is so much better, when not injured.  But that's the problem, he's always injured, just like Bynum.  You can't NOT factor that in.

Perk>Bynum
Pierce>McGrady

Yes, I am a Celtics fan.  For life.

I love the Celtics! And I love the C's roster.

But... No one out side of Boston's fanbase would choose Perkins over Bynum. I doubt Perkins will ever evolve into a 14 and 10 guy. Or if he does that will be the absolute ceiling.

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

However, I still like whats going on between Perk's ears more than I like whats going on between Bynum's. 

I don't think Cman's argument is based on the talent between the two being equal.

 His premise (which i agree with) is that a consistent player who is rarely injured (which may be a reach with perk's shoulder, granted) is better than a more talented player who is often injured.

To take perk and anti-laker ism out of the equation and illustrate Cman's point,  take this hypothetical:

Player A is a center who averages: 12 PPG, 10 RPG and 2 Blocks. He has little trouble with nagging injuries, and averages 75 games a year.

Player B is a center who averages: 20 PPG, 13 RPG, and 3 blocks. He has injury troubles however, often missing both major and minor stretchs of games. on average he plays 50 games per year.

Who would you rather have?

EDIT: games per year changed to be more realistic to wear and tear on nba players

Oh I get it completely. And Perk's shoulder / foul trouble is part of the package.

I'll take player B, Bynum if I am starting a new non Celtic team.

However I do agree that Pierce is/was a better player than McGrady. Pierce has been an iron man outside of one season; and brings/brought it every night (at least compared to McGrady).

forget perk vs. bynum, i asked you a hypo to specifically eliminate that you would factor perk's shoulder in. I'm talking about the overall premise of the argument, while your focusing on the specifics you allege to Cman's argument.

you would really take a player who on average in this hypo misses 40% of the season every year for seven more points and three boards per game to start a franchise?

I think you would make some of the walking awful contracts in the NBA very happy as a gm with that logic  .

OK, going with a perfect scenario that i think you're drawing up: if player B is guaranteed to miss 40% of all the remaining games in his career, while player A is an iron man, then I will take player A.

Now going back to real life specifics: Bynum's injuries have been a little freaky. I would be willing to wager a stack of tommy points, that Bynum's health record is going to improve. With that in mind, I (like most GMs) in the NBA would take Bynum over Perkins to start a new team.

We can bookmark this thread and check it in 2-3 years. 

[crownsy]

But Bynum is still better than Perk, everyone says.

I sort of compare it to Tracy McGrady vs. Paul Pierce.  Everyone says McGrady is so much better, when not injured.  But that's the problem, he's always injured, just like Bynum.  You can't NOT factor that in.

Perk>Bynum
Pierce>McGrady

Yes, I am a Celtics fan.  For life.

I love the Celtics! And I love the C's roster.

But... No one out side of Boston's fanbase would choose Perkins over Bynum. I doubt Perkins will ever evolve into a 14 and 10 guy. Or if he does that will be the absolute ceiling.

Bynum is bigger, faster, more athletic and has the potential to be greater than 14 and 10.

However, I still like whats going on between Perk's ears more than I like whats going on between Bynum's. 

I don't think Cman's argument is based on the talent between the two being equal.

 His premise (which i agree with) is that a consistent player who is rarely injured (which may be a reach with perk's shoulder, granted) is better than a more talented player who is often injured.

To take perk and anti-laker ism out of the equation and illustrate Cman's point,  take this hypothetical:

Player A is a center who averages: 12 PPG, 10 RPG and 2 Blocks. He has little trouble with nagging injuries, and averages 75 games a year.

Player B is a center who averages: 20 PPG, 13 RPG, and 3 blocks. He has injury troubles however, often missing both major and minor stretchs of games. on average he plays 50 games per year.

Who would you rather have?

EDIT: games per year changed to be more realistic to wear and tear on nba players

Oh I get it completely. And Perk's shoulder / foul trouble is part of the package.

I'll take player B, Bynum if I am starting a new non Celtic team.

However I do agree that Pierce is/was a better player than McGrady. Pierce has been an iron man outside of one season; and brings/brought it every night (at least compared to McGrady).

forget perk vs. bynum, i asked you a hypo to specifically eliminate that you would factor perk's shoulder in. I'm talking about the overall premise of the argument, while your focusing on the specifics you allege to Cman's argument.

you would really take a player who on average in this hypo misses 40% of the season every year for seven more points and three boards per game to start a franchise?

I think you would make some of the walking awful contracts in the NBA very happy as a gm with that logic  .

OK, going with a perfect scenario that i think you're drawing up: if player B is guaranteed to miss 40% of all the remaining games in his career, while player A is an iron man, then I will take player A.

Now going back to real life specifics: Bynum's injuries have been a little freaky. I would be willing to wager a stack of tommy points, that Bynum's health record is going to improve. With that in mind, I (like most GMs) in the NBA would take Bynum over Perkins to start a new team.

We can bookmark this thread and check it in 2-3 years. 

50 games average per year is not unreasonable. go do the math on yao's injuries. big guys get hurt.

75 games is hardly "an iron man" on average, it still allows for missing 9-10 games a year.

and i don't think your second argument is a valid one, because no NBA franchise would take either of them to start a team. (assuming, as the scenario implies that they have access to any of the young big men players in the league)

 Perk is not a franchise guy, and Bynum has been far to inconsistent and injury prone to earn the tag, despite clearly being a better two way player than perk.

Neither one is franchise starting material.