Bynum injured / Bynum vs. Perk

[TBreezy]

WAIT!  who is hypotheitcal players a and b? 

[crownsy]

WAIT!  who is hypotheitcal players a and b? 

well, other than the rebounds, player b is bynum so far this year (pre injury) If you want a close (though granted, scoring exagerated) non-laker, he's yao.

 

[Mr October]

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.

I think you're nitpicking a little, and the debate is starting to lose its focus. But thats OK, this is fun.

If an NBA team were forced to start a franchise with Bynum or Perkins, which one would they take? Please answer this question, short and simple.

75 games out of 82 is pretty darn close to perfect. Thats 90+ % ...That is pretty darn close to iron man status. I imagine Pierce plays about 75 games per year, and I think of him as a tough iron man type of player.

Could Bynum end up with a Yao-like injury history? Sure he could. That would be the biggest part of the risk of rolling with Bynum on your team. From what I have seen and read, Bynum should be OK for the rest of his career.

[Scalablob990]

I'd take Perk in a heartbeat over Bynum. Perk's D is better imo. Bynum looks good because he sits in the [dang] paint for 16 seconds without getting called. Although *I* would pick Rasheed Wallace over either of them to be in a close game to play down the stretch.

[dark_lord]

this is great!  screw the lakers  

[Mr October]

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.

I think you're nitpicking a little, and the debate is starting to lose its focus. But thats OK, this is fun.

If an NBA team were forced to start a franchise with Bynum or Perkins, which one would they take? Please answer this question, short and simple.

75 games out of 82 is pretty darn close to perfect. Thats 90+ % ...That is pretty darn close to iron man status. I imagine Pierce plays about 75 games per year, and I think of him as a tough iron man type of player.

Could Bynum end up with a Yao-like injury history? Sure he could. That would be the biggest part of the risk of rolling with Bynum on your team. From what I have seen and read, Bynum should be OK for the rest of his career.

Based on this quote from the "top 10 centers in the NBA thread", I think it is safe to assume your answer is Andrew Bynum.

Bynum has to be on there, i'd probably put him over perk at 6 and move perk down to 7b. with shaq.

I love Perkins, and I want him to be a Celtic for life (even if his career doesn't turn out to be as gaudy as Bynum's)..... just so long as Perk and the C's have more rings! 

[newdusk]

Please change the title of this thread to Perk vs Bynum

Anyways stats don't do Perk Any justice. He is not a franchise player but he is a starting center on just about any team. Perk can defend the perimeter protect the middle and can go 1 on 1 against any elite center in the league. I feel like Bynum's numbers are really deceptive. He averaged 20/10 last year for 5 games. There was a stretch last year where perk was probably also averaging close to that.

I think people get too wrapped up in the "potential" thing and not the sure thing. If I am a GM and I have a choice between Perk and Bynum, I know exactly what I'm going to get from Perk. An unselfish big man who LOVES to play defense and will work hard. BTW that wolves game would not have been won last night if it were not for Perk.

[Schupac]

Stats don't tell defense.  Perk's defense is much better than Bynum's.  And his team defense is massively better than Bynum's.  I'd take Perk.

I don't think this is being a homer.  I've yet to see Bynum do anything that really impressed me.

[BballTim]

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.

I think you're nitpicking a little, and the debate is starting to lose its focus. But thats OK, this is fun.

If an NBA team were forced to start a franchise with Bynum or Perkins, which one would they take? Please answer this question, short and simple.

75 games out of 82 is pretty darn close to perfect. Thats 90+ % ...That is pretty darn close to iron man status. I imagine Pierce plays about 75 games per year, and I think of him as a tough iron man type of player.

Could Bynum end up with a Yao-like injury history? Sure he could. That would be the biggest part of the risk of rolling with Bynum on your team. From what I have seen and read, Bynum should be OK for the rest of his career.

  Aside from his stress fracture Paul's had one year in his career (73 games in his 2nd year) where he missed more than 3 games.

[moiso]

Perk is one of my favorite C's.  He's our toughest big guy.  You know what you're going to get every night.  And maybe Perk is a better fit for the C's.  But if I was starting a team I would absolutely take Bynum.  His talent is enough to roll the dice on his injury history.  Most C's fans don't agree with this, but Bynum is an absolute stud when healthy.  A lot of people don't realize just how good he can be, and he's still very young.  Perk is a workman and a great defender, but Bynum will have teams built around him some day.

[freshinthehouse]

You know you're on a Celtics message board when the people choosing Bynum over Perk in a hypothetical argument are in the vast minority.

The answer is Bynum.  I love Perk.  If you ever check out Celtics Green, I've been touting him over there since we drafted him.  But Bynum is on another level then Perk.  And despite Bynum injury history, Perk's shoulder worries me as much (or more) than any of Bynum's injuries should worry a Laker fan.

[Greenbean]

Bynum still has potential, but I would rather have Perk for THIS team. accepts and perfects his role on this team.

If I was starting from scratch of course Bynum is the better prospect but right now Doc and Cliff have molded Perk into exactly what this team needs from their center.

Its not cut and dry though. Bynum really has done absolutely nothing in this league yet while Perk has gained quite a reputation as a great defender. Laker fans are still waiting for a breakout that may never come. Se last year's playoffs for example of how far bynum is in development. He was putrid while Perk elevated his game in KG's absence.