Perkins has little skills

[ManUp]

Perk is a good center, and good fit. There aren't many centers who you could swap him with without the Celtics getting worse. He's an above average center so theirs nothing to complain about.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

A 64.3% season from the floor (56.3% career) averaging 12 and 8 and the guy has little skills?! Give me as many of those guys as you want. Shaq never could guard a mobile big man that could shoot from the outside either and he seemed to make up for it in other areas. If you think that Perk is the problem on this team then you really shouldn't put any resumes into the league to be a scout or GM...

Are people really comparing Perkins to Shaq? I've seen it all on Celticsblog.

Only one aspect of Shaq's game.  I don't think the poster is insinuating that Perkins is anywhere near the level Shaq was but simply comparing each's abilities to guard a big man from the outside. 

Shaq made up for his inability to guard mobile big men by being the perhaps the best player ever. How does Perk make up for it? He makes up for it by being a "solid team defender."



Unfortunately, some people have jumped on certain parts of my post and now are picking at me, which is usually the case here. I never said Perk was "the problem" here, or that he is the reason why we are losing. I said he is less skilled than about half the big men in the league, making him a middle of the road king of guy. And if Perk has any value at the end of this season (which judging by this board you'd think he could land you a perennial All-Star), I would trade him for a future All-Star caliber PF or wing. Someone to pair with Rondo, while we rebuild.

Well, he makes up for the inability to guard mobile big men outside with his ability to deftly guard a big man in the paint.  The guy can rebound.  His shooting percentage is over 60% (find me 15 big men with that).  The guy can average over 10 points a game for you as primarily the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.  He does well to compensate in other aspects of the game.

Not everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of "homerism".  People are pointing out some very valid points of Perkins' game that should illustrate that he has more than "little skills".

Any of the fifteen centers I listed, if they were playing with the big three, would be one of the leaders in field goal percentage. some people act like Perk is doing something special with his shooting. He more or less stands in the paint and waits for the pass from Garnett or Rondo so he can lay it in. 58% of Perks shots are close range, and 12% of his shots are dunks. That's a total of 70% of his shots being bunnies. You can thank the four All-Stars he plays with his field goal percentage. If the defense actually focused on Perk, he would be absolutely useless on offense. Furthermore, only 2% of Perkins shot attempts are tips (one of the worst for big men), which tells you he is not a very active guy around the rim. 10% of Bogut's shots are tips, and 17% of Noah's shots are tips.

  One of the reason Perk doesn't get a lot of tips is because we get back on defense instead of crashing the offensive glass. Just curious, but when you were looking up those stats did you notice that Perk hits 73% of his close shots while those two "skilled" players are hitting them at 41% and 51% respectively? (aside: is this the first time anyone's called Noah skilled since he joined the nba?)

Now I understand. It's not all about the offense. I agree Perkins is a solid defender, and he may even be a good interior defender. But I will not say he is very good or even a great defender. His strong point is putting a body on physical specimens like Dwight Howard. I give Perk his due when it comes to that. But he is still incredibly slow, and he misses rotations quite often in the team defense. I will not acknowledge Perk as being a great defender like some people seem to do.

  Most of the opposing coaches seem to have noticed that he's one of the best defensive centers in the league despite your misgivings. And, just by coincidence, our path to the title would probably include those physical specimens (DH, Shaq, Bynum) that Perk excels against.

In a nutshell, most of Perk's close range shots are uncontested bunnies. Bogut and Noah don't have that luxury because neither play with three future Hall of Famers.

Have you actually been watching the games? Perhaps you could infer that from just looking at numbers (and I am a pro-stat guy, by the way) but from actually watching Perk this year and last I think anyone would understand that to be unequivocally false. Perk has developed a stellar inside and back to the basket game. A baby hook, up and unders, great footwork. His hard work with Clifford Ray has paid off in a league-leading field-goal percentage, efficient, nuanced offensive game.

If you don't believe me maybe Robert Parrish's word will count for something...

There was not a compulsion to visit the Celtics locker room, and a lot of people he barely knew. Robert Parish just watched the team he once made great dismantle Charlotte.

Of particular interest to the Celtics legend was the young post player who seemed to be growing with every touch of the ball.

Parish and Ray, the Celtics’ big man coach, used to tutor Kendrick Perkins at their summer big man’s camp. Though Perkins will forever be known as a defensive player – one of the few left in the league who can handle a big opposing center without help – Parish was impressed by his growth at the other end.

At one point, Perkins even took Nazr Mohammed off the dribble for a reverse layup. This was not the same raw kid from those summer camp days.

“No question,” Parish said of Perkins’ growth. “I’m very pleased to see how much work he’s put into the offensive end. The big difference is that his teammates are showing more confidence in him. Now he’s more decisive about what he’s gonna do. Now he’s making moves with a real purpose.”

Parish loves to watch Perkins for the simple reason that the youngster reminds him of the way the game used to be played, when big men were paint-oriented.

“He’s definitely a throwback,” Parish said. “Back then, there would have been a place for him, because he’s the kind of player who does things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. But you can tell he wants the ball now. He has a lot more confidence from his teammates.”

-Mark Murphy, Boston Herald. December 3rd, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Bkh_y9688

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8cB_yOzk

Look at the baby-hooks, the post-up moves for shots, the footwork etc. in this last video (against Noah, by the way) and tell me those aren't great big-man "skills"

And, by the way, I believe you want to say Perk has few skills. If he had "little" skills they would be small, diminutive. That statement would be grammaticaly and factually incorrect. To say he has "few" skills would leave you being merely factually incorrect.

[bdm860]

Perk is a good center, and good fit. There aren't many centers who you could swap him with without the Celtics getting worse. He's an above average center so theirs nothing to complain about.

I'm a little late to the game on this one (man 5 pages deep, I'm definitely slacking) so I'm going to start off saying ManUp got it dead on with his statement.

I think alot of the people here are arguing two different things.  Perk is not the most skilled center (I agree, and this is what I think the OP is saying).  But most of those 15 guys mentioned, the C's would get worse (which I also agree with).  Of those 15 Centers, who would play as well as Perk does as a 5th man?   Sure if I was building a team, and only those 15 players were available to me with my first pick, I'd pick alot of them over Perk, but if I have 3 established All-Stars , and 1 emerging All-Star and need to fill the starting Center role, Perk would be one of my top choices.

I think it's just sounds ridiculous because the way the OP comes off.  I can list a whole bunch of guards better than Eddie House, or I can list a whole bunch of PF/C's better than Sheed or Big Baby too, but trying to point out that a franchise cornerstone is much better than these players is pointless and unrealistic (because those kind of players aren't going to fill the role we need them to, or play for the salary we need them to, or is even attainable in the first place).  It's not like we passed up any of those guys to get Perk. Most of those guys were top 10 picks, Perk was 27th, what's the point?  Hey Chris Paul and Deron Williams are better than Rondo, why don't we start a thread saying that too?

For fun, who wants to look up and see how many Centers were taken before Perk in our very own CB draft?

[KungPoweChicken]

A 64.3% season from the floor (56.3% career) averaging 12 and 8 and the guy has little skills?! Give me as many of those guys as you want. Shaq never could guard a mobile big man that could shoot from the outside either and he seemed to make up for it in other areas. If you think that Perk is the problem on this team then you really shouldn't put any resumes into the league to be a scout or GM...

Are people really comparing Perkins to Shaq? I've seen it all on Celticsblog.

Only one aspect of Shaq's game.  I don't think the poster is insinuating that Perkins is anywhere near the level Shaq was but simply comparing each's abilities to guard a big man from the outside. 

Shaq made up for his inability to guard mobile big men by being the perhaps the best player ever. How does Perk make up for it? He makes up for it by being a "solid team defender."



Unfortunately, some people have jumped on certain parts of my post and now are picking at me, which is usually the case here. I never said Perk was "the problem" here, or that he is the reason why we are losing. I said he is less skilled than about half the big men in the league, making him a middle of the road king of guy. And if Perk has any value at the end of this season (which judging by this board you'd think he could land you a perennial All-Star), I would trade him for a future All-Star caliber PF or wing. Someone to pair with Rondo, while we rebuild.

Well, he makes up for the inability to guard mobile big men outside with his ability to deftly guard a big man in the paint.  The guy can rebound.  His shooting percentage is over 60% (find me 15 big men with that).  The guy can average over 10 points a game for you as primarily the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.  He does well to compensate in other aspects of the game.

Not everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of "homerism".  People are pointing out some very valid points of Perkins' game that should illustrate that he has more than "little skills".

Any of the fifteen centers I listed, if they were playing with the big three, would be one of the leaders in field goal percentage. some people act like Perk is doing something special with his shooting. He more or less stands in the paint and waits for the pass from Garnett or Rondo so he can lay it in. 58% of Perks shots are close range, and 12% of his shots are dunks. That's a total of 70% of his shots being bunnies. You can thank the four All-Stars he plays with his field goal percentage. If the defense actually focused on Perk, he would be absolutely useless on offense. Furthermore, only 2% of Perkins shot attempts are tips (one of the worst for big men), which tells you he is not a very active guy around the rim. 10% of Bogut's shots are tips, and 17% of Noah's shots are tips.

  One of the reason Perk doesn't get a lot of tips is because we get back on defense instead of crashing the offensive glass. Just curious, but when you were looking up those stats did you notice that Perk hits 73% of his close shots while those two "skilled" players are hitting them at 41% and 51% respectively? (aside: is this the first time anyone's called Noah skilled since he joined the nba?)

Now I understand. It's not all about the offense. I agree Perkins is a solid defender, and he may even be a good interior defender. But I will not say he is very good or even a great defender. His strong point is putting a body on physical specimens like Dwight Howard. I give Perk his due when it comes to that. But he is still incredibly slow, and he misses rotations quite often in the team defense. I will not acknowledge Perk as being a great defender like some people seem to do.

  Most of the opposing coaches seem to have noticed that he's one of the best defensive centers in the league despite your misgivings. And, just by coincidence, our path to the title would probably include those physical specimens (DH, Shaq, Bynum) that Perk excels against.

In a nutshell, most of Perk's close range shots are uncontested bunnies. Bogut and Noah don't have that luxury because neither play with three future Hall of Famers.

Have you actually been watching the games? Perhaps you could infer that from just looking at numbers (and I am a pro-stat guy, by the way) but from actually watching Perk this year and last I think anyone would understand that to be unequivocally false. Perk has developed a stellar inside and back to the basket game. A baby hook, up and unders, great footwork. His hard work with Clifford Ray has paid off in a league-leading field-goal percentage, efficient, nuanced offensive game.

If you don't believe me maybe Robert Parrish's word will count for something...

There was not a compulsion to visit the Celtics locker room, and a lot of people he barely knew. Robert Parish just watched the team he once made great dismantle Charlotte.

Of particular interest to the Celtics legend was the young post player who seemed to be growing with every touch of the ball.

Parish and Ray, the Celtics’ big man coach, used to tutor Kendrick Perkins at their summer big man’s camp. Though Perkins will forever be known as a defensive player – one of the few left in the league who can handle a big opposing center without help – Parish was impressed by his growth at the other end.

At one point, Perkins even took Nazr Mohammed off the dribble for a reverse layup. This was not the same raw kid from those summer camp days.

“No question,” Parish said of Perkins’ growth. “I’m very pleased to see how much work he’s put into the offensive end. The big difference is that his teammates are showing more confidence in him. Now he’s more decisive about what he’s gonna do. Now he’s making moves with a real purpose.”

Parish loves to watch Perkins for the simple reason that the youngster reminds him of the way the game used to be played, when big men were paint-oriented.

“He’s definitely a throwback,” Parish said. “Back then, there would have been a place for him, because he’s the kind of player who does things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. But you can tell he wants the ball now. He has a lot more confidence from his teammates.”

-Mark Murphy, Boston Herald. December 3rd, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Bkh_y9688

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8cB_yOzk

Look at the baby-hooks, the post-up moves for shots, the footwork etc. in this last video (against Noah, by the way) and tell me those aren't great big-man "skills"

And, by the way, I believe you want to say Perk has few skills. If he had "little" skills they would be small, diminutive. That statement would be grammaticaly and factually incorrect. To say he has "few" skills would leave you being merely factually incorrect.

No. I wasn't going for the grammatically (not grammaticaly) correct style there. It's a little slang. It's a little hip. It's a little something the kids are saying on the streets. "Little Skills" is commonly used for a player who is stiff with his game. But if you're not keeping it real, I could see how you could miss something like that.

[KungPoweChicken]

Perk is a good center, and good fit. There aren't many centers who you could swap him with without the Celtics getting worse. He's an above average center so theirs nothing to complain about.

I'm a little late to the game on this one (man 5 pages deep, I'm definitely slacking) so I'm going to start off saying ManUp got it dead on with his statement.

I think alot of the people here are arguing two different things.  Perk is not the most skilled center (I agree, and this is what I think the OP is saying).  But most of those 15 guys mentioned, the C's would get worse (which I also agree with).  Of those 15 Centers, who would play as well as Perk does as a 5th man?   Sure if I was building a team, and only those 15 players were available to me with my first pick, I'd pick alot of them over Perk, but if I have 3 established All-Stars , and 1 emerging All-Star and need to fill the starting Center role, Perk would be one of my top choices.

I think it's just sounds ridiculous because the way the OP comes off.  I can list a whole bunch of guards better than Eddie House, or I can list a whole bunch of PF/C's better than Sheed or Big Baby too, but trying to point out that a franchise cornerstone is much better than these players is pointless and unrealistic (because those kind of players aren't going to fill the role we need them to, or play for the salary we need them to, or is even attainable in the first place).  It's not like we passed up any of those guys to get Perk. Most of those guys were top 10 picks, Perk was 27th, what's the point?  Hey Chris Paul and Deron Williams are better than Rondo, why don't we start a thread saying that too?

For fun, who wants to look up and see how many Centers were taken before Perk in our very own CB draft?

I agree with everything you said. The only reason why I started the thread was because, in my opinion, Perk has become overrated on this board as of late, and I don't see him as being a top five or top ten center in this league, which is some people have been penciling him in as. Maybe I'm crazy and people haven't been saying that, but I thought they were.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

A 64.3% season from the floor (56.3% career) averaging 12 and 8 and the guy has little skills?! Give me as many of those guys as you want. Shaq never could guard a mobile big man that could shoot from the outside either and he seemed to make up for it in other areas. If you think that Perk is the problem on this team then you really shouldn't put any resumes into the league to be a scout or GM...

Are people really comparing Perkins to Shaq? I've seen it all on Celticsblog.

Only one aspect of Shaq's game.  I don't think the poster is insinuating that Perkins is anywhere near the level Shaq was but simply comparing each's abilities to guard a big man from the outside. 

Shaq made up for his inability to guard mobile big men by being the perhaps the best player ever. How does Perk make up for it? He makes up for it by being a "solid team defender."



Unfortunately, some people have jumped on certain parts of my post and now are picking at me, which is usually the case here. I never said Perk was "the problem" here, or that he is the reason why we are losing. I said he is less skilled than about half the big men in the league, making him a middle of the road king of guy. And if Perk has any value at the end of this season (which judging by this board you'd think he could land you a perennial All-Star), I would trade him for a future All-Star caliber PF or wing. Someone to pair with Rondo, while we rebuild.

Well, he makes up for the inability to guard mobile big men outside with his ability to deftly guard a big man in the paint.  The guy can rebound.  His shooting percentage is over 60% (find me 15 big men with that).  The guy can average over 10 points a game for you as primarily the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.  He does well to compensate in other aspects of the game.

Not everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of "homerism".  People are pointing out some very valid points of Perkins' game that should illustrate that he has more than "little skills".

Any of the fifteen centers I listed, if they were playing with the big three, would be one of the leaders in field goal percentage. some people act like Perk is doing something special with his shooting. He more or less stands in the paint and waits for the pass from Garnett or Rondo so he can lay it in. 58% of Perks shots are close range, and 12% of his shots are dunks. That's a total of 70% of his shots being bunnies. You can thank the four All-Stars he plays with his field goal percentage. If the defense actually focused on Perk, he would be absolutely useless on offense. Furthermore, only 2% of Perkins shot attempts are tips (one of the worst for big men), which tells you he is not a very active guy around the rim. 10% of Bogut's shots are tips, and 17% of Noah's shots are tips.

  One of the reason Perk doesn't get a lot of tips is because we get back on defense instead of crashing the offensive glass. Just curious, but when you were looking up those stats did you notice that Perk hits 73% of his close shots while those two "skilled" players are hitting them at 41% and 51% respectively? (aside: is this the first time anyone's called Noah skilled since he joined the nba?)

Now I understand. It's not all about the offense. I agree Perkins is a solid defender, and he may even be a good interior defender. But I will not say he is very good or even a great defender. His strong point is putting a body on physical specimens like Dwight Howard. I give Perk his due when it comes to that. But he is still incredibly slow, and he misses rotations quite often in the team defense. I will not acknowledge Perk as being a great defender like some people seem to do.

  Most of the opposing coaches seem to have noticed that he's one of the best defensive centers in the league despite your misgivings. And, just by coincidence, our path to the title would probably include those physical specimens (DH, Shaq, Bynum) that Perk excels against.

In a nutshell, most of Perk's close range shots are uncontested bunnies. Bogut and Noah don't have that luxury because neither play with three future Hall of Famers.

Have you actually been watching the games? Perhaps you could infer that from just looking at numbers (and I am a pro-stat guy, by the way) but from actually watching Perk this year and last I think anyone would understand that to be unequivocally false. Perk has developed a stellar inside and back to the basket game. A baby hook, up and unders, great footwork. His hard work with Clifford Ray has paid off in a league-leading field-goal percentage, efficient, nuanced offensive game.

If you don't believe me maybe Robert Parrish's word will count for something...

There was not a compulsion to visit the Celtics locker room, and a lot of people he barely knew. Robert Parish just watched the team he once made great dismantle Charlotte.

Of particular interest to the Celtics legend was the young post player who seemed to be growing with every touch of the ball.

Parish and Ray, the Celtics’ big man coach, used to tutor Kendrick Perkins at their summer big man’s camp. Though Perkins will forever be known as a defensive player – one of the few left in the league who can handle a big opposing center without help – Parish was impressed by his growth at the other end.

At one point, Perkins even took Nazr Mohammed off the dribble for a reverse layup. This was not the same raw kid from those summer camp days.

“No question,” Parish said of Perkins’ growth. “I’m very pleased to see how much work he’s put into the offensive end. The big difference is that his teammates are showing more confidence in him. Now he’s more decisive about what he’s gonna do. Now he’s making moves with a real purpose.”

Parish loves to watch Perkins for the simple reason that the youngster reminds him of the way the game used to be played, when big men were paint-oriented.

“He’s definitely a throwback,” Parish said. “Back then, there would have been a place for him, because he’s the kind of player who does things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. But you can tell he wants the ball now. He has a lot more confidence from his teammates.”

-Mark Murphy, Boston Herald. December 3rd, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Bkh_y9688

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8cB_yOzk

Look at the baby-hooks, the post-up moves for shots, the footwork etc. in this last video (against Noah, by the way) and tell me those aren't great big-man "skills"

And, by the way, I believe you want to say Perk has few skills. If he had "little" skills they would be small, diminutive. That statement would be grammaticaly and factually incorrect. To say he has "few" skills would leave you being merely factually incorrect.

No. I wasn't going for the grammatically (not grammaticaly) correct style there. It's a little slang. It's a little hip. It's a little something the kids are saying on the streets. "Little Skills" is commonly used for a player who is stiff with his game. But if you're not keeping it real, I could see how you could miss something like that.

My apologies for not keeping it real in my post. I am glad that the gentle ribbing of the grammatical aspect was all you chose to respond to, not the numerous refutations of the content of your post and thesis contained. I guess I foolishly thought that the wisdom of The Chief and visual examples of Perkins skills, beyond the countless other arguments offered in my posts and others more persuasive in this thread, might actually cause you to comment, think about or engage with your evaluation of Perkins skills.

[housecall]

I think i know what the OP is driving at but just didn't bring it out the right way.I feel Perk is the perfect compliment to KG but probably wouldn't fit on lets say the Suns,a team who runs a lot.Perk is not going to be your #1,2,or 3 offensive option,but the stats he does bring are consistent night in night out.Perk is one of the hardest working bigs in the NBA.

I just have a problem w/people who try to compare his talents or ablities to KG's.I think the OP have read some comments,posts where some try to make Perk out to be a better all around player than KG.They are different type players' that bring a different skill set to the game.

[bucknersrevenge]

Perk is a good center, and good fit. There aren't many centers who you could swap him with without the Celtics getting worse. He's an above average center so theirs nothing to complain about.

I'm a little late to the game on this one (man 5 pages deep, I'm definitely slacking) so I'm going to start off saying ManUp got it dead on with his statement.

I think alot of the people here are arguing two different things.  Perk is not the most skilled center (I agree, and this is what I think the OP is saying).  But most of those 15 guys mentioned, the C's would get worse (which I also agree with).  Of those 15 Centers, who would play as well as Perk does as a 5th man?   Sure if I was building a team, and only those 15 players were available to me with my first pick, I'd pick alot of them over Perk, but if I have 3 established All-Stars , and 1 emerging All-Star and need to fill the starting Center role, Perk would be one of my top choices.

I think it's just sounds ridiculous because the way the OP comes off.  I can list a whole bunch of guards better than Eddie House, or I can list a whole bunch of PF/C's better than Sheed or Big Baby too, but trying to point out that a franchise cornerstone is much better than these players is pointless and unrealistic (because those kind of players aren't going to fill the role we need them to, or play for the salary we need them to, or is even attainable in the first place).  It's not like we passed up any of those guys to get Perk. Most of those guys were top 10 picks, Perk was 27th, what's the point?  Hey Chris Paul and Deron Williams are better than Rondo, why don't we start a thread saying that too?

For fun, who wants to look up and see how many Centers were taken before Perk in our very own CB draft?

I agree with everything you said. The only reason why I started the thread was because, in my opinion, Perk has become overrated on this board as of late, and I don't see him as being a top five or top ten center in this league, which is some people have been penciling him in as. Maybe I'm crazy and people haven't been saying that, but I thought they were.

This still sounds like all numbers here. Perk's not averaging 20/10/3 so he's not a top Center. Perk IS active on the boards by the way, it's just that as often as he'll grab a rebound for a putback, he'll often kick the ball out on a collapsing defense for a wide open 3. I often see Perk bullying opposing centers into the post for a jumphook, or showing off this turnaround jumper off his right shoulder in the lane that has just been money for him all year. He's not Olajuwon but a 5th option averaging 12 a game is not bad. And as for defending mobile big men, I'm sure if Perks job was NEVER to leave his man and simply deny him from scoring the way it is with some teams I'd imagine he could shut most down, but Perk has to be the quarterback of the defense, help on pick n rolls, step up on penetration, help out the next man. Perk doesn't get beat man on man often.

If his success was a byproduct of playing with the Big 3 as you contend, why hasn't he been doing this the whole time? And now, in a year where thus far we have had injuries to various members in the frontcourt including now 2 of the big 3 Perk is now playing his best basketball. I don't think you can penalize him for playing with the Big 3 without understanding what his role is in relation to playing with them on the court. To me it speaks volumes that opposing coaches go out of their way to credit the kid of player Perk has become. Post players that prefer to do the dirty work(and are actually good at it) are hard to find.

[Rondo_is_better]

A 64.3% season from the floor (56.3% career) averaging 12 and 8 and the guy has little skills?! Give me as many of those guys as you want. Shaq never could guard a mobile big man that could shoot from the outside either and he seemed to make up for it in other areas. If you think that Perk is the problem on this team then you really shouldn't put any resumes into the league to be a scout or GM...

Are people really comparing Perkins to Shaq? I've seen it all on Celticsblog.

Only one aspect of Shaq's game.  I don't think the poster is insinuating that Perkins is anywhere near the level Shaq was but simply comparing each's abilities to guard a big man from the outside. 

Shaq made up for his inability to guard mobile big men by being the perhaps the best player ever. How does Perk make up for it? He makes up for it by being a "solid team defender."



Unfortunately, some people have jumped on certain parts of my post and now are picking at me, which is usually the case here. I never said Perk was "the problem" here, or that he is the reason why we are losing. I said he is less skilled than about half the big men in the league, making him a middle of the road king of guy. And if Perk has any value at the end of this season (which judging by this board you'd think he could land you a perennial All-Star), I would trade him for a future All-Star caliber PF or wing. Someone to pair with Rondo, while we rebuild.

Well, he makes up for the inability to guard mobile big men outside with his ability to deftly guard a big man in the paint.  The guy can rebound.  His shooting percentage is over 60% (find me 15 big men with that).  The guy can average over 10 points a game for you as primarily the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.  He does well to compensate in other aspects of the game.

Not everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of "homerism".  People are pointing out some very valid points of Perkins' game that should illustrate that he has more than "little skills".

Any of the fifteen centers I listed, if they were playing with the big three, would be one of the leaders in field goal percentage. some people act like Perk is doing something special with his shooting. He more or less stands in the paint and waits for the pass from Garnett or Rondo so he can lay it in. 58% of Perks shots are close range, and 12% of his shots are dunks. That's a total of 70% of his shots being bunnies. You can thank the four All-Stars he plays with his field goal percentage. If the defense actually focused on Perk, he would be absolutely useless on offense. Furthermore, only 2% of Perkins shot attempts are tips (one of the worst for big men), which tells you he is not a very active guy around the rim. 10% of Bogut's shots are tips, and 17% of Noah's shots are tips.

  One of the reason Perk doesn't get a lot of tips is because we get back on defense instead of crashing the offensive glass. Just curious, but when you were looking up those stats did you notice that Perk hits 73% of his close shots while those two "skilled" players are hitting them at 41% and 51% respectively? (aside: is this the first time anyone's called Noah skilled since he joined the nba?)

Now I understand. It's not all about the offense. I agree Perkins is a solid defender, and he may even be a good interior defender. But I will not say he is very good or even a great defender. His strong point is putting a body on physical specimens like Dwight Howard. I give Perk his due when it comes to that. But he is still incredibly slow, and he misses rotations quite often in the team defense. I will not acknowledge Perk as being a great defender like some people seem to do.

  Most of the opposing coaches seem to have noticed that he's one of the best defensive centers in the league despite your misgivings. And, just by coincidence, our path to the title would probably include those physical specimens (DH, Shaq, Bynum) that Perk excels against.

In a nutshell, most of Perk's close range shots are uncontested bunnies. Bogut and Noah don't have that luxury because neither play with three future Hall of Famers.

Have you actually been watching the games? Perhaps you could infer that from just looking at numbers (and I am a pro-stat guy, by the way) but from actually watching Perk this year and last I think anyone would understand that to be unequivocally false. Perk has developed a stellar inside and back to the basket game. A baby hook, up and unders, great footwork. His hard work with Clifford Ray has paid off in a league-leading field-goal percentage, efficient, nuanced offensive game.

If you don't believe me maybe Robert Parrish's word will count for something...

There was not a compulsion to visit the Celtics locker room, and a lot of people he barely knew. Robert Parish just watched the team he once made great dismantle Charlotte.

Of particular interest to the Celtics legend was the young post player who seemed to be growing with every touch of the ball.

Parish and Ray, the Celtics’ big man coach, used to tutor Kendrick Perkins at their summer big man’s camp. Though Perkins will forever be known as a defensive player – one of the few left in the league who can handle a big opposing center without help – Parish was impressed by his growth at the other end.

At one point, Perkins even took Nazr Mohammed off the dribble for a reverse layup. This was not the same raw kid from those summer camp days.

“No question,” Parish said of Perkins’ growth. “I’m very pleased to see how much work he’s put into the offensive end. The big difference is that his teammates are showing more confidence in him. Now he’s more decisive about what he’s gonna do. Now he’s making moves with a real purpose.”

Parish loves to watch Perkins for the simple reason that the youngster reminds him of the way the game used to be played, when big men were paint-oriented.

“He’s definitely a throwback,” Parish said. “Back then, there would have been a place for him, because he’s the kind of player who does things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. But you can tell he wants the ball now. He has a lot more confidence from his teammates.”

-Mark Murphy, Boston Herald. December 3rd, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Bkh_y9688

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8cB_yOzk

Look at the baby-hooks, the post-up moves for shots, the footwork etc. in this last video (against Noah, by the way) and tell me those aren't great big-man "skills"

And, by the way, I believe you want to say Perk has few skills. If he had "little" skills they would be small, diminutive. That statement would be grammaticaly and factually incorrect. To say he has "few" skills would leave you being merely factually incorrect.

No. I wasn't going for the grammatically (not grammaticaly) correct style there. It's a little slang. It's a little hip. It's a little something the kids are saying on the streets. "Little Skills" is commonly used for a player who is stiff with his game. But if you're not keeping it real, I could see how you could miss something like that.

My apologies for not keeping it real in my post. I am glad that the gentle ribbing of the grammatical aspect was all you chose to respond to, not the numerous refutations of the content of your post and thesis contained. I guess I foolishly thought that the wisdom of The Chief and visual examples of Perkins skills, beyond the countless other arguments offered in my posts and others more persuasive in this thread, might actually cause you to comment, think about or engage with your evaluation of Perkins skills.

Wow. ^owned. And great vids, especially the last one.

And by the way, how is saying "little skills" hip at all. If  you think that's ebonics your wrong. "He ain't got no skills".

[KungPoweChicken]

.

[cdif911]

Perkins has big skills

[KungPoweChicken]

A 64.3% season from the floor (56.3% career) averaging 12 and 8 and the guy has little skills?! Give me as many of those guys as you want. Shaq never could guard a mobile big man that could shoot from the outside either and he seemed to make up for it in other areas. If you think that Perk is the problem on this team then you really shouldn't put any resumes into the league to be a scout or GM...

Are people really comparing Perkins to Shaq? I've seen it all on Celticsblog.

Only one aspect of Shaq's game.  I don't think the poster is insinuating that Perkins is anywhere near the level Shaq was but simply comparing each's abilities to guard a big man from the outside. 

Shaq made up for his inability to guard mobile big men by being the perhaps the best player ever. How does Perk make up for it? He makes up for it by being a "solid team defender."



Unfortunately, some people have jumped on certain parts of my post and now are picking at me, which is usually the case here. I never said Perk was "the problem" here, or that he is the reason why we are losing. I said he is less skilled than about half the big men in the league, making him a middle of the road king of guy. And if Perk has any value at the end of this season (which judging by this board you'd think he could land you a perennial All-Star), I would trade him for a future All-Star caliber PF or wing. Someone to pair with Rondo, while we rebuild.

Well, he makes up for the inability to guard mobile big men outside with his ability to deftly guard a big man in the paint.  The guy can rebound.  His shooting percentage is over 60% (find me 15 big men with that).  The guy can average over 10 points a game for you as primarily the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.  He does well to compensate in other aspects of the game.

Not everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of "homerism".  People are pointing out some very valid points of Perkins' game that should illustrate that he has more than "little skills".

Any of the fifteen centers I listed, if they were playing with the big three, would be one of the leaders in field goal percentage. some people act like Perk is doing something special with his shooting. He more or less stands in the paint and waits for the pass from Garnett or Rondo so he can lay it in. 58% of Perks shots are close range, and 12% of his shots are dunks. That's a total of 70% of his shots being bunnies. You can thank the four All-Stars he plays with his field goal percentage. If the defense actually focused on Perk, he would be absolutely useless on offense. Furthermore, only 2% of Perkins shot attempts are tips (one of the worst for big men), which tells you he is not a very active guy around the rim. 10% of Bogut's shots are tips, and 17% of Noah's shots are tips.

  One of the reason Perk doesn't get a lot of tips is because we get back on defense instead of crashing the offensive glass. Just curious, but when you were looking up those stats did you notice that Perk hits 73% of his close shots while those two "skilled" players are hitting them at 41% and 51% respectively? (aside: is this the first time anyone's called Noah skilled since he joined the nba?)

Now I understand. It's not all about the offense. I agree Perkins is a solid defender, and he may even be a good interior defender. But I will not say he is very good or even a great defender. His strong point is putting a body on physical specimens like Dwight Howard. I give Perk his due when it comes to that. But he is still incredibly slow, and he misses rotations quite often in the team defense. I will not acknowledge Perk as being a great defender like some people seem to do.

  Most of the opposing coaches seem to have noticed that he's one of the best defensive centers in the league despite your misgivings. And, just by coincidence, our path to the title would probably include those physical specimens (DH, Shaq, Bynum) that Perk excels against.

In a nutshell, most of Perk's close range shots are uncontested bunnies. Bogut and Noah don't have that luxury because neither play with three future Hall of Famers.

Have you actually been watching the games? Perhaps you could infer that from just looking at numbers (and I am a pro-stat guy, by the way) but from actually watching Perk this year and last I think anyone would understand that to be unequivocally false. Perk has developed a stellar inside and back to the basket game. A baby hook, up and unders, great footwork. His hard work with Clifford Ray has paid off in a league-leading field-goal percentage, efficient, nuanced offensive game.

If you don't believe me maybe Robert Parrish's word will count for something...

There was not a compulsion to visit the Celtics locker room, and a lot of people he barely knew. Robert Parish just watched the team he once made great dismantle Charlotte.

Of particular interest to the Celtics legend was the young post player who seemed to be growing with every touch of the ball.

Parish and Ray, the Celtics’ big man coach, used to tutor Kendrick Perkins at their summer big man’s camp. Though Perkins will forever be known as a defensive player – one of the few left in the league who can handle a big opposing center without help – Parish was impressed by his growth at the other end.

At one point, Perkins even took Nazr Mohammed off the dribble for a reverse layup. This was not the same raw kid from those summer camp days.

“No question,” Parish said of Perkins’ growth. “I’m very pleased to see how much work he’s put into the offensive end. The big difference is that his teammates are showing more confidence in him. Now he’s more decisive about what he’s gonna do. Now he’s making moves with a real purpose.”

Parish loves to watch Perkins for the simple reason that the youngster reminds him of the way the game used to be played, when big men were paint-oriented.

“He’s definitely a throwback,” Parish said. “Back then, there would have been a place for him, because he’s the kind of player who does things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. But you can tell he wants the ball now. He has a lot more confidence from his teammates.”

-Mark Murphy, Boston Herald. December 3rd, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Bkh_y9688

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8cB_yOzk

Look at the baby-hooks, the post-up moves for shots, the footwork etc. in this last video (against Noah, by the way) and tell me those aren't great big-man "skills"

And, by the way, I believe you want to say Perk has few skills. If he had "little" skills they would be small, diminutive. That statement would be grammaticaly and factually incorrect. To say he has "few" skills would leave you being merely factually incorrect.

No. I wasn't going for the grammatically (not grammaticaly) correct style there. It's a little slang. It's a little hip. It's a little something the kids are saying on the streets. "Little Skills" is commonly used for a player who is stiff with his game. But if you're not keeping it real, I could see how you could miss something like that.

My apologies for not keeping it real in my post. I am glad that the gentle ribbing of the grammatical aspect was all you chose to respond to, not the numerous refutations of the content of your post and thesis contained. I guess I foolishly thought that the wisdom of The Chief and visual examples of Perkins skills, beyond the countless other arguments offered in my posts and others more persuasive in this thread, might actually cause you to comment, think about or engage with your evaluation of Perkins skills.

Wow. ^owned. And great vids, especially the last one.

And by the way, how is saying "little skills" hip at all. If  you think that's ebonics your wrong. "He ain't got no skills".

If these are the kind of witty responses that will be seen, a mod might as well close this thread down.

[Rondo_is_better]

A 64.3% season from the floor (56.3% career) averaging 12 and 8 and the guy has little skills?! Give me as many of those guys as you want. Shaq never could guard a mobile big man that could shoot from the outside either and he seemed to make up for it in other areas. If you think that Perk is the problem on this team then you really shouldn't put any resumes into the league to be a scout or GM...

Are people really comparing Perkins to Shaq? I've seen it all on Celticsblog.

Only one aspect of Shaq's game.  I don't think the poster is insinuating that Perkins is anywhere near the level Shaq was but simply comparing each's abilities to guard a big man from the outside. 

Shaq made up for his inability to guard mobile big men by being the perhaps the best player ever. How does Perk make up for it? He makes up for it by being a "solid team defender."



Unfortunately, some people have jumped on certain parts of my post and now are picking at me, which is usually the case here. I never said Perk was "the problem" here, or that he is the reason why we are losing. I said he is less skilled than about half the big men in the league, making him a middle of the road king of guy. And if Perk has any value at the end of this season (which judging by this board you'd think he could land you a perennial All-Star), I would trade him for a future All-Star caliber PF or wing. Someone to pair with Rondo, while we rebuild.

Well, he makes up for the inability to guard mobile big men outside with his ability to deftly guard a big man in the paint.  The guy can rebound.  His shooting percentage is over 60% (find me 15 big men with that).  The guy can average over 10 points a game for you as primarily the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.  He does well to compensate in other aspects of the game.

Not everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of "homerism".  People are pointing out some very valid points of Perkins' game that should illustrate that he has more than "little skills".

Any of the fifteen centers I listed, if they were playing with the big three, would be one of the leaders in field goal percentage. some people act like Perk is doing something special with his shooting. He more or less stands in the paint and waits for the pass from Garnett or Rondo so he can lay it in. 58% of Perks shots are close range, and 12% of his shots are dunks. That's a total of 70% of his shots being bunnies. You can thank the four All-Stars he plays with his field goal percentage. If the defense actually focused on Perk, he would be absolutely useless on offense. Furthermore, only 2% of Perkins shot attempts are tips (one of the worst for big men), which tells you he is not a very active guy around the rim. 10% of Bogut's shots are tips, and 17% of Noah's shots are tips.

  One of the reason Perk doesn't get a lot of tips is because we get back on defense instead of crashing the offensive glass. Just curious, but when you were looking up those stats did you notice that Perk hits 73% of his close shots while those two "skilled" players are hitting them at 41% and 51% respectively? (aside: is this the first time anyone's called Noah skilled since he joined the nba?)

Now I understand. It's not all about the offense. I agree Perkins is a solid defender, and he may even be a good interior defender. But I will not say he is very good or even a great defender. His strong point is putting a body on physical specimens like Dwight Howard. I give Perk his due when it comes to that. But he is still incredibly slow, and he misses rotations quite often in the team defense. I will not acknowledge Perk as being a great defender like some people seem to do.

  Most of the opposing coaches seem to have noticed that he's one of the best defensive centers in the league despite your misgivings. And, just by coincidence, our path to the title would probably include those physical specimens (DH, Shaq, Bynum) that Perk excels against.

In a nutshell, most of Perk's close range shots are uncontested bunnies. Bogut and Noah don't have that luxury because neither play with three future Hall of Famers.

Have you actually been watching the games? Perhaps you could infer that from just looking at numbers (and I am a pro-stat guy, by the way) but from actually watching Perk this year and last I think anyone would understand that to be unequivocally false. Perk has developed a stellar inside and back to the basket game. A baby hook, up and unders, great footwork. His hard work with Clifford Ray has paid off in a league-leading field-goal percentage, efficient, nuanced offensive game.

If you don't believe me maybe Robert Parrish's word will count for something...

There was not a compulsion to visit the Celtics locker room, and a lot of people he barely knew. Robert Parish just watched the team he once made great dismantle Charlotte.

Of particular interest to the Celtics legend was the young post player who seemed to be growing with every touch of the ball.

Parish and Ray, the Celtics’ big man coach, used to tutor Kendrick Perkins at their summer big man’s camp. Though Perkins will forever be known as a defensive player – one of the few left in the league who can handle a big opposing center without help – Parish was impressed by his growth at the other end.

At one point, Perkins even took Nazr Mohammed off the dribble for a reverse layup. This was not the same raw kid from those summer camp days.

“No question,” Parish said of Perkins’ growth. “I’m very pleased to see how much work he’s put into the offensive end. The big difference is that his teammates are showing more confidence in him. Now he’s more decisive about what he’s gonna do. Now he’s making moves with a real purpose.”

Parish loves to watch Perkins for the simple reason that the youngster reminds him of the way the game used to be played, when big men were paint-oriented.

“He’s definitely a throwback,” Parish said. “Back then, there would have been a place for him, because he’s the kind of player who does things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. But you can tell he wants the ball now. He has a lot more confidence from his teammates.”

-Mark Murphy, Boston Herald. December 3rd, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Bkh_y9688

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8cB_yOzk

Look at the baby-hooks, the post-up moves for shots, the footwork etc. in this last video (against Noah, by the way) and tell me those aren't great big-man "skills"

And, by the way, I believe you want to say Perk has few skills. If he had "little" skills they would be small, diminutive. That statement would be grammaticaly and factually incorrect. To say he has "few" skills would leave you being merely factually incorrect.

No. I wasn't going for the grammatically (not grammaticaly) correct style there. It's a little slang. It's a little hip. It's a little something the kids are saying on the streets. "Little Skills" is commonly used for a player who is stiff with his game. But if you're not keeping it real, I could see how you could miss something like that.

My apologies for not keeping it real in my post. I am glad that the gentle ribbing of the grammatical aspect was all you chose to respond to, not the numerous refutations of the content of your post and thesis contained. I guess I foolishly thought that the wisdom of The Chief and visual examples of Perkins skills, beyond the countless other arguments offered in my posts and others more persuasive in this thread, might actually cause you to comment, think about or engage with your evaluation of Perkins skills.

Wow. ^owned. And great vids, especially the last one.

And by the way, how is saying "little skills" hip at all. If  you think that's ebonics your wrong. "He ain't got no skills".

If these are the kind of witty responses that will be seen, a mod might as well close this thread down.

I'm just saying. Everyone read that and thought to themselves, wow, that's exactly what the OP did, he just got owned.

And yes, a mod should close this thread because your OP was evaluated and rejected by a committee of roughly 60.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

A 64.3% season from the floor (56.3% career) averaging 12 and 8 and the guy has little skills?! Give me as many of those guys as you want. Shaq never could guard a mobile big man that could shoot from the outside either and he seemed to make up for it in other areas. If you think that Perk is the problem on this team then you really shouldn't put any resumes into the league to be a scout or GM...

Are people really comparing Perkins to Shaq? I've seen it all on Celticsblog.

Only one aspect of Shaq's game.  I don't think the poster is insinuating that Perkins is anywhere near the level Shaq was but simply comparing each's abilities to guard a big man from the outside. 

Shaq made up for his inability to guard mobile big men by being the perhaps the best player ever. How does Perk make up for it? He makes up for it by being a "solid team defender."



Unfortunately, some people have jumped on certain parts of my post and now are picking at me, which is usually the case here. I never said Perk was "the problem" here, or that he is the reason why we are losing. I said he is less skilled than about half the big men in the league, making him a middle of the road king of guy. And if Perk has any value at the end of this season (which judging by this board you'd think he could land you a perennial All-Star), I would trade him for a future All-Star caliber PF or wing. Someone to pair with Rondo, while we rebuild.

Well, he makes up for the inability to guard mobile big men outside with his ability to deftly guard a big man in the paint.  The guy can rebound.  His shooting percentage is over 60% (find me 15 big men with that).  The guy can average over 10 points a game for you as primarily the 4th or 5th scoring option on the floor.  He does well to compensate in other aspects of the game.

Not everyone disagreeing with you is doing it out of "homerism".  People are pointing out some very valid points of Perkins' game that should illustrate that he has more than "little skills".

Any of the fifteen centers I listed, if they were playing with the big three, would be one of the leaders in field goal percentage. some people act like Perk is doing something special with his shooting. He more or less stands in the paint and waits for the pass from Garnett or Rondo so he can lay it in. 58% of Perks shots are close range, and 12% of his shots are dunks. That's a total of 70% of his shots being bunnies. You can thank the four All-Stars he plays with his field goal percentage. If the defense actually focused on Perk, he would be absolutely useless on offense. Furthermore, only 2% of Perkins shot attempts are tips (one of the worst for big men), which tells you he is not a very active guy around the rim. 10% of Bogut's shots are tips, and 17% of Noah's shots are tips.

  One of the reason Perk doesn't get a lot of tips is because we get back on defense instead of crashing the offensive glass. Just curious, but when you were looking up those stats did you notice that Perk hits 73% of his close shots while those two "skilled" players are hitting them at 41% and 51% respectively? (aside: is this the first time anyone's called Noah skilled since he joined the nba?)

Now I understand. It's not all about the offense. I agree Perkins is a solid defender, and he may even be a good interior defender. But I will not say he is very good or even a great defender. His strong point is putting a body on physical specimens like Dwight Howard. I give Perk his due when it comes to that. But he is still incredibly slow, and he misses rotations quite often in the team defense. I will not acknowledge Perk as being a great defender like some people seem to do.

  Most of the opposing coaches seem to have noticed that he's one of the best defensive centers in the league despite your misgivings. And, just by coincidence, our path to the title would probably include those physical specimens (DH, Shaq, Bynum) that Perk excels against.

In a nutshell, most of Perk's close range shots are uncontested bunnies. Bogut and Noah don't have that luxury because neither play with three future Hall of Famers.

Have you actually been watching the games? Perhaps you could infer that from just looking at numbers (and I am a pro-stat guy, by the way) but from actually watching Perk this year and last I think anyone would understand that to be unequivocally false. Perk has developed a stellar inside and back to the basket game. A baby hook, up and unders, great footwork. His hard work with Clifford Ray has paid off in a league-leading field-goal percentage, efficient, nuanced offensive game.

If you don't believe me maybe Robert Parrish's word will count for something...

There was not a compulsion to visit the Celtics locker room, and a lot of people he barely knew. Robert Parish just watched the team he once made great dismantle Charlotte.

Of particular interest to the Celtics legend was the young post player who seemed to be growing with every touch of the ball.

Parish and Ray, the Celtics’ big man coach, used to tutor Kendrick Perkins at their summer big man’s camp. Though Perkins will forever be known as a defensive player – one of the few left in the league who can handle a big opposing center without help – Parish was impressed by his growth at the other end.

At one point, Perkins even took Nazr Mohammed off the dribble for a reverse layup. This was not the same raw kid from those summer camp days.

“No question,” Parish said of Perkins’ growth. “I’m very pleased to see how much work he’s put into the offensive end. The big difference is that his teammates are showing more confidence in him. Now he’s more decisive about what he’s gonna do. Now he’s making moves with a real purpose.”

Parish loves to watch Perkins for the simple reason that the youngster reminds him of the way the game used to be played, when big men were paint-oriented.

“He’s definitely a throwback,” Parish said. “Back then, there would have been a place for him, because he’s the kind of player who does things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. But you can tell he wants the ball now. He has a lot more confidence from his teammates.”

-Mark Murphy, Boston Herald. December 3rd, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Bkh_y9688

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_8cB_yOzk

Look at the baby-hooks, the post-up moves for shots, the footwork etc. in this last video (against Noah, by the way) and tell me those aren't great big-man "skills"

And, by the way, I believe you want to say Perk has few skills. If he had "little" skills they would be small, diminutive. That statement would be grammaticaly and factually incorrect. To say he has "few" skills would leave you being merely factually incorrect.

No. I wasn't going for the grammatically (not grammaticaly) correct style there. It's a little slang. It's a little hip. It's a little something the kids are saying on the streets. "Little Skills" is commonly used for a player who is stiff with his game. But if you're not keeping it real, I could see how you could miss something like that.

My apologies for not keeping it real in my post. I am glad that the gentle ribbing of the grammatical aspect was all you chose to respond to, not the numerous refutations of the content of your post and thesis contained. I guess I foolishly thought that the wisdom of The Chief and visual examples of Perkins skills, beyond the countless other arguments offered in my posts and others more persuasive in this thread, might actually cause you to comment, think about or engage with your evaluation of Perkins skills.

Wow. ^owned. And great vids, especially the last one.

And by the way, how is saying "little skills" hip at all. If  you think that's ebonics your wrong. "He ain't got no skills".

If these are the kind of witty responses that will be seen, a mod might as well close this thread down.

Yes, your ball was stolen by some other kid so call the teacher to end recess. I think many here have done a good job to a) exhibit that technically Perkins has developed his game to the point that he does indeed have very good skills for a big man in the NBA, his footwork, baby-hook, defense, an ability to hit a 12-foot shot, his spin moves, etc. b) that you have to look at his game in the context of the team he is on. His "fantasy numbers" will never be those of a Dwight Howard or perhaps even a Bogut as that is not what he is called on to do. As stated by another poster above he is essentially the 5th option on the starting five. If you simply want to judge him on the numbers he puts up of course he will come out appearing lacking when compared to a player who is the first or second option of a teams offense. But does he do what he is asked to do well? Would one have an entirely different way of qualifying what he does if he were on another team? Yes, of course.

Yes, some people have overstated or overrated Perkins. But I think I have at least tried to offer an example that well he may not be the next Ewing or Robinson or Hakeem or Wilt or Russell, etc. his skills, moves, ability are far beyond the qualification of "little" an surpass many you listed in your original 15.

You posited that Perkins' skills are lacking. Do those videos above not show a player with skills that refute that claim? Is his post-game really that of a scrub?

[ToppersBsktball10]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3q2p8t4030