:Shrugs: I don't think their impacts are measured only in points and rebounds. For example, in last year's playoffs:
KG scored 16.2 points on 49.5% FG with 1.5 TOs per 36 minutes.
Meanwhile, his primary defensive assignments (Beasley, Jamison, Lewis, and Gasol) averaged 9 points on 36% FG with 2.3 TOs per 36 minutes when he was guarding them (523 total minutes).
Those same 4 guys averaged 20.6 points on 53.4% FG with 1.5 TOs per 36 minutes against Boston when KG wasn't on them (234 minutes). And they averaged 18.2 points on 53.7% FG and 1.8 TOs per 36 minutes in the 2010 postseason when they weren't playing Boston.
In other words, KG took 4 guys that scored a lot on great percentages against other teams (and even against the Celtics when he was on the bench) and shut them out of the scoreboards.
And that's not even mentioning KG's team defensive impact, where the 2010 Celtics postseason defense with KG suddenly looked eerily similar to the 2008 Celtics postseason defense and absolutely nothing like 2009 Celtics defense without him.
Similarly, I don't expect Shaq to suddenly come in here and average 20 and 10 again. But if he starts, I expect that the team offense will suddenly start working better. Efficiency will be up, scoring will be up, and scoring droughts on the first unit will decrease. Now it may be Rondo or Pierce that gets the credit for this because they likely will lead the team in scoring and assists again. But the underlying difference from years past will be the threat of 2 bigs as skilled and still difficult to defend as KG and Shaq on one frontline.
I could care less what their averages are, and I haven't even spent much ink on Jermaine who I was also pretty excited about before Shaq signed. But I think the 2010-11 Celtics are going to surprise a lot of people this year, and I'm counting down the days until the season starts and I can watch it pan out.
And the scoring of the other team will be remarkably up because every team in the league knows to play the pick and role versus Shaq when he is on the floor because he can't guard it.
It works both ways with Shaq. And if your defense is that playing with the starters will cover up his deficiencies, is that what you really want? Do you want your starters playing extra hard trying to cover up the defensive deficiencies of their starting center all year long so that they are more tired to start the playoffs than they would have been if they had a competent defensive center playing.
Listen, I'm all for positivity but I also like to stay grounded in expectations. Given we lost our two centers, picking up the O'Neals are a great find for Danny and probably puts us right back into the discussion for best teams in the league. But neither player is what they once were and neither is a game changer any longer. Honestly, I wouldn't trade either one of them straight up for a healthy Perkins.
So our first team is probably going to be as good as they were with a healthy Perk in the lineup and our big man depth off the bench will be improved if Perk can come back and give the team any meaningful minutes. But this team is really not appreciably better or worse than the one that just finished playing in June. They do, however, have to rely heavily on 4 starters that are going to be 33, 34, 35 and either 32 or 38 years old. Not exactly a recipe for success when none of those players are any longer a top 25 player in the league.
Well, it's clear that we just fundamentally disagree on several topics. For one, I've never (and still don't) think Perk is an impact player. I think he's a good defensive role player, and that he has played his role well for this team. But I think his impact is very replaceable. If I had a choice of signing any of the 3 for the next 5 years I'd take Perk because of age. But for one season, I think either O'Neal will be better for this team. So having both of them, along with the possibility of adding Perk for the stretch run, is icing on the cake.
For two, on this team I think that Shaq (if he starts) would mean more positive to the offense than negative to the defense. I believe that Perk's biggest contribution to the defense is his ability to defend big/strong post options 1-on-1 and clog the paint. Shaq can do that, and may even do it better than Perk against the huge centers like Bogut, Yao, Oden, or Bynum. Perk is more mobile against the P&R than Shaq, but I don't think that'll prove to be as big of a deal as you seem to think.
And it's not about the rest of the defense having to be super-human to make up for it either. The Cavs defense was fine last year when Shaq played next to Varejao (about 100 points/100 possession, same as last year's Cs when KG and Perk played next to each other). It was when Shaq played next to Hickson or Jamison that the Cavs defense suffered (about 110 points/100 possessions, according to the 5-man unit info on 82games.com). If you pair Shaq with a mobile defensive PF in a strong defensive system, he's fine at that end. And that's what we have in Boston.
Meanwhile, at the other end, a KG/Shaq pairing brings out the best in both of them as well as the best in the offensive unit as a whole. 5 strong scoring options, all of whom are very good passers at their position, all of whom having extremely diverse skill sets, has top-5 offense in the league potential. Last year our offense was ranked 15th. I think we'll see big dividends on that end, without missing much if anything on defense.
And the great thing about a prediction thread is, we're putting out there what we believe will happen. And the actual evidence we'll be played out in front of us starting in 2 months. So I just really don't get the sentiment that I should ground my expectations...my expectation is that this team will be better than people expect, in this particular thread because I think people are underestimating what KG (who's still firmly a top-25 player in the league) and either O'Neal can do and/or perhaps overestimating Perk. I could be wrong. I also could be right. We'll all get to see soon.
But didn't we learn anything from all of the optimism/pessimism you-don't-believe/you-aren't-realistic stuff from last season? If you don't agree with my take can't we just agree to disagree, rather than already going down the pathway that my opinion is just unfounded "positivity" vs your more realistic, "grounded" view? I believe that I have logical, observable, statistically-supportable reasons for my views. Until proven otherwise, I'd say that's as grounded as what anyone else has to say around here.