Didn't realize how bad and worthless a Player Perk is until today

[winsomme]

Bballtim, you can laugh at Shaq beating out Perkins for the center position, but that's essentially what it boils down to. You lose nothing while using Shaq. I'll take a healthy Shaq over a healthy Perkins all day, especially if Perkins is wanting 10M Per. Then add Green and Krstic to the bench squad .

Better team overall.

What Perk is asking for is irrelevant....the only important question for DA to speculate is what the market would be for Perk (if money was the reason Perk was moved). and from that standpoint, Perk IMO looks to be in the 7 mil per range....pretty reasonable actually.

[droponov]

Big Al makes like 10m a year and you're wondering what makes us think perk wanted 10m next year?

lawl

When Big Al signed that contract he was a 20-10 young guy having an all-star season.

Perkins was not, and will not, get 10 million per.

The guy to look at though is Brendan Haywood..and I think if Perkins were healthy, he'd be looking at 8 million per, and that could still happen.

The real sadness will be if he resigns somewhere else for the MLE for like a 5 or 6 year contract. That'd break my heart.

Haywood was 31 years old when he signed that contract. Perkins is 26. You're paying  for one's guy prime and other guy's decline. Same CBA, Perkins would get a larger contract.

[drza44]

There is something to be said, true, but I think TOO MUCH tends to be said about it with respect to Perk.  Again, we now have years of evidence about how our defense responds with and without Perk.  Essentially, his presence or absence just doesn't play much part overall in our defense.  Yes, the things he provides are nice...but they're also replaceable.

  I think we have evidence that he's less important to the defense than KG. The year before KG came the defense was just over 3 points better when Perk played. Last year, when KG wasn't always at his best, the defense was again just over 3 points better with Perk playing. I don't have stats for this year but I would suspect that our defense has been close to that much better with Perk in. If you keep track of our defensive efficiency at all our numbers seem to have dropped by a decent amount recently and I don't see any other major changes that would cause it. Perk's not irreplaceable, but it's going to be a tradeoff. We'll be a little worse defensively without him and possibly a worse rebounding team but we'll probably be somewhat better offensively, and our bench would get a boost from Green.

I see your point, but I think it needs to be developed a bit further (in other words, I'm about to use a lot of words and numbers to prove you correct, then reiterate my own point  ).  It is interesting to look at Perkins vs KG when looking for defensive impact, because I think it actually brings home both of our points.  Yes, Perkins does have some defensive impact (you'd expect him to, as he is a good role player).  But it's a very small impact when compared to someone like KG, and ultimately his scale of impact is replaceable.  Let's take a look at some things (all of the numbers I'm about to use come from either 82games.com or basketball-reference.com):

From 2007/08 - 2009/10, the starting unit of the Celtics (Rondo/Ray/Pierce/KG/Perk) gave up 97 points/100 possessions in 3305 minutes (while scoring 112 points/100 possessions).

Over those 3 years, the starting 5 with KG playing but someone replacing Perk (Posey, Baby, Scal, Powe, or Sheed) gave up 101 points/100 possessions in 656 minutes.

Meanwhile, over those 3 years the starting 5 with Perk playing but someone replacing KG (Posey, Baby, Scal, Powe, Sheed) gave up 112 points/100 possessions in 914 minutes.

This (2010-11) season, through 57 games the Celtics have a team defensive-rating of 99.8 (1st in the NBA).  Through 1/19/11 (the last 82games.com update), the Big 4 with either Shaq or Baby have allowed 101 points/100 possessions (while scoring 118 pts/100 poss) in 418 minutes.

Conclusions: These numbers generally support the point that you were making, BballTim.  You point out that the year before KG arrived and last year with him weakened, the Celtics were about 3 points better with Perk than without him.  The 82games.com 5-man data shows that from 2007/08 - 2009/10, the starting five gave up about 4 more points/100 possessions without Perk than they did with him (101 pts/100 poss, instead of 97 pts/100 poss), and those exact numbers are holding true thus far this season.  Would seem to indicate that Perk's presence was good for about 3 - 4 ppg on defense to the starting line-up.  Our stories agree.

This is a reasonable defensive impact for a solid defensive role player, which Perk is.  But the thing is, it's not a BIG effect.  As you see from the same analysis, the defensive drop-off without KG was about 15 points/100 possessions for the starting 5.  Again, the point here isn't to make this about KG vs Perk, it's to show the difference in SCALE in their impact.  It's not just that Perk's defensive impact isn't as big as KG's...it's that it's NOWHERE NEAR as big as KG's.  The 3 - 4 points that Perk might be worth on defense, those are points that can easily be made up. 

We've seen this year that in the 418 minutes that the starting 4 have played with either Shaq or Baby the offense has scored 118 pts/100 poss and allowed 101 points/100 possessions (compared to the 112 pts scored and 97 pts allowed per 100 possessions that the Big 4 + Perk line-up produced over the last 3 years).  Those 4 points lost on defense have been made up with 6 points gained on offense.  Which, at the end of the day, is my main point.

Perk is a solid defensive player.  You can see a definite, measurable defensive impact from his presence.  On the flip side, he's not a defensive star.  His impact, relatively speaking, is small on defense.  And can easily be replaced.  Yes, there's a bit of an offense/defense trade-off, but it's on a small scale.  You're still talking #1 defense in the league with or without Perk, but instead you're looking at a better offense.  On the whole, again, Perk's impact is replaceable.   

[bbd24]

Bballtim, I don't need a quote from Doc about who or who isn't starting. The trade said it all.

They think Shaq/JO and Krstic combined can fill what Perkins gave you, and their not losing anything at the position with the move. Instead, you just gained major bench help while still getting production from Center.

And I believe their right.

  Haha. God forbid the coach's opinion get in the way of your proclaiming who the starting center is.

  Is that how trades generally work? That the only reason players are traded is because their teams were planning on replacing them in the starting lineup regardless? I must say that's a new way of looking at things.

  Oh, and I like how you jumped from telling me that I don't know how much half the teams in the league to telling me exactly what Doc and Danny were thinking with regards to the trade, but I guess I should expect that from someone who seems to know more about who are starting center will be than the coaching staff.

Thats not the point I'm making at all.  Not sure why your putting words in my mouth.  If you want my take I'll give it to you straight.  You don't have to be big and bad about it.  Its just a message board.  Your not on the mean streets of Connecticut.

Its not that hard for me to decipher what Ainge thought.  What do you think Ainge thought ?  Why did he make the trade ?

For me,  Shaq, JO, and Krstic can more than handle the Center position without Perkins.   Green and Krstic help out your bench.   The value of the whole combination is greater than having a Perkins on the team.   Especially considering his health, and the contract he turned down and now wants. Again, its the right move IMO.

Trades can work a lot of ways. This one involved alot of equations in my mind. A lot of factors.  It isn't just about whose starting or if Perk wants 10/per.  More to that than just those 2 things. 

Its about the entire roster, not just one player.  This entire roster is better right now than 3 days ago.

[BballTim]

  Nice post, and nice stats, drza44. I don't disagree with you, but you're comparing him to probably the most impactful defender in the league, who's probably paid 2-3 times the most that Perk could hope to get. Also, 3-4 points is a pretty solid change in efficiency. 4 points would move the Celts from 1st to 7th in defense, 4 points would move OKC from 16th to 8th. It's the difference between average or good, it's the difference between good and great. Not Garnett-like, but then how many players are?

  It's a little confusing at this point because there seem to be dueling discussions. Perk's impact on (and value to) the Celts and Perk's impact on (and value to) the rest of the league. The worse team he's on defensively the greater the impact he's likely to have. This probably went into Danny's thinking. It's not that other teams overvalue Perk, it's that Perk can be more valuable to other teams than he is to the Celts. I agree that it's possible to replace Perk. I'm not really opposed to the trade (or in favor of it), I need to see how the team looks with the new players. But I don't agree at all that Perkins isn't worth even as much as the MLE.

  One thing, though. We're the number 1 defense with Perk. I don't think we'll be the number 1 defense without him but we'll still be top 5.

[BudweiserCeltic]

BballTim, actually we've been the #1 defense without Perk. No?

[Casperian]

...

Those 4 points lost on defense have been made up with 6 points gained on offense.  Which, at the end of the day, is my main point.

...

TP for doing the dirty work.

[BballTim]

Bballtim, I don't need a quote from Doc about who or who isn't starting. The trade said it all.

They think Shaq/JO and Krstic combined can fill what Perkins gave you, and their not losing anything at the position with the move. Instead, you just gained major bench help while still getting production from Center.

And I believe their right.

  Haha. God forbid the coach's opinion get in the way of your proclaiming who the starting center is.

  Is that how trades generally work? That the only reason players are traded is because their teams were planning on replacing them in the starting lineup regardless? I must say that's a new way of looking at things.

  Oh, and I like how you jumped from telling me that I don't know how much half the teams in the league to telling me exactly what Doc and Danny were thinking with regards to the trade, but I guess I should expect that from someone who seems to know more about who are starting center will be than the coaching staff.

Thats not the point I'm making at all.  Not sure why your putting words in my mouth.  If you want my take I'll give it to you straight.  You don't have to be big and bad about it.  Its just a message board.  Your not on the mean streets of Connecticut.

Its not that hard for me to decipher what Ainge thought.  What do you think Ainge thought ?  Why did he make the trade ?

For me,  Shaq, JO, and Krstic can more than handle the Center position without Perkins.   Green and Krstic help out your bench.   The value of the whole combination is greater than having a Perkins on the team.   Especially considering his health, and the contract he turned down and now wants. Again, its the right move IMO.

Trades can work a lot of ways. This one involved alot of equations in my mind. A lot of factors.  It isn't just about whose starting or if Perk wants 10/per.  More to that than just those 2 things. 

Its about the entire roster, not just one player.  This entire roster is better right now than 3 days ago.

  I think that Danny made the trade for more than one reason. He thought that the expected improvement to our offense and to our bench would offset the loss of Perk's defense. He made it because he now has at least one center that's relatively healthy. He might not have been confident that Perk would be setback-free for the rest of the year. He might have thought that he was adding a piece for the future without weakening the team.

  But I don't think he made the trade because they were planning on benching Perk and starting Shaq if both were able to play. There's no evidence that was the case, and there's evidence to the contrary.

[droponov]

One thing, though. We're the number 1 defense with Perk. I don't think we'll be the number 1 defense without him but we'll still be top 5.

Why?

When Perkins played his first game, in January 25th, the Celtics were the number 2 defense in the league.

And by the end of December - just before Garnett got injured and missed 10 games - they were the best defensive team in the league (with 96.6 points allowed per 100 possessions, better than their current number).

[winsomme]

 Nice post, and nice stats, drza44. I don't disagree with you, but you're comparing him to probably the most impactful defender in the league, who's probably paid 2-3 times the most that Perk could hope to get. Also, 3-4 points is a pretty solid change in efficiency. 4 points would move the Celts from 1st to 7th in defense, 4 points would move OKC from 16th to 8th. It's the difference between average or good, it's the difference between good and great. Not Garnett-like, but then how many players are?

  It's a little confusing at this point because there seem to be dueling discussions. Perk's impact on (and value to) the Celts and Perk's impact on (and value to) the rest of the league. The worse team he's on defensively the greater the impact he's likely to have. This probably went into Danny's thinking. It's not that other teams overvalue Perk, it's that Perk can be more valuable to other teams than he is to the Celts. I agree that it's possible to replace Perk. I'm not really opposed to the trade (or in favor of it), I need to see how the team looks with the new players. But I don't agree at all that Perkins isn't worth even as much as the MLE.

  One thing, though. We're the number 1 defense with Perk. I don't think we'll be the number 1 defense without him but we'll still be top 5.

It could be the other way, however. Perk's impact could actually be more valuable on a team with a good defensive system than it is on one without one.

maybe our system hides weaknesses in Perk's game and capitalizes on his strengths.

personally I think Perk was simply the right fit in the Cs system and wouldn't be surprised if he struggles with OKC. honestly, though, how he fares with OKC tells me very little about whether this was a good trade or not.

all that matters is how the Cs respond with our new personnel. and I'm definitely worried about our loss of swagger on the defensive end in that regard.

[drza44]

 Nice post, and nice stats, drza44. I don't disagree with you, but you're comparing him to probably the most impactful defender in the league, who's probably paid 2-3 times the most that Perk could hope to get. Also, 3-4 points is a pretty solid change in efficiency. 4 points would move the Celts from 1st to 7th in defense, 4 points would move OKC from 16th to 8th. It's the difference between average or good, it's the difference between good and great. Not Garnett-like, but then how many players are?

  One thing, though. We're the number 1 defense with Perk. I don't think we'll be the number 1 defense without him but we'll still be top 5.

Thanks for the cordial response, and yeah, as I pointed out before we do have some similarities (i.e. "my" numbers and yours tell similar stories).  It's in the interpretation where we disagree a bit.  A few examples...

1) You're applying the 4 points in the wrong direction for the Cs.  This year was already without Perk for the most part, so you wouldn't take 4 points away from where the team currently is to move them to 7th.  Instead, it's a question of are they "1st" or "more 1st" defensively with/without Perk.

2) My "4 points" was actually giving Perk the extreme benefit of the doubt.  I used averages, but if you go year-by-year the Cs starters gave up 93 pts/100 possessions in '08, 98 pts/100 possessions in '09, and 100 pts/100 possessions in '10.  Looking at that trend, one could argue that "4 points" is an overestimation for how much better Perk might be over the current 101 pts/100 possessions that the Big 4 + Shaq (or Baby) are giving up.

3) Even if you use the 4 points figure for defense, you'd have to do the same with the 6 points figure on offense.  Which on the whole would suggest that the team potentially improves more on offense without Perk than they give up defensively...and that without him they were still #1 in the league in defense anyway.

Again, for the most part we're saying the same thing.  The team looks to have improved a bit offensively to counter a small drop defensively.  But from the tone of your posts I can tell you consider this a bad thing, while when I look at the whole on-court impact it appears to be a good thing to me (with the usual caveats about health and chemistry that I hit in my blog post about this http://www.celticsblog.com/2011/2/25/2014694/the-celtics-are-better-today-for-this-year-than-they-were-yesterday ).

[BballTim]

BballTim, actually we've been the #1 defense without Perk. No?

  I think that Chicago had been #1 for a while, I would guess at least a month.

  Not in points allowed, but in defensive efficiency.

  If you check 82games, which hasn't been updated since Jan 19th, Chicago was 2 points better than us (more or less, I don't think they use fractions). If you check ESPN we're slightly better than the Bulls now. Both the Celts and the Bulls are 2 points clear of the rest of the league so I don't think that the Bulls have had much of a dropoff in that time. If you think about what's happened, though, we knocked about 2 points off of our total in less than 30% of our games so we've been playing well better than anyone else to drag our year long average down by that amount. For example, if we'd been at 102 and we're now at 100 then we'd have been playing at around 95 over that time to get our total average to that level.

[BballTim]

One thing, though. We're the number 1 defense with Perk. I don't think we'll be the number 1 defense without him but we'll still be top 5.

Why?

When Perkins played his first game, in January 25th, the Celtics were the number 2 defense in the league.

And by the end of December - just before Garnett got injured and missed 10 games - they were the best defensive team in the league (with 96.6 points allowed per 100 possessions, better than their current number).

 For starters the Bulls are apparently playing great defense and have been for a while. Also I don't think Rondo's as healthy as he was and I don't expect KG to play heavy minutes to keep us at that high level.

[BballTim]

 Nice post, and nice stats, drza44. I don't disagree with you, but you're comparing him to probably the most impactful defender in the league, who's probably paid 2-3 times the most that Perk could hope to get. Also, 3-4 points is a pretty solid change in efficiency. 4 points would move the Celts from 1st to 7th in defense, 4 points would move OKC from 16th to 8th. It's the difference between average or good, it's the difference between good and great. Not Garnett-like, but then how many players are?

  It's a little confusing at this point because there seem to be dueling discussions. Perk's impact on (and value to) the Celts and Perk's impact on (and value to) the rest of the league. The worse team he's on defensively the greater the impact he's likely to have. This probably went into Danny's thinking. It's not that other teams overvalue Perk, it's that Perk can be more valuable to other teams than he is to the Celts. I agree that it's possible to replace Perk. I'm not really opposed to the trade (or in favor of it), I need to see how the team looks with the new players. But I don't agree at all that Perkins isn't worth even as much as the MLE.

  One thing, though. We're the number 1 defense with Perk. I don't think we'll be the number 1 defense without him but we'll still be top 5.

It could be the other way, however. Perk's impact could actually be more valuable on a team with a good defensive system than it is on one without one.

  That doesn't seem to be the case.

[BudweiserCeltic]

BballTim, actually we've been the #1 defense without Perk. No?

  I think that Chicago had been #1 for a while, I would guess at least a month.

  Not in points allowed, but in defensive efficiency.

  If you check 82games, which hasn't been updated since Jan 19th, Chicago was 2 points better than us (more or less, I don't think they use fractions). If you check ESPN we're slightly better than the Bulls now. Both the Celts and the Bulls are 2 points clear of the rest of the league so I don't think that the Bulls have had much of a dropoff in that time. If you think about what's happened, though, we knocked about 2 points off of our total in less than 30% of our games so we've been playing well better than anyone else to drag our year long average down by that amount. For example, if we'd been at 102 and we're now at 100 then we'd have been playing at around 95 over that time to get our total average to that level.

Remember, for the past month or so we've been playing with a depleted team that included injuries to Garnett too. But let's not take away from the Bulls, they've been playing good defense without Noah.

But, that the Bulls play better defense or not to us all told is irrelevant.