The BBD, Murphy, Krstic and Perk Debate

[fairweatherfan]

Sorry this is false. It does matter where he scores from. He has no range outside of the paint and it clogs the driving lanes from Rondo,Allen,Pierce. Not only do they have to beat their own man they have to beat Perkins man at the rim.

Yeah I guess that's why we couldn't win a championship in 2008.

The single biggest shot of the 2008 playoff run was an elbow jumper by our backup center, playing in crunch time with Perk on the bench.

[Who]

Troy Murphy is the best offensive player out of that group. His shooting range and efficiency is a dangerous weapon.

I'd go with Glen Davis as my number two due to his superior mobility vs Krstic. Then Krstic.

And in last place, Perk.

[ballin]

Sorry this is false. It does matter where he scores from. He has no range outside of the paint and it clogs the driving lanes from Rondo,Allen,Pierce. Not only do they have to beat their own man they have to beat Perkins man at the rim.

Yeah I guess that's why we couldn't win a championship in 2008.

The single biggest shot of the 2008 playoff run was an elbow jumper by our backup center, playing in crunch time with Perk on the bench.

So true, I mean why even look at numbers or consider arguments when we have this one piece of brilliant anecdotal evidence. This tells us all we needed to know. Thank you.

[FatjohnReturns]

From Jackie Macmullans article for espn today.

"Go back and look at crunch time of that 2008 championship run. In the crucial final minutes, Perkins was usually watching from the bench, mostly because of his sketchy free throw shooting and limited offensive skills. Having one non-scorer (Rondo) on the floor was one thing. Having two was not palatable to coach Doc Rivers.

Look it up. In the 2008 Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers, Perkins played 14 or fewer minutes in three of the six games and missed Game 5 because of a strained shoulder. His average in the series: 18 minutes a night".

Everyone loves Perk. He a hard worker and a class act. Sorry but your post defies logic.

[guava_wrench]

TP. A brilliant use of statistics to refute reality.

There's no way I would ever agree that Perkins is the best shooter out of that group.

Did I say shooter? I said "offensive player"

I'm sorry, but like I said before, it doesn't matter whether you shoot the ball from 5 feet or 16 feet, it's still two points.

You win basketball games by scoring more efficiently and getting more possessions than the other team. Fact.

Sorry this is false. It does matter where he scores from. He has no range outside of the paint and it clogs the driving lanes from Rondo,Allen,Pierce. Not only do they have to beat their own man they have to beat Perkins man at the rim.

Yeah I guess that's why we couldn't win a championship in 2008. And all of those teams with Shaq have always sucked too, since he didn't have any range....

He's a center for god's sake!!!!!!!

Shaq and Perk are very different on offense. Teams tried to get Shaq the ball in the post and then Shaq generated his own offense.

Perk is efficient because he is so bad on offense. His offense is mostly just waiting near the hoop and getting open shots when his man switches to cover someone who can actually play on offense. This is why your use of statistics is so disturbing. That stat in isolation tells us nothing.

A guy who only shoots when he receives the ball in position for an easy layup will shoot better, but any of his replacements can do the same.

And why would anyone think it is okay to compare FG% between Perk and a guy like Murphy when Murphy's FG% includes a lot of 3 pt shots?

[Who]

I think Perk was an underrated finisher around the rim. It looked ugly and it was horribly slow but if often worked out just fine.

Plus, his post game was decent. Not good enough to be a go-to option against quality defenders his own size (mainly because of his awful decision making and non-passing out of the post) but a useful option against mismatches.

[fairweatherfan]

Sorry this is false. It does matter where he scores from. He has no range outside of the paint and it clogs the driving lanes from Rondo,Allen,Pierce. Not only do they have to beat their own man they have to beat Perkins man at the rim.

Yeah I guess that's why we couldn't win a championship in 2008.

The single biggest shot of the 2008 playoff run was an elbow jumper by our backup center, playing in crunch time with Perk on the bench.

So true, I mean why even look at numbers or consider arguments when we have this one piece of brilliant anecdotal evidence. This tells us all we needed to know. Thank you.

You can find my broader arguments against your position one post up from the one you chose to respond to, just under the dozen or so arguments from other posters.  This anecdote is one example of the general trend of benching Perk in favor of better offensive players in key moments of the 08 run, the same run that you're touting as proof that range at center isn't important.  Clearly Doc felt differently. 

[ballin]

True shooting %  =/= offensive ability, your entire premise is flawed, especially with 3 jumpshooters and one, well, one Perk.  You're also leaving out Green's abilities which are very relevant to evaluating the trade.

Perk benefited greatly from playing with three HOFers and one of the best pure passers in the game.  I miss the guy and wish him well but his offensive skills were very limited. 

While it's true that you can't have an entire team of non-jumpshooters, we're talking about centers here. Furthermore, our PF, KG, has range nearly out to the 3 point line. Whether or not our center can shoot beyond 5 feet is irrelevant, and therefore, the only thing that matters is their efficiency.

If you disagree, explain why

Perk and Rondo on the floor meant we had 2 non-jumpshooters, making it difficult for the Big 3 to find space, especially in clutch situations.  That's why he rarely finished games for us even when healthy.  Range is less important at C than other positions, but if you think it's completely irrelevant to the position, there are about 30 front offices that disagree with you.

True shooting is not a good proxy for overall offensive ability because it doesn't account for passing, offensive rebounding, turnovers, or volume of production.  Perk was pretty good at one of those.

Thank you for the rational argument. My response:

Passing: Perkins is relatively low on assists because he was usually "the finisher" and at the receiving end of passes. Furthermore, the difference is assist totals is still fairly negligible, so I consider this area pretty much a wash.

Offensive rebounds + steals - turnovers: this basically measure the number of possessions a player either gains or loses for a team. While I agree that Perk had too many turnovers, all things considered Perk got us about 1.5 less possessions per game than Murphy, Davis, and Krstic. When weighed against the differences in shooting efficiency, the 1.5 extra possessions don't make up the difference.

[ballin]

TP. A brilliant use of statistics to refute reality.

There's no way I would ever agree that Perkins is the best shooter out of that group.

Did I say shooter? I said "offensive player"

I'm sorry, but like I said before, it doesn't matter whether you shoot the ball from 5 feet or 16 feet, it's still two points.

You win basketball games by scoring more efficiently and getting more possessions than the other team. Fact.

Sorry this is false. It does matter where he scores from. He has no range outside of the paint and it clogs the driving lanes from Rondo,Allen,Pierce. Not only do they have to beat their own man they have to beat Perkins man at the rim.

Yeah I guess that's why we couldn't win a championship in 2008. And all of those teams with Shaq have always sucked too, since he didn't have any range....

He's a center for god's sake!!!!!!!

And why would anyone think it is okay to compare FG% between Perk and a guy like Murphy when Murphy's FG% includes a lot of 3 pt shots?

Instead of being rude, I'm going to try be helpful. Look up the definition of "true shooting percentage" and you'll have your answer.

[Megatron]

TP. A brilliant use of statistics to refute reality.

There's no way I would ever agree that Perkins is the best shooter out of that group.

Did I say shooter? I said "offensive player"

I'm sorry, but like I said before, it doesn't matter whether you shoot the ball from 5 feet or 16 feet, it's still two points.

You win basketball games by scoring more efficiently and getting more possessions than the other team. Fact.

Sorry this is false. It does matter where he scores from. He has no range outside of the paint and it clogs the driving lanes from Rondo,Allen,Pierce. Not only do they have to beat their own man they have to beat Perkins man at the rim.

Yeah I guess that's why we couldn't win a championship in 2008. And all of those teams with Shaq have always sucked too, since he didn't have any range....

He's a center for god's sake!!!!!!!

Hes a Center that defenders have to keep a body on at all times otherwise its an easy dunk. Perk isnt quick, Defenders know they can leave him and get back in time to foul him because it takes him 5 seconds to catch the ball then dunk because of his "slow gather" and lack of athleticism.

[Megatron]

The gamble of this trade is that we gain SO MUCH offensively that it offsets the drop in defense without Perk.

We were still the #1 Defensive team without Perk, so Danny views this trade as all positive.

Much better offense, slight drop in defense, but not much that it matters.

Our offense is going to be incredible though.

We can now play 5 on 5 and have Krstic/Murphy/JO/Shaq all of which have to be guarded at all times because they actually can score. Unlike Perk who's only ability was defense.

After the initial "shock value" that the trade had, I now believe that we got MUCH better. We struggled on the offensive end at times with Perk and Rondo being liabilities, we changed that with the trade, and I think its going to help us in the long run.

[snively]

It would be more enlightening if you put up their hoopdata shot location %s, not to mention their assisted %s and their TO%s (the stat where Perk's limitations rear their ugliest head).  It would be great if the defense consistently yielded deep, mostly uncontested paint touches to Perk, but he usually only gets 2 or 3 per game.  There are a lot more mid-range and 3-pt jumpers to be had from the 5 position, and Perk's inability to hit those takes a lot of offensive options off the table.

The same of course could be said for Rondo to some degree, but Rondo can at least hit an occasional J and he has the ability to drive the ball to a better shot location, something Perk can't do. 

[Celtics4ever]

Perk is simply not a better shooter I can BS on this premise.  Yes, he is a career .56 FG percentage but its only because of layups and dunks.  Krstic is .49%FG, Davis is .45% FG and Murphy has a FG .49%.  But all of these present Celtics take perimeter shots that Kendrick could not make in his wildest dreams.  His FG is only because he shoots from two feet or less.  This is a great of someone trying to use stats to falsify an argument.  It's true he has the highest FG % but he is not the best shooter by a long stretch.

Perk is .60 FT shooter.  Free throws are  often considered the golden standard of shooting touch.  Great shooters have good free throw percentage.  Krstic is .72 FT, Big Baby is .71% and Murphy is  .78%.  This is a much better indicator of shooting prowess.  Recall the games great shooters like Larry or Ray they are both superb free throw shooters.

Perk averages  6.4 PPG, Krstic is 10.1 PPG, Davis is 7.2 PPG and Murphy is 11.8.  He doesn't even win in this category.   Even if you extend per 36 min to basketball reference he barely breaks 10 PPG.

He clearly was the best defender out of this bunch before his season ending injury last year.   But the last six games opposing centers scored 15 PPG on us as an average.  

I know many here liked him but you do him little honor lying about him.

[droopdog7]

I mean, this post defies all logic and common sense.

Perk is easily the worst offensive player of those listed.  Not even Perk himself or his own mother (assuming she lives) would argue this FACT.

Anytime the guy caught the ball in the low post, I cringed.  Perk is efficient for one reason.  All he can do is dunk or lay the ball up.  And he can only do this if nobody is guarding him.

[snively]

I think Perk was an underrated finisher around the rim. It looked ugly and it was horribly slow but if often worked out just fine.

Plus, his post game was decent. Not good enough to be a go-to option against quality defenders his own size (mainly because of his awful decision making and non-passing out of the post) but a useful option against mismatches.

The whole year of 2009 was a good one for Perk offensively.  His baby jumper off the post-up was working, he was finishing much quicker off of post-ups and he was even getting transition buckets.  He was still a horrible turnover machine (worse actually because his increased offensive production/KG's injuries got him more touches) but it wasn't such a bad trade-off.  Sometime around the beginning of 2010 though, something must have happened to him physically though, because his %s started to drop, his gathering habits started to return and the team turned away from him as a post option.