Krstic is being overrated

[barefacedmonk]

I made a thread almost EXACTLY like this a couple of days ago, and got torn apart for it.

If it helps, the OP is getting similar kind of reaction.

[CelticG1]

I admit I underrated him.  I thought he was a horridly bad player.  Turns out he is so-so.  He is way worse than Perk was before the knee thing, and he may turn out to be only mildly worse now that the knee thing has happened.

Throw in Green and a draft pick and we might have made out.  We'll have to wait till the playoffs to see

Really way worse? You make it sound like Krstic is a D league player. They were both starting centers on high quality teams. Even if you are the biggest Perk supporter you have to admit that his ceiling is being a 2nd team all-defense type player. Maybe one day he can get there.  

Yes way worse. Prior to the knee injuries Perk was a player that absolutely any team would want.

Krstic, not so much. Maybe as a 3rd stringer, which is possibly what he will end up with us

I love Perk so I don't want to say bad things about him but he is an above average center and thats about it. He is not going to be an all-star ever and probably will not make any all defensive teams. He is a great team player and played his very small role on our team perfectly.

I disagree with you about Krstic. I think he is an average maybe slightly below  average center in this league. He was the starting center for OKC who is a good team and there are plenty of other teams that he could start for as well.

[Rondo9dunx]

I think it's just a knee-jerk reaction because a lot of people were expecting him to be a random euro-scrub. That and we're in a really weak part of our schedule right now and we havent lost with the guy and he hasnt had a bad game yet.

But I also think Roy that just coming out and straight up saying " dude is over-rated " could very easily be taken as you trying to say that he sucks. Granted, I dont think that's what you were trying to say, but I certainly see why someone else might. I think this thread would have been a lot more pleasant had you just thrown in the word "slightly" or something

But i'm certainly not criticizing you for it, i've never been one to enjoy aruing over semantics.

[Edgar]

lol
in order to deffend roy suck doesnt equal overrated
gerald green equal sucks
gortat equals overrated

[barefacedmonk]

gerald green equal sucks
gortat equals overrated

lol

[guava_wrench]

I find the idea that Krstic is a third string center as one poster claimed to be unreasonable. The guys started on the Nets back when the Nets were decent. He was starting on OKC, a strong team. If the guy is always a starter, how is he third string?

None of this means that he should start on the Celtics, but it seems important to calibrate our expectations of centers with the actual performance of actual centers, not some arbitrary measure.

[jmei]

Let's try using a few more advanced stats-- offensive rating and offensive win shares. These statistics are based on field goals made, field goals missed, assists, offensive rebounds, and turnovers and are meant to serve as a catch-all offensive statistic that factors in efficiency. I've also included PER and TS%. (Note that 2011 numbers for Perkins are small sample size and should probably be ignored.)

Kendrick Perkins
Career offensive rating: 103
Offensive rating, last three years (2010-11 first): 97, 105, 105
Offensive Win Shares, last three years: -0.1, 1.4, 1.1
Career PER: 12.9
PER (last three years): 10.2, 15.0, 13.2
TS% (career): .584
TS% (last three): .568, .613, .591

Nenad Krstic
Career offensive rating: 105
Offensive rating, last three years: 113, 111, 104
Offensive Win Shares, last three years: 1.7, 2.0, 0.6
Career PER: 13.6
PER (last three years): 13.0, 13.7, 13.6
TS% (career): .531
TS% (last three): .546, .527, .504


Based on offensive rating/offensive WS (which takes into account turnovers-- Perk's biggest weakness), it certainly looks like Nenad has him beat by a fair bit (Perk maxed out at 105, Nenad is at 113 and 111 the last two years). PER slightly favors Perkins (but the difference is almost entirely due to defensive rebounding/blocks) and while TS% favors Perkins, it doesn't take into account aspects like floor-stretching, volume (Nenad has averaged a higher pts/36 min the last few years), and turnovers. Nenad turns the ball over roughly half as often as Perkins does-- and that's a pretty [dang] important weakness for the Celtics. That alone more than makes up for any shooting efficiency differences between them.

It's fair to question whether Nenad's offensive improvement makes up for what he gives away on defense and on the boards, but to me it's clear that Nenad is a fair bit better of an offensive player.


------------
Glossary
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_rating

[Rondo9dunx]

I find the idea that Krstic is a third string center as one poster claimed to be unreasonable. The guys started on the Nets back when the Nets were decent. He was starting on OKC, a strong team. If the guy is always a starter, how is he third string?

None of this means that he should start on the Celtics, but it seems important to calibrate our expectations of centers with the actual performance of actual centers, not some arbitrary measure.

Yea, its not like there is 32 amazing 7-foot dominant centers out there lol. We gotta be happy with what we can get.

[vandromeda]

To compare Krstic vs. Perk isn't fair - Perk got 8.75M$ per extension and Krstic will settle down for ~4-4.5M$ this summer. Although this year Krstic is earning more.

When level your expectation from Krstic keep in mind:
- this is post injury Krstic; his best seasons have been with Nets; injury he had was similar to Perk's injury and he never was the same player again; pre-injury Krstic vs. pre-injury Perk, I am not sure who is better; hope Perk will recover better from injury than Krstic (long-term)
- OKC is 2 mans game, everybody else is useful in garbage man ans spot-up shooter roles. They played both Green and Krstic together what emphasis weaknesses for both of them.
- Green isn't combo forward, he is SF that couldn't play defense against starters PF of the league. His best role is 6th man, he is good as PF if you play small ball and he is good in closing games. And he is not getting 10M per this summer, he will settle down for less than Perk, but still it was too much for OKC because it isn't possition of need for them.
- Krstic's problem isn't poor rebounding rate on defense. Although he is slow leaper he literally always box-out and is good in positioning. His team was worse in rebounding with him because: he was paired with Green on PF what is very bad idea and Ibaka excel in reserve role. Boxing-out instead going after the ball is how European teams usually play and how NJ played in Kidd's time (when PG was going after defense rebound to speed-up transition offense).
- Real Krstic's problem is help defense, he is really slow there. Positional defense not that much - he is always on right spot. Of course he will have problem with D. Howard, but is it really that important?
- Both OKC and Boston got what they need from this trade: OKC got garbage man and elite defender who they could afford and who fit nicely in their system and address their biggest need (Ibaka is always flying around searching for blocks/rebounds; they need somebody who is more earth-bounded, good in on-man defence and plays garbage man role in offense); Boston got really good 6th man (that hopefully will be extended during summer for ~8M per) that allow lot of flexibility in rotations (for example do you remeber when he was playing defense on Kobe in last year play-off; he was very good in this); Also Boston got servisable big, good for 20+ minutes per who is very coachable, has high BBIQ, doesn't turn ball over, could spread the floor nicely

[Edgar]

- this is post injury Krstic; his best seasons have been with Nets; injury he had was similar to Perk's injury and he never was the same player again; pre-injury Krstic vs. pre-injury Perk, I am not sure who is better; hope Perk will recover better from injury than Krstic (long-term)

not sure
actually kristic never got the chance or the enviroment to show if he was the man he used to be

- OKC is 2 mans game, everybody else is useful in garbage man ans spot-up shooter roles. They played both Green and Krstic together what emphasis weaknesses for both of them.

the problem is not playing them toghether is what you put around them


- G

reen isn't combo forward, he is SF that couldn't play defense against starters PF of the league. His best role is 6th man, he is good as PF if you play small ball and he is good in closing games. And he is not getting 10M per this summer, he will settle down for less than Perk, but still it was too much for OKC because it isn't possition of need for them.

love yur optimism
but the reason okc let him go was because the 10M

-- Both OKC and Boston got what they need from this trade: OKC got garbage man and elite defender who they could afford and who fit nicely in their system and address their biggest need (Ibaka is always flying around searching for blocks/rebounds; they need somebody who is more earth-bounded, good in on-man defence and plays garbage man role in offense); Boston got really good 6th man (that hopefully will be extended during summer for ~8M per) that allow lot of flexibility in rotations (for example do you remeber when he was playing defense on Kobe in last year play-off; he was very good in this); Also Boston got servisable big, good for 20+ minutes per who is very coachable, has high BBIQ, doesn't turn ball over, could spread the floor nicely

[/quote]
I agree ine verything but the 8 mill


peace

Edgar

[Roy H.]

But I also think Roy that just coming out and straight up saying " dude is over-rated " could very easily be taken as you trying to say that he sucks. Granted, I dont think that's what you were trying to say, but I certainly see why someone else might. I think this thread would have been a lot more pleasant had you just thrown in the word "slightly" or something

But i'm certainly not criticizing you for it, i've never been one to enjoy aruing over semantics.

I hear you.  I suppose it's too much to ask that people read the first post of the thread before bashing my argument, but in terms of whether I think "Nenad sucks", here were my first and last paragraphs:

First things first, let me say that Nenad Krstic's offense has been very good.  For a guy who hasn't learned the system yet, he's played very well.  I don't think anybody can criticize him much for what he's done on the offensive end of the floor, and that includes his offensive rebounding, which has been a very pleasant surprise. . . .

This isn't a thread to "bash" Krstic.  Like I said, I think he's been great on one end of the floor.  However, I do think it's very important that we have either Shaq or JO back; their presence is going to be a very important piece of our championship puzzle.  As Danny said in the Shaughnessy interview, "Now if Shaq and Jermaine [O'Neal] can't play we could be in trouble".  I agree with that sentiment, and don't want to see people disappointed if Krstic doesn't live up to their perhaps unrealistic expectations.  

In other words, I wasn't saying that Krstic is worthless.  However, he's not as good as many people think, and I think this thread is a shining example of that. 

[Roy H.]

To compare Krstic vs. Perk isn't fair - Perk got 8.75M$ per extension and Krstic will settle down for ~4-4.5M$ this summer. Although this year Krstic is earning more.

I agree.  Krstic isn't as good as Perk, which is reflected in their respective value around the league.  However, some posters are determined that not only is Krstic as good, but he's better.  Those are the posters I was hoping to reach with this thread, only to be met with a large, coordinated collective ostrich-like head burying.

- Green isn't combo forward, he is SF that couldn't play defense against starters PF of the league. His best role is 6th man, he is good as PF if you play small ball and he is good in closing games. And he is not getting 10M per this summer, he will settle down for less than Perk, but still it was too much for OKC because it isn't possition of need for them.

I agree with this, too, and think that we won the trade "on paper".  From a talent perspective, Green + #1 + Krstic > Perk + Nate.  I can't argue with anybody who makes that claim.  I *can* argue with anybody who says Krstic > Perk, though.

Krstic's problem isn't poor rebounding rate on defense. Although he is slow leaper he literally always box-out and is good in positioning. His team was worse in rebounding with him because: he was paired with Green on PF what is very bad idea and Ibaka excel in reserve role. Boxing-out instead going after the ball is how European teams usually play and how NJ played in Kidd's time (when PG was going after defense rebound to speed-up transition offense).

I disagree here.  Krstic's defensive rebounding has been near the bottom of the league for centers for multiple years now.  It's not just a product of the system; he's a poor defensive rebounder.  Paired beside a poor-rebounding PF in Jeff Green, Krstic should have had more chances at rebounds, but he still was extraordinarily poor on that end.

Real Krstic's problem is help defense, he is really slow there. Positional defense not that much - he is always on right spot. Of course he will have problem with D. Howard, but is it really that important?

I agree that help defense is more of an issue for him than man defense is.  However, I think both JO and Shaq are better at man-to-man / post defense, which is why it's important that they get back.

Both OKC and Boston got what they need from this trade: OKC got garbage man and elite defender who they could afford and who fit nicely in their system and address their biggest need (Ibaka is always flying around searching for blocks/rebounds; they need somebody who is more earth-bounded, good in on-man defence and plays garbage man role in offense); Boston got really good 6th man (that hopefully will be extended during summer for ~8M per) that allow lot of flexibility in rotations (for example do you remeber when he was playing defense on Kobe in last year play-off; he was very good in this); Also Boston got servisable big, good for 20+ minutes per who is very coachable, has high BBIQ, doesn't turn ball over, could spread the floor nicely

I think your assessment of Krstic's contributions are spot on.  Krstic is serviceable, and is a pretty good piece when viewed from that perspective.  However, when people talk about him being better than Perk, or about how we don't need Shaq or JO to be successful because we have Krstic, then I think they're really stretching (and thus, overrating him).

[Roy H.]

Let's try using a few more advanced stats-- offensive rating and offensive win shares. These statistics are based on field goals made, field goals missed, assists, offensive rebounds, and turnovers and are meant to serve as a catch-all offensive statistic that factors in efficiency. I've also included PER and TS%. (Note that 2011 numbers for Perkins are small sample size and should probably be ignored.)

Kendrick Perkins
Career offensive rating: 103
Offensive rating, last three years (2010-11 first): 97, 105, 105
Offensive Win Shares, last three years: -0.1, 1.4, 1.1
Career PER: 12.9
PER (last three years): 10.2, 15.0, 13.2
TS% (career): .584
TS% (last three): .568, .613, .591

Nenad Krstic
Career offensive rating: 105
Offensive rating, last three years: 113, 111, 104
Offensive Win Shares, last three years: 1.7, 2.0, 0.6
Career PER: 13.6
PER (last three years): 13.0, 13.7, 13.6
TS% (career): .531
TS% (last three): .546, .527, .504


Based on offensive rating/offensive WS (which takes into account turnovers-- Perk's biggest weakness), it certainly looks like Nenad has him beat by a fair bit (Perk maxed out at 105, Nenad is at 113 and 111 the last two years). PER slightly favors Perkins (but the difference is almost entirely due to defensive rebounding/blocks) and while TS% favors Perkins, it doesn't take into account aspects like floor-stretching, volume (Nenad has averaged a higher pts/36 min the last few years), and turnovers. Nenad turns the ball over roughly half as often as Perkins does-- and that's a pretty [dang] important weakness for the Celtics. That alone more than makes up for any shooting efficiency differences between them.

It's fair to question whether Nenad's offensive improvement makes up for what he gives away on defense and on the boards, but to me it's clear that Nenad is a fair bit better of an offensive player.


------------
Glossary
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_rating

There are some issues with your analysis, though:

1)  You're throwing out the statistics (TS%, efficiency, PER) that show Perk is better, but relying on stats that show Krstic is better.  That automatically biases the argument; and

2) "Win shares" is a pretty flawed stat, but I think the numbers you listed are misleading.  Here are how they each fared from '08 to '10 (disregarding '11, since Perk has played in 12 games thus far):

2008:  Krstic -0.9, 1.9
2009:  Krstic 0.6, 1.1
2010:  Krstic 1.7, 1.4

Total:  Krstic 1.4, Perk 4.0

Even throwing out 2008, Perk leads 2.5 to 2.3.  Again, I don't like the stat, especially when used out of context, but Perk trumps Krstic here.

3) Similarly, I think Offensive Rating on an individual level is a pretty flawed stat.  It tells us, for instance, that Krstic is an equal offensive player to Kevin Garnett, and is better than Rajon Rondo, while telling us that OKC's three best offensive players (among guys who have played 1000+ minutes) are Serge Ibaka, James Harden, and Nick Collison.  Yes, Nick Collison -- he of the 4.4 ppg this season -- rates higher than Kevin Durant or Russell Westbrook (6th and 10th on OKC, respectively.)

[Roy H.]

not gonna argue with someone with blinders on? hahahaha

You named this thread Kristic is overrated and then go on to Post that Perk is just as good or almost as good a kristic on  offense.

If that's not overrating Perk, I don't know what is ? It's like saying Kristic is just as good at post defense as Perk is.


Roy I agree with a lot of the stuff you post on here , but you seriously have blinders on with this .

You are doing the same exact thing that you're accusing other of .

Being an open-minded guy like I am, can you show me my blinders?  I've admitted that Krstic has a more versatile offensive game, but have shown that Perk has actually been more offensively productive.  Is my reasoning flawed somehow? 

I'm not even arguing that Perk is the better offensive player, although I think that argument can be made with a straight face.  I'm simply saying that the two players have been fairly close, and that there isn't the wide chasm between the two in terms of offense that some suggest.

From reading this thread, I get the impression that a lot of people think Perk averaged around 3 or 4 points per game.  He didn't.  In fact, he scored in double digits more often than not.  He wasn't going to give you 20 or 30 points like a Sasha Vujacic might, but he was pretty consistently in the 10+ point range, and he scored those points extremely efficiently.

[celtics2]

I'm all for Krstic at this point. He is as advertised which is refreshing. He blends in well on the floor moving constantly and can score in spurts. The Perk personality problems on the court were getting old and disruptive. Krstic knows his place well and takes advantage of opportunities. The offense is flowing smooth.