With the benefit of hindsight, do you think Danny regrets the Perk trade?

[Shamrocker]

right, so this is why Roy has no faith that anybody will acknowledge at the end of the season that the trade was bad. People who like the trade will continue to find some stat that tells them the trade was good or not the problem.

This isn't just "some stat."
Perkins was never a "do it all" center. We've always liked him and valued him for 2 things: defense and rebounding. If there is no significant drop off in defense and rebounding after he was gone, it is only natural to assume that we are not significantly worse without him in those two areas.

The reason for the recent slump is as clear as day: 4th quarter scoring. So if a team goes in a slump where it allows the same amount of points as before, but scores less, and scores less specifically in the 4th quarter, I think it is safe to say that the cause for that is not the loss of a defensive player that played the least amount of minutes in the 4th quarter.


I have no invested interest in this trade being good or bad. I have an interest in empirical reality. If the celtics lose out because they have bad interior defense and rebounding, I have no problems acknowledging the trade was a culprit. But that so far has not been the case. The case right now is that the celtics have gone from a net positive 4th quarter scoring margin to a deeply negative one (-5 over the slump). Which means that the culprit is clearly age, not the absence of a player who didn't score much, specially in the 4th quarter.

Good post. I tend to disagree however.Our recent struggles are, at least in part, due to poor interior defense and rebounding.

[BballTim]

I also want to point out that I don't really look at this as a "hindsight" debate. Everything that is up for debate was laid out at the time of the trade. Many people noted: Green as being extremely gifted but not aggressive or particularly good on D, Nenad having a nice soft shot but a defensive and rebounding game to match, and Perk being much more likely to return to health than Shaq for the playoff run.

Those were the questions at the time of the trade are still are...

  I think you're exaggerating everyone's faith in Perk being healthy when he went out of the lineup with a knee issue (other knee, I know) shortly after returning  to the lineup. If Shaq is playing again by the time the playoffs start does "much more likely" become "no more likely"?

Well level of health certainly is also a factor, but the "likelihoods" won't change because those were assessments at the time of the trade.

There was definitely disagreement on the likelihoods, but I really don't see how one could argue Shaq being more likely to return to action than Perk.

  You're talking about "assessments" made without any knowledge of the medical condition of the players involved.

Well we know Shaq is the oldest player in the NBA and is 7-2 300+ lbs and we know that he had two separate injuries on the same foot and we also know that Perk had an MCL sprain and is 26 and that OKC believed was not a big problem...

  So, again, we don't know how severe either injury was seen as, we don't know how much OKC was expecting from him this year, and we don't know what the prognosis was for any of the players involved at the time of the trade. It's worth pointing out that plenty of posters were sure that JO was done for the year, I'd say that his coming back sums up the amount of insight people had into any of the injury issues.

going back to our circular debate, pretty sure OKC said they wanted Perk for both now and later and felt that he was going to be fine.

as for Shaq, we knew how long he had already been out for (speaks to severity), we knew what was injured (achilles, a notoriously a difficult injury to heal) and we knew that he is a massive man and the oldest player in the league. People predicted Shaq would struggle to get back on the court to play at the level necessary to replace Perk and it was based on these known factors...

  People also predicted that JO was done for the year based on similar "facts". People predicted that KG was never going to get back to the level he has based on "facts". People made predictions without any idea of how severe the injuries were seen, or without having any real idea what the prognosis were at the time of the trade.

[dlpin]

How could he not regret it? Green, the vaunted best player in the trade has been thoroughly unimpressive. On this board, and elsewhere, some Celtics fans pledge that once JG learns the system ( as if learning a basketball system is akin to quantum physics) we’ll all be in for a real treat. Well, it’s been over a month, and some of us are beginning to suspect he’ll never quite get it.

Meanwhile Perk has taken OKC by storm. No learning curve for him. Haven't heard Scott Brooks suggest that Perk was " too nice" Nope, in Thunderland all is well. Perk has altered the identity of OKC, unleashed Serge Ibaka,and been welcomed as the second coming. Go read Thunder blogs, I challenge you to find multiple forum threads lamenting the loss of Jeff Green. Don't worry I'll wait.......

 I’ve thrown in the proverbial white towel on Gerald Jeff Green. I want my Perky back, and I suspect, down in the dark barrels of Danny subconscious he does too. 

Per 36 minutes, Jeff Green has been by far and away our best reserve. A clear upgrade in any metric over both BBD and Marquis. You talk about PER, but that is just one of many advanced stats. His win shares per minute are equivalent to Rondo's. And even if we think PER is a good variable, Green's PER is better than Perkin's.

I think the disappointment with Green comes from unrealistic expectations. Green was never supposed to turn the big 4 into a big 5. He was supposed to add scoring and energy off the bench while providing flexibility for Doc. And even in the limited minutes Doc has given him he has proven to be a very effective reserve (leads all reserves in scoring per 36 minutes and TS%, and, on the defensive end he is our 3rd best player in Block % and blocks per minute).

[vinnie]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's. I also think these numbers are pretty disappointing for the best player in the deal.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's. I also think these numbers are pretty disappointing for the best player in the deal.

He's scoring very efficiently, over 50%. How many potential back-up 3s could be doing that? Until Doc figures out how to use him and run plays for him, instead of having Baby shooting the ball everytime he touches the ball, there's not much more we can look forward to.

[Interceptor]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's.

It looks to me like you just asserted that Anthony Parker could potentially produce similar numbers as Jeff Green is now on the Celtics.

Based on what?

[dlpin]

Good post. I tend to disagree however.Our recent struggles are, at least in part, due to poor interior defense and rebounding.

Hoopstats has a breakdown of this, called differential effeciency in the paint.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/11/4/diffeff/1-1

You can break it down by month. The celtics differential efficiency (DEFF) in the paint for the season is plus 2.5. For February, which is the month Perkins played significant minutes, the DEFF is -2.3.  For March, without Perkins, the celtics were back into positive territory with +2.

They also specifically have opponent stats in the paint:
http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/opponentstats/11/4/diffeff/6-1


In February, the celtics allowed 37.9 points in the paint. In March the celtics allowed 36.8 points in the paint. For the season the overall average is 35.6.

So it is pretty conclusive evidence that it was not production in the paint that has caused the celtics struggles.

[dlpin]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's. I also think these numbers are pretty disappointing for the best player in the deal.

Of course, we don't know who these other potential back up 3s would be. It took a first round pick for memphis to land 3 months of Shane battier.

In any case, per 36 minute productions, for Jeff Green while with the celtics, still learning the system, compared to Anthony Parker:

Jeff Green, 15.6 points on 54% eFG%, 3.5 rebounds, 1 block, 0.7 steals, 0.12 win shares per 48 minutes, 12.8 PER

Anthony Parker: 10.6 points on 48% eFG%, 3.8 rebounds, 0.1 blocks, 1.1 steals on 0.05 win shares per 48 minutes, 10.9 PER.

[CelticG1]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's. I also think these numbers are pretty disappointing for the best player in the deal.

Ok well then if you consider Perk the best player in the deal his numbers as worse than Greens so..

[vinnie]

Again I  wish I could be back in the day when I didn't have to read about per and win shares and a million other stats that have been made up because they can be made up thanks to computers.  Jeff green has had 4-5 good games, 4-5 bad games and has been mediocre the rest of the time. He Is not the kind of player I want to see on the celtics. Just a personal opinion.

[CelticG1]

9.8 points a game and 2.5 rebounds per game In nearly 23 minutes is what Green has delivered. Sounds like numbers that Anthony Parker or a bunch of other guys could produce. I have never been a Jeff Green fan, but would love to get to love him. I just don't see it.

5.8 points a game and 7.6 rebounds in 24 minutes is what Perk has delivered. Sounds like numbers Krstic is about producing 9.3 points and 5.6 rebounds in 24 min.

See what I did there ?  

That’s not necessarily the argument.  Vinnie can speak for himself, but he clearly was comparing JG production with other reserve 3s, not Perk.

Ok well i was comparing Krstic numbers with Perk's which if you look are about the same more or less.

[vinnie]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's. I also think these numbers are pretty disappointing for the best player in the deal.

Ok well then if you consider Perk the best player in the deal his numbers as worse than Greens so..

Where did I say that? I am just saying the best player in the deal is not that good.

[indeedproceed]

9.8 points a game and 2.5 rebounds per game In nearly 23 minutes is what Green has delivered. Sounds like numbers that Anthony Parker or a bunch of other guys could produce. I have never been a Jeff Green fan, but would love to get to love him. I just don't see it.

Jeff Green, statistical comparison while in Boston:

TS%: 58.6 (highest ever in career), Comparable to LeBron James (identical), Kevin Durant (59.2), Pau Gasol (58.3)

3pt%: 41.2 (career high), comperable to Hedo Turkoglu, Rudy Gay, higher than Pierce....although this one doesn't tell the whole story because he only shoots 1.2 3pt FG's a game, which is well below where he was in OKC. Its not insignificant, but it is a distinction that needs to be made.
 
Points per minute production (in PP40 format): 19.4, comparable to Rudy Gay, Wilson Chandler (both 19.1 PP40), Luol Deng (18.1), Tyler Hansbrough (20.6) and Paul Pierce (21.4), among others.

Rebounds per minute: They're terrible. No other way to put it.

Usage: 21.92 (career high), comperable to Pau Gasol or Danilo Gallinari, slightly lower than Kevin Garnett

PER: 14.20, career high, comparable to Jamal Crawford, Jared Dudley, or Landry Fields.

The notion that we could have gotten Jeff Green's production (at least from a statistical standpoint) across the board from a guy like Anthony Parker (a guy who averages 8.6 ppg in 6+minutes per contest) just is flat out not supportable.  

[CelticG1]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's. I also think these numbers are pretty disappointing for the best player in the deal.

Ok well then if you consider Perk the best player in the deal his numbers as worse than Greens so..

Where did I say that? I am just saying the best player in the deal is not that good.

I thought that was what you were implying. So would you say no player's in the deal are that good?

I'd say that's fair. A slight upgrade is better than no upgrade though

[indeedproceed]

I was comparing Jeff Green to other potential backup 3's. I also think these numbers are pretty disappointing for the best player in the deal.

Ok well then if you consider Perk the best player in the deal his numbers as worse than Greens so..

Where did I say that? I am just saying the best player in the deal is not that good.

I'm missing what you're implying here...if Perkins isn't that good, we didn't give up that much..if Jeff Green isn't that good, we didn't get back much, but we didn't give up very much (if Perkins isn't that good), so why would we expect that much back>

Is Finkle and Einhorn, Finkle and Einhorn...