Perk vs Green game to game stats

[Roy H.]

Kids, don't do drugs.

Second time:  the mocking of opposing viewpoints with comments like this, "Queen Perk", etc., is not helpful.  If you can't debate without being caustic or without baiting / trolling, it's time for you to move on.

Roy I can't agree more;
I think we all just have to remember one thing:  we all want the Celtics to win.

We should respect one another and save our caustic remarks for Laker and Heat fans.

Now onto the "kids don't do drugs" bit.
Scratches head.  I thought it was a positive line and anti-drug message.  Simple yes.
But direct.                    Kids don't do drugs.
Now I'm really confused.

I'm pretty sure the anti-drug message wasn't directed at the children of the world, but rather those who disagreed with bbd24.  But yes, I agree, in general drug-free is the way to be.

[Senninsage]

I don't get the common sense in only comparing Perkins with Green, or any of the traded players.

Perk should not just be compared to Green and Krstic, but should also be compared to players still on the Celtics, who also play the same position that Perkins would play if he were still on the Celtics, so that includes Shaq and Jermaine, too. 

In that sense, Jermaine O'neal's performance last night is a strong statement in favor of the argument that the Celtics didn't make such a big mistake trading Perkins after all.

[Roy H.]

In that sense, Jermaine O'neal's performance last night is a strong statement in favor of the argument that the Celtics didn't make such a big mistake trading Perkins after all.

The counterpoint to this is that there was plenty of room for both JO and Perk.  It's not like JO played 48 minutes last night.

[fairweatherfan]

Perkins is not playing at 100% and his value is never in his stats.

Jeff Green is playing in a very limited role both in terms of minutes and touches.

For these playoffs, I feel reasonably confident that Jermaine, Shaq and Krstic can hold down the fort at Center.

Jeff Green can provide solid defense and scoring off the bench.

If you look at the trade, and fans hate this, it had A LOT to do with the future of the franchise. Ainge didn't like Rondo-Perkins long-term at a 40% share of the cap. I didn't either.

You also get trial period with Green with the possibility to resign for short (qualifiying offer) or small money (MLE type money, which was not even a remote possibility with Perkins.

Then you dump Robinson's dollars and add a potentially valuable first rounder.

Ainge made a gamble that J.O., Shaq and Krstic (and Jeff Green) could replace Perkins impact short term (largely because Perkins is not 100%) while strengthening the team long-term.

Regardless of how it turns out in these playoffs, I can live with the move.

This is a good analysis of the logic behind the trade and deserves bumping.  We may or may not win a championship, but it will be difficult to say what impact the deal had on that (in either case). 

But the reasoning behind the deal is sound, provided that we understand that there's a lot of uncertainty built in regardless of whether we make the move or not.

[dtrader]

In that sense, Jermaine O'neal's performance last night is a strong statement in favor of the argument that the Celtics didn't make such a big mistake trading Perkins after all.

The counterpoint to this is that there was plenty of room for both JO and Perk.  It's not like JO played 48 minutes last night.

Well the essence of the "celtics didn't make such a big mistake trading Perk" argument, could be restated as "the remaining center rotation of JO (and/or Shaq and Krystic) is enough for the Celts to win with just them"

Stated that way, JOs performance (and the win it contributed to) leaves no counterpoint (as of yet) 

[Senninsage]

In that sense, Jermaine O'neal's performance last night is a strong statement in favor of the argument that the Celtics didn't make such a big mistake trading Perkins after all.

The counterpoint to this is that there was plenty of room for both JO and Perk.  It's not like JO played 48 minutes last night.

I don't know how good a counterpoint it is. I don't ever recall Perkins blocking that many shots on fast, athletic players quite like Jermaine did last night, and has proven he can do on a consistent basis throughout his career. I also don't recall Perkins being as versatile offensively to drop the kinds of shots that Jermaine dropped for the Celtics last night.

Perkins is not as quick on his feet or as offensively gifted, especially when he needs to do so with the ball in his hands. Some of the shots Jermaine made last night, would be significantly difficult for Perkins to make. In fact, with Perk, those same offensive opportunities may not have occurred, forcing the points to have to come from somewhere else, unless Perk was really deep in the paint.

The problem with that, though, is that even when Perkins was deep in the paint this season, he, a lot of times, blew amazing passes that went right to him, and no defender was close enough to stop him, and he still couldn't get the ball in. He goes up way too weak a lot of times. I've seen it myself this season.

So, I'm not on board with same perk did everything bad, not at all, but he was doing quite a bit bad, but the Celtics simply weren't paying for it as much as they could have, due to incredible play from elsewhere. Jermaine O'neal makes the Celtics more dangerous than Perk did. Same is also true for Shaq.

[Roy H.]

In that sense, Jermaine O'neal's performance last night is a strong statement in favor of the argument that the Celtics didn't make such a big mistake trading Perkins after all.

The counterpoint to this is that there was plenty of room for both JO and Perk.  It's not like JO played 48 minutes last night.

I don't know how good a counterpoint it is. I don't ever recall Perkins blocking that many shots on fast, athletic players quite like Jermaine did last night, and has proven he can do on a consistent basis throughout his career. I also don't recall Perkins being as versatile offensively to drop the kinds of shots that Jermaine dropped for the Celtics last night.

Perkins is not as quick on his feet or as offensively gifted, especially when he needs to do so with the ball in his hands. Some of the shots Jermaine made last night, would be significantly difficult for Perkins to make. In fact, with Perk, those same offensive opportunities may not have occurred, forcing the points to have to come from somewhere else, unless Perk was really deep in the paint.

The problem with that, though, is that even when Perkins was deep in the paint this season, he, a lot of times, blew amazing passes that went right to him, and no defender was close enough to stop him, and he still couldn't get the ball in. He goes up way too weak a lot of times. I've seen it myself this season.

So, I'm not on board with same perk did everything bad, not at all, but he was doing quite a bit bad, but the Celtics simply weren't paying for it as much as they could have, due to incredible play from elsewhere. Jermaine O'neal makes the Celtics more dangerous than Perk did. Same is also true for Shaq.

Without arguing any of those points, and regardless of who you like better or who has the better skill set, I'll repeat:  we could have had both of them.  JO played less than half the game last night.

Now, if you want to compare centers and make the argument that JO + Krstic / BBD is better than JO + Perk, that's relevant to the point.  However, the argument that JO somehow replaced Perk doesn't make a lot of sense to me; they were both Celtics as of February 23.

[mgent]

This could also be done between JO and Perk who both play the same position. But wanted to do it with the guys who were the big pieces of the trade......

And yes JO wins yesterdays match up hands down over Perk

Of course, both of them easily could have been playing on the same team.

I agree that if you're going to compare players, you have to look at the trade principals.  However, I'm not sure that individual statistics are going to give you a clear cut answer.

I mean, here's what we're going to see: 

*  Green is going to score more points, probably significantly more

* Perk is going to grab more rebounds and block more shots, probably significantly more

* Perk will shoot a higher percentage

* Assists will be about equal, with neither player excelling in that category

In essence, it's going to be a replica of what the players have done statistically to date both this year and in their careers.  If, after two months, we haven't resolved the question of who is better, I doubt anybody will let playoff stats change their mind.

I think it's hilarious that some people still don't know the answer to that question, especially when OKC gave up 2 starters and a 1st round pick for him + a struggling and incredibly undersized backup SG.

Stats don't mean anything in this matchup.  I'll say it again, Perk is a guy who can COMPLETELY change the outcome of a game with scoring a SINGLE point.  Green can ONLY change the game by scoring, and to do so he has to take shots away from the more offensively talented Big 4.  And on top of that, he's not even aggressive enough to take shots away from the less offensively efficient Glen Davis when he's out there in the second unit.

[get_banners]

Well, I'll say this...Perk did change that OKC game last night, what with that illegal score that gave the Thunder the lead near the end. Even the league acknowledged it was the wrong call. I have to believe that deflated Denver...they would have had the ball and the lead. So yeah, Perk had a gigantic (illegal) impact on his game.

[Roy H.]

Well, I'll say this...Perk did change that OKC game last night, what with that illegal score that gave the Thunder the lead near the end. Even the league acknowledged it was the wrong call. I have to believe that deflated Denver...they would have had the ball and the lead. So yeah, Perk had a gigantic (illegal) impact on his game.

That's veteran savvy!

[Kane3387]

Perkins is not playing at 100% and his value is never in his stats.

Jeff Green is playing in a very limited role both in terms of minutes and touches.

For these playoffs, I feel reasonably confident that Jermaine, Shaq and Krstic can hold down the fort at Center.

Jeff Green can provide solid defense and scoring off the bench.

If you look at the trade, and fans hate this, it had A LOT to do with the future of the franchise. Ainge didn't like Rondo-Perkins long-term at a 40% share of the cap. I didn't either.

You also get trial period with Green with the possibility to resign for short (qualifiying offer) or small money (MLE type money, which was not even a remote possibility with Perkins.

Then you dump Robinson's dollars and add a potentially valuable first rounder.

Ainge made a gamble that J.O., Shaq and Krstic (and Jeff Green) could replace Perkins impact short term (largely because Perkins is not 100%) while strengthening the team long-term.

Regardless of how it turns out in these playoffs, I can live with the move.

tp

Double TP!!! I love that we got the Clipper's pick. They should be fighting for that western 7th or 8th seed all season next year.

[Roy H.]

Perkins is not playing at 100% and his value is never in his stats.

Jeff Green is playing in a very limited role both in terms of minutes and touches.

For these playoffs, I feel reasonably confident that Jermaine, Shaq and Krstic can hold down the fort at Center.

Jeff Green can provide solid defense and scoring off the bench.

If you look at the trade, and fans hate this, it had A LOT to do with the future of the franchise. Ainge didn't like Rondo-Perkins long-term at a 40% share of the cap. I didn't either.

You also get trial period with Green with the possibility to resign for short (qualifiying offer) or small money (MLE type money, which was not even a remote possibility with Perkins.

Then you dump Robinson's dollars and add a potentially valuable first rounder.

Ainge made a gamble that J.O., Shaq and Krstic (and Jeff Green) could replace Perkins impact short term (largely because Perkins is not 100%) while strengthening the team long-term.

Regardless of how it turns out in these playoffs, I can live with the move.

tp

Double TP!!! I love that we got the Clipper's pick. They should be fighting for that western 7th or 8th seed all season next year.

Let's hope not.  Let's hope they're next year's Phoenix Suns:  a long way out of the playoffs, but good enough to outpace all the lousy East teams.  If they make the playoffs, we're probably looking at something like the 16th - 18th pick.

[jdz101]

We couldn't have had both of them.

Perk wanted to start and be paid like a starter and from what I saw last night in their first playoff games JO at that level should always start over perk.

It is fair enough for perk to want certain things in his career and that's why he ended up elsewhere, but based off performances last night, you'd be nuts to start him over JO next game if they were on the same team. We thought this discussion would be about shaq and perk anyway, regarding who would start and who would get subsequently annoyed.

[Roy H.]

We couldn't have had both of them.

Of course we could have.  In fact, we did have both of them.

In terms of next year, to me that's sort of irrelevant since our championship window is so small.

[fairweatherfan]

Double TP!!! I love that we got the Clipper's pick. They should be fighting for that western 7th or 8th seed all season next year.

Let's hope not.  Let's hope they're next year's Phoenix Suns:  a long way out of the playoffs, but good enough to outpace all the lousy East teams.  If they make the playoffs, we're probably looking at something like the 16th - 18th pick.

Ideally, but the other option doesn't involve testing our historically shaky luck with Ping-Pong balls.