Perk vs Green game to game stats

[jdz101]

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.

So last night having both play like they did, you'd have started perk?

[vinnie]

Kendrick Perkins stats 28 minutes 4 points 5 rbs 2 blocks -2
Jeff Green stats 17 minutes 4 points O rbs 1 blk +1

I want to keep this up for as long as these two guys continue to advance to the finals.


Perk played Great D
Green hit that huge J putting Boston up 66-64

Just how many of his 17 minutes did Green actually play defense agent Melo, 9 or 10?

Perk's defense was suspect against Nene. Green was huge defensively against Carmelo, let's not ignore that.

[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.

So last night having both play like they did, you'd have started perk?

Sure.  Perk has proven more recently in his career, and has fantastic chemistry with our starters.  JO would be phenomenal to have off our bench playing 20 to 25 minutes, though (which is how much he played last night, incidentally).

[IanMello]

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.

It's irrelevant only when you take a shortsighted view of building a team. Ainge doesn't have the luxury of only looking at this season, it's his JOB to build a team that is in contention every season. This move increased flexibility in the future and it was a classic sell high, buy low deal.

In terms of this season, Jermaine O'Neal, Shaq and Krstic are all viable replacements for Perkins. Obviously Shaq's continued injured status has really hurt the team and will reflect poorly on Ainge's trade. However, I think it's pretty evident that this team is struggling to score, not defend. Perkins, Nate Robinson, etc. don't fix that weakness. And it's not all about roster turnover, the All Stars have not played up to their standards.

[jdz101]

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.

So last night having both play like they did, you'd have started perk?

Sure.  Perk has proven more recently in his career, and has fantastic chemistry with our starters.  JO would be phenomenal to have off our bench playing 20 to 25 minutes, though (which is how much he played last night, incidentally).

I disagree, I think JO is relishing the attention and gaining confidence from starting and that wouldn't have happened if he was off the bench for perk. I also think starting the offensively weaker centre is weird option considering how bad our offense has been of late.

[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.

It's irrelevant only when you take a shortsighted view of building a team. Ainge doesn't have the luxury of only looking at this season, it's his JOB to build a team that is in contention every season. This move increased flexibility in the future and it was a classic sell high, buy low deal.

I don't think that maximizing playoff chances is shortsighted.  Also, I personally don't think that Jeff Green and the pick are going to extend our window as contenders.  Green may marginally improve us in the future, and hopefully the Clippers pick pans out, but I don't think it's realistic for any team to be "in contention every season".  That being the case, I think it makes sense to go all-in when you are in contention.

[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.

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.

That's fair, we could have had both, but then we wouldn't have Green, and Green, even if the Celts don't win this year, will continue to become more and more important to this Celtics team going forward. I know he didn't have a ton of points, but he hit some huge shots for us.

And, at the end of the day, jermaine possibly wouldn't have as great an opportunity to prove to Doc and the team what he can still do on the court if Perk were still around. Jermaine's minutes would likely be limited purely to just "just in case" minutes. Keeping Perk, and not making the change could have had a negative effect on us, too.

[IanMello]

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.

It's irrelevant only when you take a shortsighted view of building a team. Ainge doesn't have the luxury of only looking at this season, it's his JOB to build a team that is in contention every season. This move increased flexibility in the future and it was a classic sell high, buy low deal.

I don't think that maximizing playoff chances is shortsighted.  Also, I personally don't think that Jeff Green and the pick are going to extend our window as contenders.  Green may marginally improve us in the future, and hopefully the Clippers pick pans out, but I don't think it's realistic for any team to be "in contention every season".  That being the case, I think it makes sense to go all-in when you are in contention.

Well there are many opinions as to what maximizing playoff chances are.

Perhaps Ainge viewed the Celtics pre-trade as offensively anemic. Maybe he looked at Rondo's unbelievable assist totals as unsustainable; Ray, Paul and Kevin's early season offensive efficiency and effectiveness as subject to attrition; and the bench of Nate, Baby, and J.O. as too weak from a scoring perspective.

Maybe Ainge thought that Perkins wasn't going to be his usual self this season and that J.O., Shaq and Krstic could do a reasonable job of replacing Perkins while Green could form a substantial scoring upgrade behind Paul.

The issue with arguing about the short term aspect of the deal is that most anti-trade people act as if the Celtics were a lock to win it all pre-trade. I don't think Ainge looked at it like that. I think he saw a team that was going to struggle to score and get any consistent efforts off the bench. This was his best attempt at remedying that while also building for the future.

On that note, the move won't keep the window open longer but it gives the Celtics more flexibility to accomplish that aim. Resigning Perkins to pair with Rondo at 40% of the cap was a sure path to mediocrity. There was no way Ainge was going to let an asset at it's highest value walk out the door in the offseason for nothing when J.O. and Shaq represented realistic alternatives for this season.

[More Banners]

Well there are many opinions as to what maximizing playoff chances are.

Perhaps Ainge viewed the Celtics pre-trade as offensively anemic. Maybe he looked at Rondo's unbelievable assist totals as unsustainable; Ray, Paul and Kevin's early season offensive efficiency and effectiveness as subject to attrition; and the bench of Nate, Baby, and J.O. as too weak from a scoring perspective.

Maybe Ainge thought that Perkins wasn't going to be his usual self this season and that J.O., Shaq and Krstic could do a reasonable job of replacing Perkins while Green could form a substantial scoring upgrade behind Paul.

The issue with arguing about the short term aspect of the deal is that most anti-trade people act as if the Celtics were a lock to win it all pre-trade. I don't think Ainge looked at it like that. I think he saw a team that was going to struggle to score and get any consistent efforts off the bench. This was his best attempt at remedying that while also building for the future.

On that note, the move won't keep the window open longer but it gives the Celtics more flexibility to accomplish that aim. Resigning Perkins to pair with Rondo at 40% of the cap was a sure path to mediocrity. There was no way Ainge was going to let an asset at it's highest value walk out the door in the offseason for nothing when J.O. and Shaq represented realistic alternatives for this season.

Enjoy another tommy point for this most insightful post.

There are many, many thoughtful and otherwise excellent observers of the game on this blog who can't seem to bring themselves to accept this view, that we could actually contend without that one particular player, even though since it's a done deal the only alternative is to die angry.

Unfortunately, this inability to accept and move on is affecting the quality of the dialogue on the blog.  I hope this response helps bring things around.

[Roy H.]

Unfortunately, this inability to accept and move on is affecting the quality of the dialogue on the blog.  I hope this response helps bring things around.

In other words, the blog would be a better place if everyone agreed with your point of view. 

I know you didn't quite put it that way, but in substance that seems to be the gist of it.  For me personally, I don't have a lot of interest in a completely one-sided dialogue; I like reading different points of view, so long as they're presented respectfully.

A lot of folks aren't in love with the trade, and have valid viewpoints about the wisdom of it.  By the same token, a lot of members are in love with the trade, and they've got legit views, as well. 

I agree that I'd like to see more focus on the team now and less on Perk, but it's not just the trade detractors who are repeatedly citing the trade.  I mean, if JO plays well, the argument is "he couldn't have played so well if Perk was here", rather than celebrating him potentially having a breakout game. 

So, I guess my thought is, if people want to move on from the trade...  stop posting about it.  Bring something new to the table.  If people don't want to move on, then accept the right of others to express their viewpoint.  However, if the desired outcome is "I want everyone to agree that my view is the valid one", that's probably not going to happen.

[GreenFaith1819]

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.

Oh Boy

So does this mean that we can let any future LA or MIA fans have it when they visit?

I Can't Wait!

Just Kidding, LA and MIA fans. LA fans already have their hands full with NOH.......

[jdz101]

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.

So last night having both play like they did, you'd have started perk?

Sure.  Perk has proven more recently in his career, and has fantastic chemistry with our starters.  JO would be phenomenal to have off our bench playing 20 to 25 minutes, though (which is how much he played last night, incidentally).

Did you watch the OKC game last night?

Perk got murdered down there.

I'm not a lover of the trade, but I do believe the loss of perk post-injury is fairly insignificant to this teams overall success. Chemistry only gets you so far, overall ability will get you further.

[Bankshot]

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.

So last night having both play like they did, you'd have started perk?

Sure.  Perk has proven more recently in his career, and has fantastic chemistry with our starters.  JO would be phenomenal to have off our bench playing 20 to 25 minutes, though (which is how much he played last night, incidentally).

Did you watch the OKC game last night?

Perk got murdered down there.

I'm not a lover of the trade, but I do believe the loss of perk post-injury is fairly insignificant to this teams overall success. Chemistry only gets you so far, overall ability will get you further.

Yep.  If Perk hadn't won the game with that illegal tip in, they would have been looking at him for the loss, as he got abused by Nene.

[Rondo2287]

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.

So last night having both play like they did, you'd have started perk?

Sure.  Perk has proven more recently in his career, and has fantastic chemistry with our starters.  JO would be phenomenal to have off our bench playing 20 to 25 minutes, though (which is how much he played last night, incidentally).

Did you watch the OKC game last night?

Perk got murdered down there.

I'm not a lover of the trade, but I do believe the loss of perk post-injury is fairly insignificant to this teams overall success. Chemistry only gets you so far, overall ability will get you further.

Yep.  If Perk hadn't won the game with that illegal tip in, they would have been looking at him for the loss, as he got abused by Nene.

In all fairness though Perk got abused my guys like Nene and Bogut while he was here, but he was stellar against the power guys.

[celtics2]

If it's JO or Perk it's definitely Perk. Lesser of the 2 cripples. Otherwise in his day JO would always win out over Perk.