Thunder don't have enough (any) low post scoring to be legit title contenders

[CelticG1]

Neither do we.

KG of still 10 times better in the post. He may not be spectacular down there but he is still good. And if he doesn't have a good defender  on him he can still expose a match up down there

KG doesn't play in the post.  He is an excellent mid range shooter, but he isn't manning the middle. 

What so you mean you have never seen him in the post? You've never seen him score in the post? Perk and Ibaka are better than him in the post? You are going to have to elaborate a little there. I didn't say KG was "manning" the post.

Just because KG isn't a "post" player doesn't mean he isn't good in the post. Theres a reason why he STILL gets double teamed down there when he gets the ball in the post.

[dtrader]

Neither do we.

KG of still 10 times better in the post. He may not be spectacular down there but he is still good. And if he doesn't have a good defender  on him he can still expose a match up down there

KG doesn't play in the post.  He is an excellent mid range shooter, but he isn't manning the middle. 

What so you mean you have never seen him in the post? You've never seen him score in the post? Perk and Ibaka are better than him in the post? You are going to have to elaborate a little there. I didn't say KG was "manning" the post.

Just because KG isn't a "post" player doesn't mean he isn't good in the post. Theres a reason why he STILL gets double teamed down there when he gets the ball in the post.

KG almost never plays (or receives the ball) in the deep post.  He either scores off elbow jumpers, or baseline turnarounds.  His baseline shots are the closest he routinely comes to the post.  It's not like hes out there backing anyone under the rim. 

Yes, he scores in the post, but so does Avery Bradley, Ray Allen, and any other non-post player. They score there off cuts, screens, and pick and rolls.  Just because you score in the lane, and another player collapses on you after the penetration, doesnt mean you're a post player (or that youre getting doubled in the post).  KG gets points in the paint...but he almost never plays the post.

[Moranis]

Neither do we.

KG of still 10 times better in the post. He may not be spectacular down there but he is still good. And if he doesn't have a good defender  on him he can still expose a match up down there

KG doesn't play in the post.  He is an excellent mid range shooter, but he isn't manning the middle. 

What so you mean you have never seen him in the post? You've never seen him score in the post? Perk and Ibaka are better than him in the post? You are going to have to elaborate a little there. I didn't say KG was "manning" the post.

Just because KG isn't a "post" player doesn't mean he isn't good in the post. Theres a reason why he STILL gets double teamed down there when he gets the ball in the post.

KG almost never plays (or receives the ball) in the deep post.  He either scores off elbow jumpers, or baseline turnarounds.  His baseline shots are the closest he routinely comes to the post.  It's not like hes out there backing anyone under the rim. 

Yes, he scores in the post, but so does Avery Bradley, Ray Allen, and any other non-post player. They score there off cuts, screens, and pick and rolls.  Just because you score in the lane, and another player collapses on you after the penetration, doesnt mean you're a post player (or that youre getting doubled in the post).  KG gets points in the paint...but he almost never plays the post.

TP.  My exact sentiments and the point I was going to make in a followup if necessary. 

[LB3533]

Our best post player is probably Pierce, maybe Quis is next.

KG can still be effective down in the post, if the matchups are right, where he can use his quickness to get around bigger PFs.

But the C's have basically as much post scoring as the Thunder....zilch.

[Fafnir]

Our best post player is probably Pierce, maybe Quis is next.

KG can still be effective down in the post, if the matchups are right, where he can use his quickness to get around bigger PFs.

But the C's have basically as much post scoring as the Thunder....zilch.

Anyone have access to post touch stats?

I bet Bass leads our team in them (KG could be second, but I'm not sure), I'm curious to how those possessions have turned out in the aggregate.

Last time I looked KG's post points per possession were still good, he just didn't go there very often. (this was probably sometime last year though)

[OsirusCeltics]

OKC reminds me alot of the Bulls, a strong perimeter offense, with a weak interior offense

The only difference, is that unlike the Bulls, there are plenty of teams now with a strong interior offense that can expose them

[Celtics4ever]

KG is a jump shooter for the most part.   While he can score in the post his money shot is the 15-17 footer. 

[Vermont Green]

...Perk are a key strength of that team.

less than 5 points and less than 6 rebounds in less than 27 minutes for over $7M (and going up) is a strength of the team?

I don't see how you can conclude that Perk is a strength of the team (leaving Ibaka out of it for now who is only slightly better statistically).  By strength, does that mean a primary reason they are winning?  The guy the other team game plans around?  Making his teammates better?  Instilling toughness?

In the most recent game (a loss) Griffin (PF) and Jordan (C) combined for 14-23, 18 rebs, 33 points (pretty efficient against a defensive minded front court).  Meanwhile Perk and Ibaka 1-5, 10 rebs, 4 points; low although not that far off season averages but a strength of the team I guess.

I have a sentimental bias for Perkins too for all he did in Boston but he is just not that good and in my opinion, simply not an important part or a strength of that team (actually far from that).

[BballTim]

...Perk are a key strength of that team.

less than 5 points and less than 6 rebounds in less than 27 minutes for over $7M (and going up) is a strength of the team?

I don't see how you can conclude that Perk is a strength of the team (leaving Ibaka out of it for now who is only slightly better statistically).  By strength, does that mean a primary reason they are winning?  The guy the other team game plans around?  Making his teammates better?  Instilling toughness?

  He's one of the better defensive bigs in the league. That might not count for much to some, but it makes a difference in the standings.

[PosImpos]

...Perk are a key strength of that team.

less than 5 points and less than 6 rebounds in less than 27 minutes for over $7M (and going up) is a strength of the team?

I don't see how you can conclude that Perk is a strength of the team (leaving Ibaka out of it for now who is only slightly better statistically).  By strength, does that mean a primary reason they are winning?  The guy the other team game plans around?  Making his teammates better?  Instilling toughness?

  He's one of the better defensive bigs in the league. That might not count for much to some, but it makes a difference in the standings.

Perk IS a key strength to the Thunder, but he would be a liability on the Celtics.

It's all about how a player fits into a team, how his strengths and weaknesses complement / are complemented by the team's strengths and weaknesses.

Having a front court like the Thunder do works because they have such prolific outside scorers.  They don't need scoring bigs because they have a point guard who is probably the second best scorer at his position, and a small forward who is the best scorer at his position, plus a 6th man shooting guard who is extremely productive and efficient as well. 

Since the Thunder get so much scoring from those spots, they just need a frontcourt that can rebound and protect the paint, while finishing inside at a high percentage when they do get a clear look.

On the Celtics, the lack of inside scoring is a huge problem because they don't have one or two guys who stand out as truly elite scorers.  Even in '08, when the Big 3 were younger and still elite, the Celtics were built to rely on balanced scoring across the board, though obviously skewed towards the Big 3.  Now that the Big 3 can't be expected to each score 15-20 points a game, the lack of scoring at the other positions, particularly inside, is exposed as a weakness.

[CelticG1]

Neither do we.

KG of still 10 times better in the post. He may not be spectacular down there but he is still good. And if he doesn't have a good defender  on him he can still expose a match up down there

KG doesn't play in the post.  He is an excellent mid range shooter, but he isn't manning the middle. 

What so you mean you have never seen him in the post? You've never seen him score in the post? Perk and Ibaka are better than him in the post? You are going to have to elaborate a little there. I didn't say KG was "manning" the post.

Just because KG isn't a "post" player doesn't mean he isn't good in the post. Theres a reason why he STILL gets double teamed down there when he gets the ball in the post.

KG almost never plays (or receives the ball) in the deep post.  He either scores off elbow jumpers, or baseline turnarounds.  His baseline shots are the closest he routinely comes to the post.  It's not like hes out there backing anyone under the rim. 

Yes, he scores in the post, but so does Avery Bradley, Ray Allen, and any other non-post player. They score there off cuts, screens, and pick and rolls.  Just because you score in the lane, and another player collapses on you after the penetration, doesnt mean you're a post player (or that youre getting doubled in the post).  KG gets points in the paint...but he almost never plays the post.

TP.  My exact sentiments and the point I was going to make in a followup if necessary. 

 I think you guys would both be surprised at KGs touches and his effectiveness in the post. Hes not a post first player as I've started numerous times but he does go down there and is effective.

Thats why people are always complaing about him not going in there enough.

[BballTim]

...Perk are a key strength of that team.

less than 5 points and less than 6 rebounds in less than 27 minutes for over $7M (and going up) is a strength of the team?

I don't see how you can conclude that Perk is a strength of the team (leaving Ibaka out of it for now who is only slightly better statistically).  By strength, does that mean a primary reason they are winning?  The guy the other team game plans around?  Making his teammates better?  Instilling toughness?

  He's one of the better defensive bigs in the league. That might not count for much to some, but it makes a difference in the standings.

Perk IS a key strength to the Thunder, but he would be a liability on the Celtics.

It's all about how a player fits into a team, how his strengths and weaknesses complement / are complemented by the team's strengths and weaknesses.

Having a front court like the Thunder do works because they have such prolific outside scorers.  They don't need scoring bigs because they have a point guard who is probably the second best scorer at his position, and a small forward who is the best scorer at his position, plus a 6th man shooting guard who is extremely productive and efficient as well. 

Since the Thunder get so much scoring from those spots, they just need a frontcourt that can rebound and protect the paint, while finishing inside at a high percentage when they do get a clear look.

On the Celtics, the lack of inside scoring is a huge problem because they don't have one or two guys who stand out as truly elite scorers.  Even in '08, when the Big 3 were younger and still elite, the Celtics were built to rely on balanced scoring across the board, though obviously skewed towards the Big 3.  Now that the Big 3 can't be expected to each score 15-20 points a game, the lack of scoring at the other positions, particularly inside, is exposed as a weakness.

  Perk wouldn't be a liability on the Celts, and in fact I would expect his offensive game to improve from being on the court with better passers. I don't think that  KG's going to average 15-20 a game but Paul will and probably Ray as well, and Rondo's capable of it. We had better scoring from the big three in the past but I don't think we've ever had backup bigs that can score like Bass and Wilcox with this team.

[Vermont Green]

...Perk are a key strength of that team.

less than 5 points and less than 6 rebounds in less than 27 minutes for over $7M (and going up) is a strength of the team?

I don't see how you can conclude that Perk is a strength of the team (leaving Ibaka out of it for now who is only slightly better statistically).  By strength, does that mean a primary reason they are winning?  The guy the other team game plans around?  Making his teammates better?  Instilling toughness?

  He's one of the better defensive bigs in the league. That might not count for much to some, but it makes a difference in the standings.

Avery Bradley is one of the better defensive PG in the league but that does not make him a "key strength" of the team.  Perk is a fine role player for 26 minutes a game where you hope he does more good (defense, rebs, and a few points) than harm (fouls and turnovers).  Kind of like Bradley only bigger (and bigger does count for something).

[Fafnir]

...Perk are a key strength of that team.

less than 5 points and less than 6 rebounds in less than 27 minutes for over $7M (and going up) is a strength of the team?

I don't see how you can conclude that Perk is a strength of the team (leaving Ibaka out of it for now who is only slightly better statistically).  By strength, does that mean a primary reason they are winning?  The guy the other team game plans around?  Making his teammates better?  Instilling toughness?

  He's one of the better defensive bigs in the league. That might not count for much to some, but it makes a difference in the standings.

Avery Bradley is one of the better defensive PG in the league but that does not make him a "key strength" of the team.  Perk is a fine role player for 26 minutes a game where you hope he does more good (defense, rebs, and a few points) than harm (fouls and turnovers).  Kind of like Bradley only bigger (and bigger does count for something).

Defense matters a lot more out of the center position than it does PG as you allude to. The position also doesn't have the same offensive burden on it, so that's less of a liability there.

[PosImpos]

...Perk are a key strength of that team.

less than 5 points and less than 6 rebounds in less than 27 minutes for over $7M (and going up) is a strength of the team?

I don't see how you can conclude that Perk is a strength of the team (leaving Ibaka out of it for now who is only slightly better statistically).  By strength, does that mean a primary reason they are winning?  The guy the other team game plans around?  Making his teammates better?  Instilling toughness?

  He's one of the better defensive bigs in the league. That might not count for much to some, but it makes a difference in the standings.

Perk IS a key strength to the Thunder, but he would be a liability on the Celtics.

It's all about how a player fits into a team, how his strengths and weaknesses complement / are complemented by the team's strengths and weaknesses.

Having a front court like the Thunder do works because they have such prolific outside scorers.  They don't need scoring bigs because they have a point guard who is probably the second best scorer at his position, and a small forward who is the best scorer at his position, plus a 6th man shooting guard who is extremely productive and efficient as well. 

Since the Thunder get so much scoring from those spots, they just need a frontcourt that can rebound and protect the paint, while finishing inside at a high percentage when they do get a clear look.

On the Celtics, the lack of inside scoring is a huge problem because they don't have one or two guys who stand out as truly elite scorers.  Even in '08, when the Big 3 were younger and still elite, the Celtics were built to rely on balanced scoring across the board, though obviously skewed towards the Big 3.  Now that the Big 3 can't be expected to each score 15-20 points a game, the lack of scoring at the other positions, particularly inside, is exposed as a weakness.

  Perk wouldn't be a liability on the Celts, and in fact I would expect his offensive game to improve from being on the court with better passers. I don't think that  KG's going to average 15-20 a game but Paul will and probably Ray as well, and Rondo's capable of it. We had better scoring from the big three in the past but I don't think we've ever had backup bigs that can score like Bass and Wilcox with this team.

I don't think Perk is a much better offensive player at this point than JO.  In fact, I don't think he's really better at all, if they're both healthy.  I see JO as an offensive liability, because he's unproductive and not complementary to KG on that end in the way that we need a center to be at this point in KG's career.  Perk would be the same, in my opinion.

The one caveat I would concede is that Perk is a great pick setter, and that was an underrated aspect of his offensive impact for this team.  We've missed that, I think, since he's been gone.