Bad Year for Perk

[j804]

He's having a poor year statistically.  In terms of fitting a necessary role on that team, though, I think the Thunder are thrilled.

Exactly without him guaranteed they dont have they record they do now....

[Marcus13]

It was a terrible move.  Perk's contributions dont show up statistically - that shouldnt be a surprise as a Celtics fan.  Im not saying he shouldnt have been dealt, but getting virtually nothing was just stupid considering how many teams would have been interested.

I swear to this day it was just payback to OKC for giving us Ray Allen for virtually nothing back in 07/08

[JHTruth]

Perk has always been kind of a glorified hatchetman, but he brings some toughness to a team no question. Our decline is more about the decline of the Big 3, but Perk just has a toughness that a team can use..

[wdleehi]

The Thunder will need Perk to get past the Lakers, Clips, Mavs in the playoffs. They didnt overpay. We would have #18 had we "overpayed".

No we wouldn't. Our bench was terrible last season.  Everyone conveniently forgets how awful the bench was prior to the trade.

How can we.  The bench was awful after the trade.  

[Eddie20]

You can look at stats all you want. He was never a stat guy in Boston. The fact is that since the trade, the Thunder are officially one of the best teams in the league and we are teetering at mediocrity. The only stat that truely matters in the NBA is the win column. He's doing great in that one.

I think the Thunder would be a top 3 team in the league with or without him. They are a young team that is simply fulfilling their potential. However, he does bring that "edge" that will help them in the playoffs.

Don't forget that instead of Perk they would've had Green, who probably would've been playing and which could have let to a tragic result, and Krstic, who would've signed with CSKA regardless.

[missyP]

Did you see Perk play Howard last night? He was banging Dwight all over the place and clearly Dwight didn't like it. And I am sure OKC is extremely unhappy with Perk and their 29-7 record, tied for the best in the NBA. Sometimes stats can be highly overrated.

If you watch OKC, they almost NEVER pass the ball to Perk. He is there to set screens, get rebounds and play defense. Nothing more.

Ditto..I watched that game and all I was thinking is they could win the playoffs without even passing the ball to Perk. He screens, blocks (the one on Jameer in the last minute), shovs around Howard, Rbs, and the occassional pass from Durant for a dunk.. he fits the bill for exactly what they paid for (what we gave away and are yet to ever replace...a big who guards the middle, intimidates and rebounds)

[BballTim]

Perk's PER is not only the worst (by far) of any starting center, it's also one of the worst in the league.  Now given that, if you're still saying stats don't matter for a guy like Perk (I mean what the heck is that supposed to mean?), then the reality is there is absolutely nothing that would convince you Perk is a below average player.

  Perk's two best attributes for the Celts were his defense and setting picks on offense. Can you explain how those two attributes factor into his PER?

[GreenFaith1819]

I'm guessing that Perk would look at his statistics and say "Bad year for me - but GREAT year for OKC."

If he even looks at statistics, which I highly doubt.

Mr Intangibles is what I'd call him. What he brings to a team has rarely been measurable quantifiably.

[Celtics18]

It seems to me that what everyone is saying is that what Perk brings to the Thunder--defense and toughness, things hard to measure statistically--are the same things that a healthy Jermaine O'Neal brings to the Celtics

[Q_FBE]

Perkins looks small and slow compared to Serge Ubaka who has become an absolute monster for OKC. Perkins does his best work defending other bigs like Andrew Bynum and on occasion Dwight Howard. He is not a scorer but he does not have to be one. He just needs to set the picks and benefit from screen/roll situation.

[soap07]

Mr Intangibles is what I'd call him. What he brings to a team has rarely been measurable quantifiably.

People keep stating this as if it's fact. It IS measurable quantifiably and the measurements show is this:

Perkins is a liability on offense. Fine, he's not an offensive player. But before, at least he wasn't a liability offensively. Now, he is.

He is blocking shots below his career average.

He, as of this year, has been a terrible rebounder for his position. Just awful.

Every sabremetric shows him as one of the worst players in the league.

The only number in his favor is the fact that the defense is clearly better with him on the floor. A couple problems with this is that this can't be solely attributed to him - it may speak more to the defensive weaknesses of the other big men on the team. And also, the Thunder are at best - an average defensive team. Meaning, Perkins is such a liability in other facets of the game that he can't stay on the floor all that much (28 minutes a game).

[soap07]

Add to that - he's getting paid between 8-9 million per over the next three years for poor rebounding, poor offense, poor shot-blocking but solid one-on-one defense...I still say Danny made out pretty well.

[soap07]

Perk's PER is not only the worst (by far) of any starting center, it's also one of the worst in the league.  Now given that, if you're still saying stats don't matter for a guy like Perk (I mean what the heck is that supposed to mean?), then the reality is there is absolutely nothing that would convince you Perk is a below average player.

  Perk's two best attributes for the Celts were his defense and setting picks on offense. Can you explain how those two attributes factor into his PER?

He also was serviceable offensively, a decent rebounder and shot-blocker....stuff that does show up in PER. Who cares if he sets good picks when the rest of his offensive game is so bad that he's a liability?

And look, are we really going to deny that Perkins is struggling in OKC? He himself has admitted it.

[CelticG1]

Just curious but at what point do some of Perks statistics factor in? If the Thunder keep winning does that  mean that no matter what Perk benefits them. If he's putting 3 points and 3 rebounds aa game with 5 turnovers ido his intangibles still out weigh everything if they are winning?

[BballTim]

Perk's PER is not only the worst (by far) of any starting center, it's also one of the worst in the league.  Now given that, if you're still saying stats don't matter for a guy like Perk (I mean what the heck is that supposed to mean?), then the reality is there is absolutely nothing that would convince you Perk is a below average player.

  Perk's two best attributes for the Celts were his defense and setting picks on offense. Can you explain how those two attributes factor into his PER?

He also was serviceable offensively, a decent rebounder and shot-blocker....stuff that does show up in PER. Who cares if he sets good picks when the rest of his offensive game is so bad that he's a liability?

And look, are we really going to deny that Perkins is struggling in OKC? He himself has admitted it.

  Sure, he's struggling somewhat. But he's not the liability that his stats show him to be. You talk about how he doesn't play a ton of minutes (28 a game) as a sign of how he's struggling. But if he was truly one of the worst players in the league he wouldn't be playing more than half the minutes in a game, he'd be stuck on the end of the bench.