Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?

[Fafnir]

Greg needs to cut down his fouls if he wants to become more than a 20 minute player. He's fouling 7 times per 36 minutes, such a high foul rate means he won't be able to stay on the court too often to be counted on.

[clover]

Greg needs to cut down his fouls if he wants to become more than a 20 minute player. He's fouling 7 times per 36 minutes, such a high foul rate means he won't be able to stay on the court too often to be counted on.

As an unheralded rookie shot-blocking, defensive-minded center who has suddenly ballooned in playing time, that's not too surprising.  I think the calls against him will be more reasonable next year.

And while we're comparing him to Perk, Perk has never averaged as much as 30 minutes in a season, having a career average of 22 and averaging 26 this year.

Oh, and Perk was always my favorite Celtic while he was on the team.

[chambers]

I realize the question is potential, but it's hard to get away from present day comparison.  And in truth, the underlying interest here (the 'elephant in the room') remains how badly  DA erred in trading Perk.  And Stiemsma has some relevance in the conversation even though he was not part of the trade. If DA is able to effectively replace a traded part, a bad trade becomes more palatable.

I would trade Stiemer for Perk in a minute.  But, if JG were healthy, I do not think I'd trade GS/JG for Perk.  Also, thinking big picture, DA has replaced Perk, BBD and JG with Bass, Stiemer, and Pietrus. And he still has JG possibly returning and the Clipper pick.  All in all, and in large part due to Greg's emergence, I am not missing Perk very much right now.

 

Please don't go down that pathetic road again.
The Perk trade was the correct move at the time.
I wouldn't want to be paying him 9 million going into next year  or the next 4 years. Forget it. He's a back up center at best. he can only complement good players. Enough ranting. There is no elephant in the room, and if there is, it certainly isn't Perkins being traded as a mistake.
So annoying hearing this repeated. One legged Perkins for Jeff Green, Krstic and a first round pick in a stacked draft.
Easy decision.

Re OP's question, yes he has the potential. He's improved light years in 6 months time. He needs to add bulk to guard starting Centers like Perk can, but it's possible.
Different skill sets, but he could ultimately be a better player and contributor than Perkins- probably not defensively in a 1v1 aspect, but he can get higher to the hoop and could become a better rebounder. He's only just starting to box out effectively and it's doing us wonders.
Yes, he definitely has the potential to be better.

I think you misundertood (or more likely I poorly communicated) my point.  I was not trying to say that DA erred badly in the trade.  I was trying to suggest that the reason a thread like this exists is that we are still trying to measure whether, or how much, DA erred.  I realize it looks like I am suggesting DA erred badly, but my intent was more to your point -- that we can't let it go and are constantly trying to determine the quality of the trade.

My bad! I do apologize, I thought when I posted it that you might have been 'discussing the discussion' instead of what I thought you meant.
Sorry again, I completely understand your point.

[OmarSekou]

Here's why I don't think so. When Perk was here, we were dependent on him. His biggest attribute was his physical strength. In that one aspect of the game, he was arguably the best in the league. It allowed him to be our enforcer, our low post presence, and the guy who did all the dirty work that let everyone else shine.

Stiemsma's a nice complementary player, and does a lot of things better than Perk. But there are a lot of guys who can say that. Stiemsma doesn't have the one special characteristic that can control games. I think for him to develop into a player better than Perk he would have to become a Mutombo like shot blocker which is a tough task. He's 26 and has slow feet (his footwork is already pretty good from what I see).

I don't think Steimsma has to be better than Perk to be a good player. And you don't have to build him up by putting Perk down. He's not going anywhere (I hope) so the question is going to answer itself. Right now we don't have a ton of info to go on and what we do know supports Perk. Will Kyrie Irving be better than Chris Paul? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[JHTruth]

I love Perk one of my all-time favorite Celtics, but come the freak on, he is a VERY limited guy. No lift, no athleticism. Not saying Steamer is Tim Duncan but I honestly think he is a better player.

[Bankshot]

I love Perk one of my all-time favorite Celtics, but come the freak on, he is a VERY limited guy. No lift, no athleticism. Not saying Steamer is Tim Duncan but I honestly think he is a better player.

[oldmanspeaks]

rookies always get shafted by the refs. Particularly big men. McHale used to get called for fouls on his clean blocks his first year but it got better after that. If you become a "player" in the refs eyes, you seem to get the benefit of the doubt.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

The more he plays, the better he gets.....now they pass to him and look for him, he scores inside and out, and finishes very well..He is MORE than just a shot blocker, as some had said before...besides, most guys who block shots are more anyway...that is not an easy thing to do....!

[clover]

Here's why I don't think so. When Perk was here, we were dependent on him. His biggest attribute was his physical strength. In that one aspect of the game, he was arguably the best in the league. It allowed him to be our enforcer, our low post presence, and the guy who did all the dirty work that let everyone else shine.

Stiemsma's a nice complementary player, and does a lot of things better than Perk. But there are a lot of guys who can say that. Stiemsma doesn't have the one special characteristic that can control games. I think for him to develop into a player better than Perk he would have to become a Mutombo like shot blocker which is a tough task. He's 26 and has slow feet (his footwork is already pretty good from what I see).

I don't think Steimsma has to be better than Perk to be a good player. And you don't have to build him up by putting Perk down. He's not going anywhere (I hope) so the question is going to answer itself. Right now we don't have a ton of info to go on and what we do know supports Perk. Will Kyrie Irving be better than Chris Paul? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Stiemer's career blocks/min is 27% higher than Mutombo's.

[Finkelskyhook]

Greg needs to cut down his fouls if he wants to become more than a 20 minute player. He's fouling 7 times per 36 minutes, such a high foul rate means he won't be able to stay on the court too often to be counted on.

Problem is a lot of his fouls aren't fouls.  Last night was literally sickening.  

I think he needs to cease to be a rookie....But that's not possible.

[guava_wrench]

He will learn to foul less with experience, just like Perk and Baby did. He is still a rookie. NBDL doesn't prepare you much for defending at this level.

He also will become more savvy as vets tend to do so that he can better hide illegal actions from the refs. Knowing what they can see and what they can't is a big part of becoming a pesty defender.

[Tr1boy]

Another way to look at this is, forget about now comparing  a raw stiemsma vs seasoned  perk , but what if Stiemsma had 5 to 10 more pounds of muscle, plus one full year of experience?

Still perk is better?

[mctyson]

I love Perk one of my all-time favorite Celtics, but come the freak on, he is a VERY limited guy. No lift, no athleticism. Not saying Steamer is Tim Duncan but I honestly think he is a better player.

[mctyson]

Why, in a thread about Stiesma's potential compared to Perkins' ability, should we take the stats from Perkins' penultimate year as a professional and compare it to Stiesma's first year in the NBA and not adjust it for minutes played, and say that Stiesma has "a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level?"

The original question asked if Stiemsma can reach Perk's "ceiling".  Thus, you have to look at what each player's ceiling to date has been.  Perk's "ceiling" was a guy who averaged almost a double-double while playing elite defense as a starter on a championship-caliber team.

Will Stiemsma reach that level?  Well, based on where he is now, I'd say it's not very likely.  Stiesmma is less than a year younger than Perk; at this stage, I wonder how much room there is for drastic improvement in his game.

Let's be happy for what this kid is -- a very pleasant surprise as a backup center -- and not exaggerate him into something he's not.  Stiemsma has a long way to go before he's as good as Perk was here.

But I think that dodges the question.  You have to ask yourself if Stiemer were given the type of minutes that Perkins got, would he produce just as much?  My opinion is: absolutely, and possibly even more.  You can't compare reserve minutes stats to the best starters stats of another player and say "unequal" and leave it at that.

[mctyson]

In his best year, Perk averaged 10 points, 8 rebounds, and 60% shooting while playing elite defense as the starting center on a team that reached the NBA finals.

In his best full month, Stiemsma averaged 3.9 points and 3.9 rebounds on 50.9% shooting, coming off the bench.  Stiemsma is an excellent shot-blocker, but is far from an elite defender.

Right now, Stiemsma has a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level.  It's exciting to see the level GS is playing at, because he basically came out of nowhere.  However, he just hasn't come close to the impact Perk had.

Why, in a thread about Stiesma's potential compared to Perkins' ability, should we take the stats from Perkins' penultimate year as a professional and compare it to Stiesma's first year in the NBA and not adjust it for minutes played, and say that Stiesma has "a long way to go before he reaches Perk's level?"

Here's how I look at it.  Perkins should be in his NBA prime right now.  He is 27 years old with some 8-9 years of experience, and has played on NBA championship caliber teams.  

Right now, Perkins is statistically one of the worst centers in the league, and probably is one of the worst contracts in the league.

Right now, Stiesma is putting up superior numbers, playing in his rookie season, on a team where he was basically thrown into the fire because of injury.

Right now, Stiesma is better than Perkins. Plain and simple.

Wow.  We're in a true parallel universe.  

mctyson, you need only look at the difference in every OK City defensive category after acquiring Perk as opposed to before.

I would take a contract as "worst" as Perk's on my team anytime....Or a center as statistically bad as Perk's..If his presence...(and overt nastiness)... transforms my team into one of the NBA's best defensive teams.

We should be so fortunate.

I liked Stiemsma's demeanor last night.  His confidence is growing steadily.  But better than Perk?  Really?

You can't be serious.  By almost every conventional statistical measure, Perkins is a horrible player this year.  He is last, dead last, in Value Added amongst all centers.

Let me say that again: dead last.

Now, if you want to be like most of the Perkins supporters on this board and say that statistics and metrics don't apply to him because he is mean, and he sets good picks, and he changes the game because of his presence, then go ahead.  I will never win you over.

My point is only this...if you want to compare players, you have to use the metrics available to you that are made fairly (unlike your opinion) without bias (unlike your opinion).  Stiemer is rated higher than Perkins in almost every measurable  category for a center.  I guarantee you that if you polled NBA GM's and asked them if they would want Perkins at $10M or Stiemer at a couple hundred thou...almost all of them would take Stiemer, and that includes Sam Presti.