Greg Stiemsma's Potential = Perk or Better?

[Fafnir]

I'm too lazy to do it, but shouldn't someone have posted numbers from MySynergySports.com by now?

I'm at work, so no silverlight sadly.

Go go Roy Hobbs!

[Fafnir]

And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.  

The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.

We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.

[Fafnir]

I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.

Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.

I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.

[Finkelskyhook]

There is no comparison and never will be.  Two completely different players.  

Steimsma will never be strong enough to anchor a defense.  Perk anchors the defense and directs traffic on arguably the best team in the NBA.

Steimsma will have a long career as a solid backup center.  His skill level will get better but he's not going to get stronger.

[Rondo2287]

And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.  

The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.

We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.

Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."

[Bankshot]

I think Stiesma has already passed Perk's skill level.  Perk is a better defender, I think, but I can't think of anything else he does better than Stiesma on the court.

  Perkins was a better defender, better rebounder and better low post scorer.

I disagree that Perk was a better low post scorer.  I won't believe that any player in the NBA is a worst low post scorer than Perk, until I see it and I don't see Stiesma being a worse scorer than Perk.

[Fafnir]

I think Stiesma has already passed Perk's skill level.  Perk is a better defender, I think, but I can't think of anything else he does better than Stiesma on the court.

  Perkins was a better defender, better rebounder and better low post scorer.

I disagree that Perk was a better low post scorer.  I won't believe that any player in the NBA is a worst low post scorer than Perk, until I see it and I don't see Stiesma being a worse scorer than Perk.

Perkins turned it over a lot in the post, but he still converted at a fairly respectable clip when he got his shot off.

Plus there was a big difference in Perkins before and after his knee problems started late in 2008-2009.

Steimsa looks smoother at converting his layups from offensive boards and passes, but his percentages aren't better than Perks were. Stiesma is only shooting 55% on his close buckets, Perkins is at 58%. In Boston before his ACL injury he was routinely above 60% (even cracking 70% a few years).

[Redz]

I think we're sort of comparing apples to oranges.

[wdleehi]

Perkins is better.


Perkins is a starting caliber C in the NBA.




Perkins is a better low post defender.  Perkins is a better team defender. 


Stiemsma is a better shot blocker, but not the better defender.  He is a backup big man in the NBA.  Nothing wrong with that.  He has a role, and he is playing it. 

[LooseCannon]

And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.  

The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.

We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.

Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."

You know what?  I'm just going to go ahead and say that the hypothesis that Stiemsma is better than Perkins on defense right now does not fail the eyeball test.  I don't think that it is blindingly obvious who is better just from casually watching several games, so I am open to the numbers persuading me in either direction.  So, if there are metrics that say Stiemsma is the better defender, I don't think that is evidence that those metrics are flawed.

[Fafnir]

And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.  

The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.

We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.

Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."

Elsbury wasn't Dwight circa now though, he was more like Dwight in 2005-2006 (his second year) or Greg Monroe now (his second year).

[clover]

I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.

Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.

I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.

I bet ya his defensive numbers when he's playing with KG (like Perk) are much better.

[Fafnir]

I can't figure out how Stiemsma's defensive rating is so out of line with his overall on court/off court numbers.

Both basketball value and 82games.com have him allowing 102 and 103 pp/100 on the court and the team at around 98 with him off the court.

I know Dean Olliver and other places rate possesions differently but that's a pretty big difference.

I bet ya his defensive numbers when he's playing with KG (like Perk) are much better.

Yeah but both DRTG and on/off court numbers should have the same amount of minutes next to KG, neither are adjusted for teammate quality from what I understand.

[Rondo2287]

And again, im saying that the metrics are flawed yes, im not saying they are useless and should be thrown out completely, but there are certain examples where they just don't make sense and therefore need to be considered with caution, ellsbury being one of them and Stiemsma being better than Perk is another.  

The examples that don't make sense are the biggest reasons to use statistics.

We don't need advanced measures to know that LeBron is awesome, or that Dwight Howard is a very good defender. Its the cases that conflict with what we "know" are the most interesting and most enlightening.

Sure, but if you are looking at stats and it tells you that Dwight is the second worst defensive center in the league will you look at it and say, "Man how big of a fool am I, I thought he was good!" or "something must be wrong with the equation producing this stat or some of the input data must be flawed."

Elsbury wasn't Dwight circa now though, he was more like Dwight in 2005-2006 (his second year) or Greg Monroe now (his second year).

But he was named defensive player of the year that year on MLB.com.  12 million votes, over 4 million people voted for ellsbury. 

[bbd24]

There is no comparison and never will be.  Two completely different players.  

Steimsma will never be strong enough to anchor a defense.  Perk anchors the defense and directs traffic on arguably the best team in the NBA.

Steimsma will have a long career as a solid backup center.  His skill level will get better but he's not going to get stronger.

I agree that both are different types of players.  Two different styles.

I don't agree with the sense that Perk anchors a defense.  I don't believe he anchors anything.  It's called a team.  It's called team defense.  Perkins isn't good enough to be the anchor out there.  He can be a solid contributor to a team defense, but no anchor.

In regards to Stiemsma, his potential is Greg Kite esque....Solid big man off the bench for 10-20 minutes, block shots, change shots, & rebound.  Be that enforcer who uses 4, 5 fouls per game, and hit the 15-18 ft mid range shot when open.