Re: POST GAME CLEVELAND

by **cowens/oldschool** Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:25 am

....was I right that game 7 had the biggest rebound differential? I also thought that game was terribly officiated as they let Gasol throw his body around like crazy and called ticky tack fouls on us alot of plays. I know the refereeing is another phase of the game where we disagree.

by **cowens/oldschool** Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:32 am

....also when Perk went down in game 6 we were behind by 6, after that they blew us out the rest of the game, must have outscored us by at least 20 or more, I don't mind pulling stats out of my ass. I'm sure our shooting % was worse after Perk went down, what was Lakers FG% after Perk went down in game 6?

by **cowens/oldschool** Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:35 am

.....was game 7 the biggest rebounding differential? in that series whoever won the rebounding battle in each game won the game, so at one time we had won that battle 3 out of 5 with Perk. can you live with that my friend?

by **Sam** Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:42 pm

Cow,

I'll let you look up the rebound differential data yourself. Basketball Reference won't bite.

Can I live with that? No, actually I'm planning on committing suicide at midnight tonight. What the heck does "Can you live with that" even mean? Live with what? As a statistician, one thing I find it difficult to "live with" is your slanted language in concluding that "at one time we had won that battle 3 out of 5 with Perk. Like he was the only one out there.

We had also won three out of five with KG (a Celtics high of 10 rebounds in the Game 5 win), Rondo (a Celtics high of 12 rebounds in the Game 2 win), Pierce (a Celtics high 9 rebounds in the Game 1 loss in which Perk submitted only 3 boards), and with Sheed and Davis also chipping in on the boards. In fact, the Game 3 loss was the only game in which Perk had more than 7 rebounds; and, in the totality of his 5 games in the series, he was outrebounded by the Celtics' point guard.

I am not trying to claim that Perk's rebounding (or defense, for that matter) was not valuable in the series. Of course any contributions are valuable. But, for god's sake, try to keep his contributions in perspective. As a matter of fact, he averaged 7 rebounds in the three games they won and 7 rebounds in the two games they lost. So I don't see any particular correlation between Perk's rebounding performance and Caltics wins.

And I've already mentioned the many ways in which he could have rendered the Celtics offense less efficient.

But, just for a moment, let's assume the Celtics had won that series and Perk had been the MVP. He certainly would have earned all sorts of accolades. But, beyond that, why are we discussing this ad nauseum now? Then was then and now is now. You certainly have every right to carry on your crusade on Perk's behalf, but frankly I just don't get the current importance of it.

No hard feelings,

Sam

by **cowens/oldschool** Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:05 pm

sam wrote:Cow,

As I very clearly said, I am solely interested in the personal slight and not reallyl interested in the very predictable Perk tangent. But I'll be polite enough to oblige you.

Since you chose to refer to the rebound differential stat (which you pulled vaguely out of thin air), I'll come back with a couple of my own which have the advantage of being real, not guesses:

• In the five games in which Perk played regular minutes, the Celtics averaged 37.2 rebounds. In the two games in which Perk played a total of only five minutes, the Celtics averaged 39.5 rebounds (on the Lakers' court).

• Four Celtics had 8 or more rebounds in Game 7—in every case a higher total than Perk averaged in the 5 games in which he played regular minutes: KG 10, Davis 9; Sheed 8; Rondo 8.

• In the five games in which Perk played regular minutes, the Lakers averaged 42.0% shooting. In the two games in which Perk played a total of only five minutes, the Lakers averaged 37.0% shooting (on the Lakers' court).

Hey, you opened up the statistical Pandora's Box this time. Live with it.

To be fair, it's possible—but nothing like a sure thing—that Perk's presence could have swung the final score by the requisite 5 points in Game 7. Whether he'd have contributed more than he'd have detracted would be debatable. I doubt that he would have swelled the Celtics' rebound total significantly by replacing Sheed and his 8 boards.

The Lakers took 37 free throws (to 17 for the Celts), and a lot of the Lakers' freebies came as a result of taking the ball to the hoop. Would Perk's presence have dissuaded the Lakers from
so many forays to the basket without swelling the Lakers' free throw total even more? Who knows?

One advantage the Celtics did have in that game was shooting 88.2% from the free throw line (compared with 67.6% for the Lakers. Would the Celtics' free throw percentage
have risen or fallen with Perk in the lineup? Who knows?

We'll never know whether the Celtics would really have won that game with Perk in the lineup. But I don't think it's anything like a slam dunk either way.

Thanks for opening yourself up to a statistical fusillade.

Yup, no hard feelings.

Sam

you wrote all this crap so I guess thats why we were still discussing this stuff.....okay we'll move on.

by **Sam** Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:54 pm

Cow,

Who brought Perk into the conversation in connection with the distant past?

Fine, let's forget the detritus and move on.

No hard feelings.

Sam

by Sponsored content