Pierce as a backup for Ray Allen

With Green on board to back up Pierce and Garnett an additional benefit could be allowing Pierce to spent some time spelling Allen at the shooting guard, especially against some of the taller scorers. This versatility could more than offset the loss of Perk. All in all it could significantly reduce the minutes played by the big 3.

swish

Got to have the rebound and thus the ball to score! Perk rebounded and his size allowed boxing out for others to get the ball!

But you could be onto something if they can fill the hole left by Perk.

1122288

112288

Players waived after march 1st are not eligible for the playoffs. So most deals will more than likely take place in the next few days. Time will tell if Danny has any moves left.

swish

112288,

Yes, you have to get rebounds in order to score. But I don't think it's appropriate to get all exorcised about the difference between Perk and Kristic.

Just for the heck of it, I decided to do a little statistical comparison, although I'm absolutely the last person in the WORLD who needs to be lectured about the fact that stats don't necessarily mean a whole lot. Much depends on how they're used and interpreted.

Looking at things on a per 36 minute basis to make everything equal, I looked at what I'd call positive stats versus negative stats.

Positive stats:

Points per game: Perk 10.4, Kristic 14.4 (Advantage Kristic)
Offensive rebounds per game: Perk 2.6, Kristic 2.7 (slight advantage Kristic)
Defensive rebounds per game: Perk 8.5, Kristic 5.1 (advantage Perk)
Blocks per game: Perk 2.3, Kristic 0.6 (advantage Perk)
Steals per game: 0.5, Kristic 0.6 (slight advantage Kristic)


Negative stats:

Turnovers per game: Perk 2.7, Kristic 1.2 (advantage Kristic)
Missed free throws per game: Perk 2.0, Kristic 0.4 (advantage Kristic)
Personal fouls per game: Perk 4.3, Kristic 3.8 (advantage Kristic)


Non-stat Intangibles:

Defending against really big guys (advantage Perk)
Helping to spread the floor and open up the lane (advantage Kristic)
Not disrupting offensive flow with hesitation, bobbles (advantage Kristic)
Avoiding technical fouls (advantage Kristic)
Locker room presence (pretty much a draw, possible advantage Perk)
Setting picks without committing offensive fouls: Not sure on this one
Minutes per game: Perk 26, Kristic 22 (advantage Perk)

I count nine advantages for Kristic and four or five for Perk. Granted, they're four or five important categories; but none of the nine in which Kristic leads is chopped liver. Even in the rebounding category, we're talking no worse than a draw offensively and three more rebounds per 36 minutes for Perk. That a difference, not a MAJOR DIFFERENCE, when one looks at the negative categories and most of the intangibles.

In particular, I think the matter of probably gaining a smoother offense with Kristic than with Perk is a very much overlooked factor because it affects all the teammates on the floor as well as the player in question.

In short, we're losing a lot with Perk. And, if I had attempted to apply weights to the factors, I'm sure Perk would have come closer to being even with Kristic. But the moaning about rebounds may be a bit overblown—especially at the offensive end. As I see it, the only major ares of loss is defensively and, specifically about Dwight Howard whom we won't face again this regular season and may or may not fact in the playoffs.

And none of this analysis factors in the presence of any other centers. Heck, if the Gadzuric thing were to happen, we'd potentially wind up with five guys who play the center position: Kristic, Shaq, Jermaine, Davis, and Gadzurik. And I'd like to think that, for any given game, we could count on at least three of them being healthy.

And, before anyone jumps into a statistical argument (and I'd be very careful there), I say again that I know stats aren't nearly everything. I'm just that I think some of the concerns can get a little blown out of perspective.

Sam

When people start screaming "the sky is falling" I reflect on how Hank "High Henry" Finkel was called upon to replace Bill Russell in 1969-70. The next season Dave Cowens came on board, and Hank did a good job showing him the ropes. I particularly remember Game 7 of the 1974 playoffs against the Kareem led Milwaukee Bucks. Dave Cowens was on the sidelines with foul trouble, and Hank stepped in to play Kareem to a standstill - really! - and we won the game and another banner. We might just get lucky again with Shaq and backups playing important roles.

W,

And one of my favorite memories is going to practice and watching Hank running the the fast break, while Coach Heinsohn screamed, "Go Fink, go,!" and the team doubled over in laughter.

Sam

sam wrote:112288,


Just for the heck of it, I decided to do a little statistical comparison....

Sam-

I had to do a hard double take to check my calendar when I saw this as 2012 is supposedly the year the world will end, and that is the only explanation I could think of to explain you using stats to make a point.


Hope you and Mrs Sam are having a good weekend.

BSH,

I'm a professional statistician by trade. I majored in statistics in undergrad school and have taken a total of 23 statistics courses in my various educational pursuits.

I don't hate stats per se. I'm just very selective about the way pro basketball stats should be used and interpreted in order to achieve a high degee of validity. When I employ stats to make a point (which is not at all a rarity if you look at my posting history), I try to exercise the same critical standards I employ in evaluating the stats used by others. And I believe in citing the same limitations when I use stats as I do when I comment on the use of stats by others (e.g. talking about the implications of my non-use of weights in my most recent statistically-based post).

There's a wonderful old book by a guy named Darrell Huff and called "How to Lie with Statistics." The point of the book is to teach statistical validity by pointing out the all the little tricks and omissions that can be used to present bogus stats while making them seem perfectly sound. Hollinger should read that book, and I highly recommend it to everyone. It's pretty much presented in terms that non-statisticians can relate to. It's still available on Amazon for as low as $7.

Sam

sam wrote:BSH,

I'm a professional statistician by trade. I majored in statistics in undergrad school and have taken a total of 23 statistics courses in my various educational pursuits.

I don't hate stats per se. I'm just very selective about the way pro basketball stats should be used and interpreted in order to achieve a high degee of validity. When I employ stats to make a point (which is not at all a rarity if you look at my posting history), I try to exercise the same critical standards I employ in evaluating the stats used by others. And I believe in citing the same limitations when I use stats as I do when I comment on the use of stats by others (e.g. talking about the implications of my non-use of weights in my most recent statistically-based post).

There's a wonderful old book by a guy named Darrell Huff and called "How to Lie with Statistics." The point of the book is to teach statistical validity by pointing out the all the little tricks and omissions that can be used to present bogus stats while making them seem perfectly sound. Hollinger should read that book, and I highly recommend it to everyone. It's pretty much presented in terms that non-statisticians can relate to. It's still available on Amazon for as low as $7.

Sam

That's funny. You being a professional statistician is the last thing I would have ever guessed.

I was kidding though about the world coming to an end. I have seen you use stats here and there (and given my posting frequency, that probably pro-rates to a consistent basis), but I am with you that stats are good tools if used properly and kept in the right context.

And I think I'll check that book out. THat would be good to know, although I have a feeling Hollinger doesn't want to know.

Take care.

BSH,

That book was recommended by the teacher of my very first statistics course in 1956. He was one of the then-fading breed of "hands on" profs. I recall one time when he asked me in class to visit him in his office. When I got there, he said, "I notice you've been twitching a lot in class lately. Are you okay?" I had to reveal that I'd gained a couple of pounds, my shirt collars had become too tight, and I couldn't afford new shirts. (Open collars weren't popular then. It was a different world. In fact, we regularly used abacuses in class.)

Another time, he came into class and asked if any of us would be willing to give blood to help his wife, who it turned out was dying. What a response!

It was he who influenced me to join the American Statistical Association and to go into the field of research, so much of which which has involved the extensive use of statistics. My new wife and I even visited him at his Maine home during our honeymoon, and I kept in touch with him until he died a few years later. In fact, I may have known him longer than I knew her. I can't recall. Frederick Hussey. I still miss him.

Sam

Sam, I've known a few Hussey's in my time and miss them too.

sam wrote:BSH,

That book was recommended by the teacher of my very first statistics course in 1956. He was one of the then-fading breed of "hands on" profs. I recall one time when he asked me in class to visit him in his office. When I got there, he said, "I notice you've been twitching a lot in class lately. Are you okay?" I had to reveal that I'd gained a couple of pounds, my shirt collars had become too tight, and I couldn't afford new shirts. (Open collars weren't popular then. It was a different world. In fact, we regularly used abacuses in class.)

Another time, he came into class and asked if any of us would be willing to give blood to help his wife, who it turned out was dying. What a response!

It was he who influenced me to join the American Statistical Association and to go into the field of research, so much of which which has involved the extensive use of statistics. My new wife and I even visited him at his Maine home during our honeymoon, and I kept in touch with him until he died a few years later. In fact, I may have known him longer than I knew her. I can't recall. Frederick Hussey. I still miss him.

Sam

Sam-

Abacuses ? For real ? Wow.


He sounds like quite a mentor. Very cool.

worcester wrote:Sam, I've known a few Hussey's in my time and miss them too.

Me too. (My Hussies, W- not yours.)

BSH,

Only kidding about the abacuses. But we did use slide rules.

My parents made me a gift of an "Addiator." It was a mechanical, non-electronic device on which you used a stylus to manipulate several columns of holes. Each column contained the numbers 0-9. You manually poked the stylus into a given hole to slide that column by the number of spaces indicated by that hole. When you exceeded the number "9," the column to the left would automatically increase by 1. It was, in effect, a hand-operated adding and subtraction machine.

So I took my Addiator into class and began using it during a test. Whereupon Prof. Hussey told me to write an "F" on my paper for cheating. It was actually considered cheating to use anything except pencil, paper, and a slide rule. No calculators (which really hadn't been invented). I later went to his office on my own in an effort to explain. While he was interested in the concept of the calculator, I still received a zero on that test. His reasoning was that I was using something that gave me an unfair advantage over my classmates. I respected his principle, didn't argue, didn't get tagged with a technical, and actually wound up feeling closer to him and his principles as a result of the episode.

Sam

Sam- you had the world's first calculator. Even cooler than using an abacus, but not as cool as becoming friends with a professor who gave you a zero on a test.

That's cool.