Is this it for KG?
Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman
Re: Is this it for KG?
- MyInsatiableOne
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,319
- And1: 180
- Joined: Mar 25, 2005
- Location: Midwest via New England
- Contact:
-
Re: Is this it for KG?
^an undersized non-scoring center? Don't we already have one (Perk)? And Perk plays great D, too...
It's still 17 to 11!!!!
Re: Is this it for KG?
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,518
- And1: 1,861
- Joined: May 22, 2001
Re: Is this it for KG?
Wolves2011 wrote:elrod enchilada wrote:I love PER and stats as much as the next guy, but PER is all about offense, and KG is first and foremost a dominant defender. Statistical systems that focus on defense tend to rate him much more highly. That is why he remains a top 20 player, or at least he should be one by the end of the season, health permitting.
If KG is not a top 20 player come April, our chances of getting 18 in 2010 drop considerably. Even if he is only top 20 our chances are bot overwhelming in my view.
I agree that KG was a great defensive player, but he was also a great offensive player. He led the league in PER (among all players not just PF) for 2 seasons. Last season before he was hurt he ranked among the top 5 or 6 power forwards (last season no longer posted on ESPN, so can't check). Now he is ranked 17 among PF in PER.
Even in 2008 (championship year) his PER 25.3, last year it was 21.2, this year it is 19.0
[At his peak in 2003-2004 it was 29.4]
Also keep in mind that PER is a calibrated for each minute played. So fewer minutes DOES NOT affect the stat.
No matter how you feel about PER or KG, it's way too early to look at PER even to get an idea. To put it in perspective, it's only been about a week since Pierce's PER was 29 and KG's was 12. Now they're at 21 and 19, respectively. Assuming health they should both find a range more near their norm, Pierce in the upper teens and KG in the low 20s.
Similalrly, before the last two games KG was leading the league in defensive rating and second in defensive win shares despite not playing many minutes. Early in the season stats jump around wildly. Like others have suggested, see where KG's stats and more importantly his play is by around mid-season as right now it's just too early.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Re: Is this it for KG?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 1,029
- And1: 20
- Joined: Sep 28, 2009
Re: Is this it for KG?
GuyClinch wrote:
As I said for the last couple of years Rondo's +/- was just inflated because he got to play with a stud starting lineup all the time.
Pete
Are you sure about that?
How about the year BEFORE "THE BIG 3" - 2006-7
Rondo was better than Pierce in plus/minus and in on court/off court.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you begin to understand why Ainge wouldn't give up Rondo to get KG. The KG trade was held up for weeks because McHale insisted that Rondo be included and Ainge said no.
plus/minus:
Rondo plus 1.1
Pierce 0.0
Telfair (minus 1.6)
Tony (minus 2.4)
Szczerbiac (minus 2.4)
Powe ( minus 2.5)
Jefferson (minus 2.9)
Perkins (minus 4.4)
West (minus 5.5)
Green (minus 5.5)
Gomes (minus 7.7)
OnCourt/Offcout
Rondo plus 8.3
Pierce plus 5.9
Telfair plus 3.0
Szczberiac plus 1.2
Powe plus 1.1
Jefferson plus 1.0
Tony plus 0.7
Perkins (minus 1.7)
Green (minus 4.0)
West (minus 4.8)
Gomes (minus 10.1)
FYI, the celtics as a team had a negative point differential of 3.4 PPG.
Re: Is this it for KG?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 1,029
- And1: 20
- Joined: Sep 28, 2009
Re: Is this it for KG?
GuyClinch wrote:[
As I said for the last couple of years Rondo's +/- was just inflated because he got to play with a stud starting lineup all the time.
Pete
See who is....#16 thats rondo - as a rookie - on the team with jefferson, west etc... one of the top 20 in the NBA in adjusted plus minus.
Table 1: Top 20 Players for 2006-2007 Season
Adjusted +/-
(per 40 min) 2006-07
1. Garnett, Kevin 12.35
2. James, LeBron 12.01
3. Duncan, Tim 10.89
4. Arenas, Gilbert 8.80
5. Kidd, Jason 8.74
6. Bryant, Kobe 8.70
7. Davis, Baron 7.72
8. Wade, Dwayne 7.56
9. Pierce, Paul 7.24
10. Ginobili, Manu 6.77
11. Nowitzki, Dirk 6.45
12. Brand, Elton 6.30
13. Artest, Ron 6.25
14. Parker, Anthony 6.13
15. Nash, Steve 6.04
16. Rondo, Rajon 5.59
17. Deng, Luol 5.58
18. Billups, Chauncey 5.42
19. Redd, Michael 5.42
20. McDyess, Antonio 5.07
Re: Is this it for KG?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 28,044
- And1: 14,868
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Re: Is this it for KG?
It's November.
KG is doing the Tim Duncan thing and doing just enough to win. Duncan isn't nearly the dominant player he used to be, but down the stretch they rely on him. That's what the Celts and KG can do.
KG isn't going to go 25-14 against the Nets Dec. 5. That's just a waste of energy, especially if the Celtics are winning.
Rasheed was brought here to backup, and duplicate KG. Rasheed isn't KG, but Rasheed is an all-star type talent who can't sustain it for 82 games. Rasheed makes us rely less on KG, which for 65 games in the NBA season is fine. It's a brilliant signing in that way.
KG is doing the Tim Duncan thing and doing just enough to win. Duncan isn't nearly the dominant player he used to be, but down the stretch they rely on him. That's what the Celts and KG can do.
KG isn't going to go 25-14 against the Nets Dec. 5. That's just a waste of energy, especially if the Celtics are winning.
Rasheed was brought here to backup, and duplicate KG. Rasheed isn't KG, but Rasheed is an all-star type talent who can't sustain it for 82 games. Rasheed makes us rely less on KG, which for 65 games in the NBA season is fine. It's a brilliant signing in that way.