Boston Celtics' Kendrick Perkins: The Least Talked About Starter In Beantown
Following arguably his best performance of the year Sunday against the Bucks, albeit in a loss, I felt it'd be worth it to take a look at Kendrick Perkins, the Celtics' least hyped starter.
Perkins was drafted by the Grizzlies back in 2003 straight out of high school, and was immediately traded to Boston. He didn't see much action his first two years in the league, playing less than 10 minutes a game each year behind Mark Blount and Raef LaFrentz.
During the 2005-06 season, Perk started to see two years of an inconsistent starting spot at center, averaging around five points, five assists, and one block a game in about twenty minutes of work every night.
These two seasons contributing to a struggling Celtics team helped him develop enough to be a full-time starter in the years to come.
During last season's championship run, Perkins started every game he played in, averaging an improved seven points and six rebounds a game in about five more minutes per game.
Most impressive, however, was his field-goal percentage of over 61 percent, which was good for 11th in the league and sixth among players with more than 15 minutes per game.
This season, especially with the absence of KG, Perk has continued develop.
His averages have risen to eight points and eight boards a game, and his defensive presence has been very formidable. His energy has been a big plus, and his team-leading 2.7 offensive boards a game have been a big help.
Perk's improved post play has also helped the Celtics spread the floor this year, as KG can work more in his favored high post position.
At the same time, Perk hasn't been a Shaq-like presence clogging the lane for the many driving guards on the team either.
Simply put, Perk is playing his role and playing it well.
He'll likely never be a star in this league, but I'll take a quality big man like him any day.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?