Author Topic: The Jeff Green thread  (Read 127574 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #435 on: April 03, 2013, 11:36:54 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
not to mention he's avging 22.5 for his 11 starts, which would put him at 8th in the league.



and I think he and Rondo will create lots of magic. Dude will get wide open lanes to the rim.

nope, Rondo is the reason the guy never got the ball...ROndo was standing around warching the world go by dribbling the seconds of the clock.

Doc and More ROndo will kill the team.

  Green took more shots per minute playing with Rondo than he has playing without Rondo. It's not true that Rondo never got him the ball. People who were saying that were blaming Rondo for Green's poor start to the season because it didn't occur to them that his being rusty and recovering from surgery might be the cause.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #436 on: April 03, 2013, 11:59:20 PM »

Offline ChainSmokingLikeDino

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1422
  • Tommy Points: 96
EDIT: CHECK PMS
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 12:08:19 AM by IndeedProceed »

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #437 on: April 04, 2013, 12:21:18 AM »

Offline bfrombleacher

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3343
  • Tommy Points: 367
EDIT: CHECK PMS

DANG IT

Had it but refreshed it and now I don't know what you said.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #438 on: April 04, 2013, 12:37:54 AM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
not to mention he's avging 22.5 for his 11 starts, which would put him at 8th in the league.



and I think he and Rondo will create lots of magic. Dude will get wide open lanes to the rim.

nope, Rondo is the reason the guy never got the ball...ROndo was standing around warching the world go by dribbling the seconds of the clock.

Doc and More ROndo will kill the team.

  Green took more shots per minute playing with Rondo than he has playing without Rondo. It's not true that Rondo never got him the ball. People who were saying that were blaming Rondo for Green's poor start to the season because it didn't occur to them that his being rusty and recovering from surgery might be the cause.

first off, BballTim, you know I completely disagree with that 'fact'. In 20 minutes of playing time, he'd get 8 shots. We all know now that Green needs at lease 12.

Like I said, there was one game, I think against the Hawks, where I checked the box score and he had 10 points off 3/10 shooting and I hung my head. 7 shots later, he had 27 points or something.

I'm not using per36 for those stats because his per36 stats would say hes not going to perform as well as he has now in his actual play time. Stats and Real life are 2 diff things

Second off, I think Rondo just didn't trust Jeff and I'm hoping now that doc seems to trust him a lil more, then Rondo will do the same.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #439 on: April 04, 2013, 01:02:48 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
not to mention he's avging 22.5 for his 11 starts, which would put him at 8th in the league.



and I think he and Rondo will create lots of magic. Dude will get wide open lanes to the rim.

nope, Rondo is the reason the guy never got the ball...ROndo was standing around warching the world go by dribbling the seconds of the clock.

Doc and More ROndo will kill the team.

  Green took more shots per minute playing with Rondo than he has playing without Rondo. It's not true that Rondo never got him the ball. People who were saying that were blaming Rondo for Green's poor start to the season because it didn't occur to them that his being rusty and recovering from surgery might be the cause.

first off, BballTim, you know I completely disagree with that 'fact'. In 20 minutes of playing time, he'd get 8 shots. We all know now that Green needs at lease 12.

Like I said, there was one game, I think against the Hawks, where I checked the box score and he had 10 points off 3/10 shooting and I hung my head. 7 shots later, he had 27 points or something.

I'm not using per36 for those stats because his per36 stats would say hes not going to perform as well as he has now in his actual play time. Stats and Real life are 2 diff things

Second off, I think Rondo just didn't trust Jeff and I'm hoping now that doc seems to trust him a lil more, then Rondo will do the same.

I'm not trying to mischaracterize your response, but for me at least, it seems like you say stats don't matter because you disagree with them, used an ancedote as a counter example (big no-no, at least from a logical standpoint), and then defended that stance by saying 'stats and real life are different things', which is counterintuitive; stats are unarguably a measure of 'real life', without actual real life instances, the stats couldn't exist, by definition. Thats just what stats are.

That's not to say that statistics are definitive argument within themselves, just that saying, 'those are wrong because I disagree with them, and I agree with this thing which I cannot support with meaningful numbers' isn't really a constructive counter.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #440 on: April 04, 2013, 02:20:03 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I'm not trying to mischaracterize your response, but for me at least, it seems like you say stats don't matter because you disagree with them, used an ancedote as a counter example (big no-no, at least from a logical standpoint), and then defended that stance by saying 'stats and real life are different things', which is counterintuitive; stats are unarguably a measure of 'real life', without actual real life instances, the stats couldn't exist, by definition. Thats just what stats are.

That's not to say that statistics are definitive argument within themselves, just that saying, 'those are wrong because I disagree with them, and I agree with this thing which I cannot support with meaningful numbers' isn't really a constructive counter.

I think what he was saying is not that stats are irrelevant, but that they don't necesarilly tell the full story.

For example what I've seen from Jeff Green so far (even in his 20+ point games) is he tends to score in streaks.  He'll score 13 in 5 minutes, then he'll not score for two quarters, then he'll score another 5 points in the last 8 minutes of the fourth.  With the exception of his 40 point that seems to be the trend.

He has a tendancy to go 'terminator' style and be straight up unstoppable in short bursts, but I've seen very few games in which he's scored relatively evenly over the course of the game the way somebody like Pierce, Rondo, Bass or KG tends to do.

You can take almost any one of Green's 20 point games, and at some point in the game there will ber a 15-20 minute stretch where he was offensively non-existent.

I think this is what he meant when he said that Jeff needs minutes to be really effective.  If you play him 15-20 minutes a game then the result is going to be random.  You might get the "15 points in 20 minutes" Jeff, or you might get the "5 points in 20 minutes" Jeff.  However, if you play him 35 minutes every night you're most likely going to get anywhere from 10-25 points from him every night (and > 18 points more often than not).

This is why looking at his scoring per minutes (in the games where he played less minutes) might not really tell the full story.

Look at guys like Pierce or KG and they tend to spread their scoring more evently, so if you gave either of those guys 20 minutes or 40 minutes their production per-minute would probably not vary much because their level of aggressiveness is generally pretty consistent.

The hole Jeff-Green-as-a-starter opens up an interesting can of worms for next season because crazilly enough Jeff Green (and not Paul Pierce) has been our best offensive player since he's been starting.  Just from watching the games it's clear that Pierce has a lot of trustin him to score the ball, I can see Doc slowly shifting some of the offensive responsiblity off Pierce and on to Green. 

My question is, has Jeff's performance right now just earned him a starting spot?

After what he has shown us as a starter in the last two weeks (three 30 point games and one 40 point game) combined with the fact that he has the youth and conditioning to play big minutes...I think it's going to be very difficult for Doc to send him back to the bench once KG returns.  It might be even harder for him to put him on the bench next season once Sullinger and Rondo come back.  Will Doc instead go with a Rondo-Pierce-Green-Sully-KG rotation, and bring Terry/Bradley/Williams/Crawford/Bass/Wilcox off the bench?

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #441 on: April 04, 2013, 07:52:14 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
not to mention he's avging 22.5 for his 11 starts, which would put him at 8th in the league.



and I think he and Rondo will create lots of magic. Dude will get wide open lanes to the rim.

nope, Rondo is the reason the guy never got the ball...ROndo was standing around warching the world go by dribbling the seconds of the clock.

Doc and More ROndo will kill the team.

  Green took more shots per minute playing with Rondo than he has playing without Rondo. It's not true that Rondo never got him the ball. People who were saying that were blaming Rondo for Green's poor start to the season because it didn't occur to them that his being rusty and recovering from surgery might be the cause.

first off, BballTim, you know I completely disagree with that 'fact'. In 20 minutes of playing time, he'd get 8 shots. We all know now that Green needs at lease 12.

Like I said, there was one game, I think against the Hawks, where I checked the box score and he had 10 points off 3/10 shooting and I hung my head. 7 shots later, he had 27 points or something.

I'm not using per36 for those stats because his per36 stats would say hes not going to perform as well as he has now in his actual play time. Stats and Real life are 2 diff things

  You're not using per36 stats because you don't understand what they represent. People think they mean "if a player was on the court for 36 minutes every game they'd average x" but that's not the case. It's an easily understandable way to discuss per minute stats.

  Say PP plays 36 minutes a game and averages 19 ppg and Chris Copeland, playing for the Knicks, plays 13 min/game and averages 7 ppg. Paul's per36 is 19 ppg and Copeland's per36 is 20 ppg. Is Copeland a better scorer than PP? Unlikely. If Copeland tripled his minutes and spent more time on the court with the starters playing against other starters would he triple his scoring average? Probably not. Per36 numbers don't predict what a player would do if he played 36 minutes a game, they just measure what he does when he plays on a per minute basis and normalizes the number for 36 minutes.

  And why do they normalize the number to per36? Because it's easier to visualize. What if I told you, for instance, when Green's playing with Rondo he averages .36 shots per minute. Is that a lot? Is that a little? What if he averaged .34 shots per minute without Rondo? Is that much of a difference? You'd have to multiply those numbers out to more understandable  totals to make any determinations. That's what per36 does, it isn't any type of projection at all. It's all real life.

  Those numbers (.36 and .34 shots/minute) are (roughly) 12.9 and 12.1 shots per 36. Do we have a much better idea of whether 13 shots per 36 minutes is a little or a lot than .36 shots per minute? Probably. But whether you talk about per minute or per36 minute totals, it's still a *fact* that Green shot the ball more often playing with Rondo than he has when Rondo hasn't been on the court with him.

Second off, I think Rondo just didn't trust Jeff and I'm hoping now that doc seems to trust him a lil more, then Rondo will do the same.

  Again, this is silliness. We've seen Rondo make plenty of passes to players like Bradley, Steamer, Scal, Baby and Sheed. Why would he trust all of them but not Green? Why would Green shoot more often with Rondo playing than with Rondo on the bench if Rondo didn't trust him? This is just a claim made by people who blamed Green's poor start this year on Rondo because they never considered that taking a year off or coming back from surgery might be the culprit.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #442 on: April 04, 2013, 08:08:46 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
After what he has shown us as a starter in the last two weeks (three 30 point games and one 40 point game) combined with the fact that he has the youth and conditioning to play big minutes...I think it's going to be very difficult for Doc to send him back to the bench once KG returns.  It might be even harder for him to put him on the bench next season once Sullinger and Rondo come back.  Will Doc instead go with a Rondo-Pierce-Green-Sully-KG rotation, and bring Terry/Bradley/Williams/Crawford/Bass/Wilcox off the bench?

  I think that would be more of a finishing lineup than a starting lineup. They can both play multiple positions but they're also responsible for 48 minutes of sf minutes, so whichever one of them doesn't start there will have to play 12-15 minutes there. In your scenario, though, Danny's going to need to do something about the logjam at sg. You can't start PP there and have Bradley/Lee/Crawford fighting over the remaining 24-28 mpg.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #443 on: April 04, 2013, 08:31:35 AM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
After what he has shown us as a starter in the last two weeks (three 30 point games and one 40 point game) combined with the fact that he has the youth and conditioning to play big minutes...I think it's going to be very difficult for Doc to send him back to the bench once KG returns.  It might be even harder for him to put him on the bench next season once Sullinger and Rondo come back.  Will Doc instead go with a Rondo-Pierce-Green-Sully-KG rotation, and bring Terry/Bradley/Williams/Crawford/Bass/Wilcox off the bench?

  I think that would be more of a finishing lineup than a starting lineup. They can both play multiple positions but they're also responsible for 48 minutes of sf minutes, so whichever one of them doesn't start there will have to play 12-15 minutes there. In your scenario, though, Danny's going to need to do something about the logjam at sg. You can't start PP there and have Bradley/Lee/Crawford fighting over the remaining 24-28 mpg.

You forgot Terry as well.

Yeah that's my issue here.  It's not an easy one to solve, but Jeff clearly needs to play minutes to be effective (and he's been VERY effective doing so).  Maybe he can do it without starting?  I'm not sure.

I also love Avery starting.  Tough choices here.  I like Pierce and Green at SG and SF though... just causes so many matchup problems and they both can do just about everything.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #444 on: April 04, 2013, 08:44:38 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
After what he has shown us as a starter in the last two weeks (three 30 point games and one 40 point game) combined with the fact that he has the youth and conditioning to play big minutes...I think it's going to be very difficult for Doc to send him back to the bench once KG returns.  It might be even harder for him to put him on the bench next season once Sullinger and Rondo come back.  Will Doc instead go with a Rondo-Pierce-Green-Sully-KG rotation, and bring Terry/Bradley/Williams/Crawford/Bass/Wilcox off the bench?

  I think that would be more of a finishing lineup than a starting lineup. They can both play multiple positions but they're also responsible for 48 minutes of sf minutes, so whichever one of them doesn't start there will have to play 12-15 minutes there. In your scenario, though, Danny's going to need to do something about the logjam at sg. You can't start PP there and have Bradley/Lee/Crawford fighting over the remaining 24-28 mpg.

You forgot Terry as well.

Yeah that's my issue here.  It's not an easy one to solve, but Jeff clearly needs to play minutes to be effective (and he's been VERY effective doing so).  Maybe he can do it without starting?  I'm not sure.

I also love Avery starting.  Tough choices here.  I like Pierce and Green at SG and SF though... just causes so many matchup problems and they both can do just about everything.

  I was figuring "backup pg" for Terry, although that's only 12 minutes a game, 5-6 in the playoffs.

  One of the overlooked reasons we were struggling was the minutes logjam. There's a total of 240 minutes to spread out in a game (48 minutes x 5 players). PP/RR/KG average just over 100, that leaves 140 or so for Bass/Green/Wilcox/Lee/Terry/Bradley/Sully to split. It's just not enough minutes for all of those players to get steady consistent minutes or enough minutes to get into a rhythm.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #445 on: April 04, 2013, 09:22:24 AM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
After what he has shown us as a starter in the last two weeks (three 30 point games and one 40 point game) combined with the fact that he has the youth and conditioning to play big minutes...I think it's going to be very difficult for Doc to send him back to the bench once KG returns.  It might be even harder for him to put him on the bench next season once Sullinger and Rondo come back.  Will Doc instead go with a Rondo-Pierce-Green-Sully-KG rotation, and bring Terry/Bradley/Williams/Crawford/Bass/Wilcox off the bench?

  I think that would be more of a finishing lineup than a starting lineup. They can both play multiple positions but they're also responsible for 48 minutes of sf minutes, so whichever one of them doesn't start there will have to play 12-15 minutes there. In your scenario, though, Danny's going to need to do something about the logjam at sg. You can't start PP there and have Bradley/Lee/Crawford fighting over the remaining 24-28 mpg.

You forgot Terry as well.

Yeah that's my issue here.  It's not an easy one to solve, but Jeff clearly needs to play minutes to be effective (and he's been VERY effective doing so).  Maybe he can do it without starting?  I'm not sure.

I also love Avery starting.  Tough choices here.  I like Pierce and Green at SG and SF though... just causes so many matchup problems and they both can do just about everything.

  I was figuring "backup pg" for Terry, although that's only 12 minutes a game, 5-6 in the playoffs.

  One of the overlooked reasons we were struggling was the minutes logjam. There's a total of 240 minutes to spread out in a game (48 minutes x 5 players). PP/RR/KG average just over 100, that leaves 140 or so for Bass/Green/Wilcox/Lee/Terry/Bradley/Sully to split. It's just not enough minutes for all of those players to get steady consistent minutes or enough minutes to get into a rhythm.

Yeah I totally agree.

If some kind of trade can be reached for some of these pieces for a big, I think it needs to be done in the offseason.  We could probably bring in Barbosa or Pietrus to fill in the end of the bench after pulling something like that anyways. 

Our big to guard depth is just so lopsided at this point.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #446 on: April 04, 2013, 10:31:04 AM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6672
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
I have a dream...  a dream of a day when we can stop overreacting to every peak and valley of Jeff Green's career and just accept him for who he is

will he be "a star" or "a bust" or "overpaid" or "underpaid" or "a building block" or "a good player on a bad team?"

I don't know.  And I'm cool with that.
Faith and Sports - an essay by Jeff Clark

"Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin (Bill Watterson)

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #447 on: April 04, 2013, 11:09:32 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I have a dream...  a dream of a day when we can stop overreacting to every peak and valley of Jeff Green's career and just accept him for who he is

will he be "a star" or "a bust" or "overpaid" or "underpaid" or "a building block" or "a good player on a bad team?"

I don't know.  And I'm cool with that.

  You know things are bad when the guy who runs celticsblog opines for fewer posts on a subject.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #448 on: April 04, 2013, 11:14:20 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
I have a dream...  a dream of a day when we can stop overreacting to every peak and valley of Jeff Green's career and just accept him for who he is

will he be "a star" or "a bust" or "overpaid" or "underpaid" or "a building block" or "a good player on a bad team?"

I don't know.  And I'm cool with that.

  You know things are bad when the guy who runs celticsblog opines for fewer posts on a subject.

Right? Can't we just move back to debating the value of Rondo again? Things were so simple then.......
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #449 on: April 04, 2013, 11:17:53 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I have a dream...  a dream of a day when we can stop overreacting to every peak and valley of Jeff Green's career and just accept him for who he is

will he be "a star" or "a bust" or "overpaid" or "underpaid" or "a building block" or "a good player on a bad team?"

I don't know.  And I'm cool with that.

  You know things are bad when the guy who runs celticsblog opines for fewer posts on a subject.

Right? Can't we just move back to debating the value of Rondo again? Things were so simple then.......

  It's half the work as well. People respond to the valleys and ignore the peaks.