Author Topic: The Jeff Green thread  (Read 127393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #450 on: April 04, 2013, 11:22:37 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
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.......
Value? Rondo has no value. Just cut him and save $30 million, it's going to be addition by substraction.  ;D
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #451 on: April 04, 2013, 11:25:00 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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.

I like to think they ignore the warts and focus on the smile.

"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 #452 on: April 04, 2013, 11:31:24 AM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
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.

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.


I think the point was a little different actually. You're talking about being streaky, which would make his scoring in small doses very unpredictable. But it wouldn't necessarily change the average number of points per minute. If Green plays 20 minutes per game and scores 5 one night and 20 another, he's averaging 12.5. If he gets 10 one night and 15 the next, he still averages 12.5. The variability is lower but the average is the same. And even if the variability goes down when minutes go up, the average might not change (or could go down).

I think the argument is (or should be) that Green's per-36 numbers are better when he plays more minutes.

Right now the data bear that out. Green averages 21 points per 36 minutes as a starter in 11 games this year. Off the bench, he averages 15 points per 36 minutes. One interpretation is that Green actually becomes a better player when you give him more minutes.

I personally disagree with that interpretation for two reasons. First, when Green starts it's because another starter is out, so his role in the offense will naturally increase. If JG is on the court with KG, he will take fewer shots than when he's out there with Bass or Wilcox - and rightly so. And second, Doc might leave Green (or any player) out there more often when he's hot - in which case the nights on which he gets more minutes will of course be the ones on which he's most effective.

But in neither case does giving Green more minutes *cause* him to score more, per minute. To interpret the numbers that way would confuse correlation with causality.


Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #453 on: April 04, 2013, 11:32:18 AM »

Offline LB3533

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4088
  • Tommy Points: 315
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?

I just think when a player plays within the flow of the offense, he is not going to look to score unless he has an advantage or those opportunities to score are available.

I think people are not sure what exactly they want from a player because there are those who really dislike "selfish" chuckers like Kobe, Westbrook etc.

Then there are those who prefer guys' game who are mellow, smooth, even keel and suave, Tim Duncan, Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, etc.

Jeff has good game, his game is not going to please everyone. I like the fact that he can get the production done without needing to give up efficiency. I like the fact that Jeff can bring a little nasty here, and a little bit of clutch there....when it is necessary.

Right now since we still have PP, KG and Rondo, Jeff is not required to bring that nasty all the time.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #454 on: April 04, 2013, 11:37:37 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.

I like to think they ignore the warts and focus on the smile.

  That's the problem, Rondo hardly ever smiles.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #455 on: April 04, 2013, 11:46:21 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.

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.

my argument is why are you using stats to predict what's already happening. You can't tell me that because in 20-25 minutes of play, with 8 or so shots, he got more shots with Rondo, rather than the play now where he's playing 35+ minutes and getting double those shots now.

in the meantime, his shots have gradually increased as people have fed him the ball more. you're asking me to 'pretend' like he and Rondo have played for 35 minutes rather than see that he's gotten more shots now.

for ME, that doesn't make sense, especially when the difference is less than 1.0.  That's just my thinking. You all are free to take it or leave it.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #456 on: April 04, 2013, 11:48:18 AM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
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.

my argument is why are you using stats to predict what's already happening. You can't tell me that because in 20-25 minutes of play, with 8 or so shots, he got more shots with Rondo, rather than the play now where he's playing 35+ minutes and getting double those shots now.

in the meantime, his shots have gradually increased as people have fed him the ball more. you're asking me to 'pretend' like he and Rondo have played for 35 minutes rather than see that he's gotten more shots now.

for ME, that doesn't make sense, especially when the difference is less than 1.0.  That's just my thinking. You all are free to take it or leave it.

Did you read my post above?

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #457 on: April 04, 2013, 11:48:34 AM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
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?

well, that's a simpler way to put it too lol
Jeff can come out and score 5 points in his first 6 minutes like last night
or he'll score 7 points one half and 20 the entire 2nd half
*shrug*

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #458 on: April 04, 2013, 11:50:42 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
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.

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.


I think the point was a little different actually. You're talking about being streaky, which would make his scoring in small doses very unpredictable. But it wouldn't necessarily change the average number of points per minute. If Green plays 20 minutes per game and scores 5 one night and 20 another, he's averaging 12.5. If he gets 10 one night and 15 the next, he still averages 12.5. The variability is lower but the average is the same. And even if the variability goes down when minutes go up, the average might not change (or could go down).

I think the argument is (or should be) that Green's per-36 numbers are better when he plays more minutes.

Right now the data bear that out. Green averages 21 points per 36 minutes as a starter in 11 games this year. Off the bench, he averages 15 points per 36 minutes. One interpretation is that Green actually becomes a better player when you give him more minutes.

I personally disagree with that interpretation for two reasons. First, when Green starts it's because another starter is out, so his role in the offense will naturally increase. If JG is on the court with KG, he will take fewer shots than when he's out there with Bass or Wilcox - and rightly so. And second, Doc might leave Green (or any player) out there more often when he's hot - in which case the nights on which he gets more minutes will of course be the ones on which he's most effective.

But in neither case does giving Green more minutes *cause* him to score more, per minute. To interpret the numbers that way would confuse correlation with causality.

  There are a lot of variables to consider. Aside from the fact that people like KG are out you also have to consider that his play has improved over the course of the season due to his health and rustiness. I think that there is something to people playing better when they get more minutes, Doc's mentioned this in the past.


  But aside from playing better when they get more minutes, they get more minutes when they play better. If Green's playing well Doc will leave him in longer. You'd often see Doc call players like Rondo or the big three back over to the bench when they were waiting to re-enter the game because the guy who was going to sub out started playing well. Their stats for that game aren't good because they got so many minutes, they got so many minutes because they were playing well.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #459 on: April 04, 2013, 11:56:27 AM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
I just want to step back and take the time to appreciate what Jeff Green has been giving to us. He seems to really be back in NBA shape and recovering prefectly fine from his surgery and really stepping up and taking over a role especially with the injuries flying around.

Over the last ten games, (since his 43 point outburst), Green's has been averaging:

22 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.6 blocks, 1 steal, while shooting 55% from the field and 53% from the three point line...

He is playing great efficient ball right now just in time for the playoffs role around. And I'd like to give him a friendly digital pat on the back because of it.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #460 on: April 04, 2013, 11:58:34 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

  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.

you just proved my point and continued to use per36. you want me to believe he got more touches with Rondo because it's at 12.8. But you went ahead and said just because a person's on the floor for 36 minutes doesn't mean it will happen. Well ta-da.

you're talking about stats. I'm talking about THE ACTUAL GAME.

and if you think Rondo didn't trust some of the 'new guys', I don't know what to tell you. we've had several debates on this board about who Rondo is talking about when he says guys are in the locker room laughing and joking, etc. now, that's not fact, that's not stats, that's my own interpretation. They were having problems in the locker room. It's 9 new guys.

I wasn't trying to make Rondo seem petty, I'm just saying if you're playing with KG and PP with whom you've played years with, you're probably gonna be more apt to pass it to them rather than a Jeff Green or a Courtney Lee or what have you.

I'm not sure how these aren't perfectly logical deductions. But alright.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #461 on: April 04, 2013, 12:02:46 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
you just proved my point and continued to use per36. you want me to believe he got more touches with Rondo because it's at 12.8. But you went ahead and said just because a person's on the floor for 36 minutes doesn't mean it will happen. Well ta-da.

you're talking about stats. I'm talking about THE ACTUAL GAME.
Stats are a record of what has happened during the game.

When Bballtim shows that Green was shooting at roughly the same rate with/without Rondo on the floor it means just that.

You can't handwave that away by saying "nuh uh I watch THE GAME". Because in the end you're a human being who can't recall every shot Jeff Green took 3 months ago when Rondo was running the point.

As for the per36 comments, I'm still not sure you understand the differences between rates, totals, and projections.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #462 on: April 04, 2013, 12:04:36 PM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
I just want to step back and take the time to appreciate what Jeff Green has been giving to us. He seems to really be back in NBA shape and recovering prefectly fine from his surgery and really stepping up and taking over a role especially with the injuries flying around.

Over the last ten games, (since his 43 point outburst), Green's has been averaging:

22 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.6 blocks, 1 steal, while shooting 55% from the field and 53% from the three point line...

He is playing great efficient ball right now just in time for the playoffs role around. And I'd like to give him a friendly digital pat on the back because of it.

I agree. And in his last 10 games he's avg 14.5 FGA, and 16.2 from his last 5...so I want to know how Doc plans to make sure everyone gets the amount of shots they need to be productive, because I def think Jeff needs more than 10 or 12 a night.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #463 on: April 04, 2013, 12:09:37 PM »

Offline clover

  • Front Page Moderator
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6130
  • Tommy Points: 315
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.

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.


I think the point was a little different actually. You're talking about being streaky, which would make his scoring in small doses very unpredictable. But it wouldn't necessarily change the average number of points per minute. If Green plays 20 minutes per game and scores 5 one night and 20 another, he's averaging 12.5. If he gets 10 one night and 15 the next, he still averages 12.5. The variability is lower but the average is the same. And even if the variability goes down when minutes go up, the average might not change (or could go down).

I think the argument is (or should be) that Green's per-36 numbers are better when he plays more minutes.

Right now the data bear that out. Green averages 21 points per 36 minutes as a starter in 11 games this year. Off the bench, he averages 15 points per 36 minutes. One interpretation is that Green actually becomes a better player when you give him more minutes.

I personally disagree with that interpretation for two reasons. First, when Green starts it's because another starter is out, so his role in the offense will naturally increase. If JG is on the court with KG, he will take fewer shots than when he's out there with Bass or Wilcox - and rightly so. And second, Doc might leave Green (or any player) out there more often when he's hot - in which case the nights on which he gets more minutes will of course be the ones on which he's most effective.

But in neither case does giving Green more minutes *cause* him to score more, per minute. To interpret the numbers that way would confuse correlation with causality.

Possibly, but he's also clearly been playing better as the year goes on--and only really starting as of late.  He also plays more minutes when he has a good match up. 

Still, just watching him, he seems to feel like he has to carry more of the load when he's starting, and that seems to be a good thing for him.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #464 on: April 04, 2013, 12:14:20 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
I just want to step back and take the time to appreciate what Jeff Green has been giving to us. He seems to really be back in NBA shape and recovering prefectly fine from his surgery and really stepping up and taking over a role especially with the injuries flying around.

Over the last ten games, (since his 43 point outburst), Green's has been averaging:

22 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.6 blocks, 1 steal, while shooting 55% from the field and 53% from the three point line...

He is playing great efficient ball right now just in time for the playoffs role around. And I'd like to give him a friendly digital pat on the back because of it.

I agree. And in his last 10 games he's avg 14.5 FGA, and 16.2 from his last 5...so I want to know how Doc plans to make sure everyone gets the amount of shots they need to be productive, because I def think Jeff needs more than 10 or 12 a night.
Jeff isn't an aggressive offensive player though, and its pretty late in the season to try and force feed him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4703910/green-and-the-unintentional-takeover#more

Discusses his offense in detail with Jeff/Doc. Doc seems to be pushing him as being more aggressive, which makes sense to me. Coaches have been asking for an aggressive to Green's game forever.