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?