Jeff Green a great and crucial team player. Why don't more people see this?

[Senninsage]

Seriously, isn't anybody else noticing this? He may not light up a stat sheet, although he's capable of doing just that, but, if you notice, Jeff Green is a fantastic team contributor.

What do I mean?

If we are trying desperately to keep a lead, he'll probably be a guy that gives us a bucket or two that helps us out in that department.

If we are on a momentum swing, or need a shot that gives us a bigger lead, he'll usually come through and help pad the momentum, or hit down that shot to help chip away at a lead, or to give us the lead back.

He may not do this as much as we'd all like, but, sure enough, if you look at key moments throughout all four games in this sweep, you'll see Green hitting a big basket for us in some form. Why don't we appreciate these things? Because they aren't accompanied by a lights out stat sheet?

Don't tell me that nobody thought that and one basket today by Green leading into half-time wasn't huge for the Celtics, because it most certainly was. Some view these things as meaningless, or inconsequential, but Green's 3 points on just that play alone could just as easily be looked at as the difference between the Knicks dropping our points edge to a 1 point lead, as opposed to the 4 point lead that we actually had, when things got close in the 4th quarter. Take away his other 2 points, and Knicks get the lead.

He also gave us 2 offensive rebounds and 5 defensive rebounds. Please don't tell me that Celtics fans, who have become accustomed to seeing how important failing to get defensive and offensive rebounds can be in determining the outcome of a game, have suddenly started to not appreciate a player who does these things?

Jeff Green's 2 offensive rebounds were only outdone by KG, who had 4.

Jeff Green's 7 rebounds were, again, only outdone by KG, who had 10. Defensive and offensive rebounds are very important, as they determine how many offensive possessions we get, and how many offensive possessions our opponent gets.


Less offensive possessions, means less opportunities for the opponent to score enough points to beat the Celtics. Jeff Green may not be lighting up a stat sheet, but keep in mind that this Celtics Team is a "Team". We love our individual highlight performances, yes we do, but Jeff Green's contributions are too unfairly being looked at from the spectrum of an individual. He's a great team player.

Garnett's points tonight are Green's points. Pierce's points tonight are Green's points. Green's points tonight are Pierce and Garnett's points. More people need to view it that way, because this is a team game.

People have to understand that, while we love great individual performances, this is a team, and, on a team, every little bit counts. Krstic's contributions were important, Green's were important, Glen Davis' were important, Delonte Wests' were important, too. (Don't forget Delonte's huge rebound for us in the 4th, when the game was close)



Let me ask one question?

Here is the box score from tonight's game.

http://www.nba.com/celtics/stats/boxscore_reader.html?gameid=20110424/BOSNYK

Let's give Jeff Green Glen Davis' and Nenad Krstic's 5 rebounds from tonight, giving Jeff Green, with his 7 rebounds, a total of 17 rebounds tonight to go along with his 5 points.

Now, let's completely dump Delonte West's 5 rebounds, and give them to the Knicks, in the form of offensive rebounds. Do people realize that just ignoring the contributions of a player, like I've just done with Delonte's 5 rebounds, could very easily have led to a Celtics loss today? And all for what? For Jeff Green to have a more impressive looking individual stat sheet?

When you have great team basketball taking place, that will naturally have an impact on the appearance of individual stats. Would anyone here sacrifice Jermaine O'neal's contributions, preferring he did nothing, leaving more for Green and others to do, just for the satisfaction of seeing Jeff Green light up a stat sheet with a fantastic individual performance? I would sure hope not.

It's team basketball. I could care less what Jeff Green's stats look like, as long as I feel he makes enough contributions to lead to a Celtic victory each night. Do people honestly believe that either of the big three, without the contributions that they've gotten from other players, like Jeff Green and a few others, automatically win all the games that they won in this series, even if they do all the exact same things that they did in every game?

That isn't quite as guaranteed as some might initially like to think.

The Boston Celtics Team won this series in a 4-0 sweep, and Jeff Green is a very important member of that team. Without his contributions, this sweep does not happen.

Would we like to see even more impressive individual performances? I absolutely wouldn't mind, but they are not quite as necessary as some are making it seem. Anyone ever thought that Jeff Green's numbers aren't as good as they could be because there are others who are also contributing to help this team, and are doing a pretty good job of it? Would we like to see others screw up rebounds, or fail to hustle for rebounds, so Green gets to the be the one who gets them? Would we like for others to fail to score the ball, so Green has the responsibility of looking like more of a big scorer off the bench?

I say again, this is team basketball. The man may not light up a scoreboard, but as long as he does what he needs to on any given night, to help his team get a win, I'll be very happy with him. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that this is a team game. People who think Green hasn't been helping this team, are kidding themselves. They truly are.

[GreenFaith1819]

The Trade has been a very touchy subject on here..with two sides forming with different opinions on it.

RIght now, I think Jeff and Nenad will always be linked to Perk, and they have huge shoes to fill. My guess is that as long as Doc and Danny are happy with him, nothing else matters.

I know that I am happy with both of them.

[Army_of_One_Nation]

Perk was, and still is, well liked as a Celtic. People who are against the trade are expecting Green to score like how he did in OKC. But, he just doesn't get enough playing to be able to do that. In the long run, opinions will be changed about the trade, not necessarily people's admiration towards Perkins or even Green.

Right now, Green is a Celtic, so I support him. Perk, as a former Celtic, I support him, too. Until he plays against the C's.

[Proveo]

Weird reasoning, every player is a great and crucial team player from your perspective. This is reminiscent of Scalabrine's "intangibles".

He played very poor offense the entire series. The problem isn't that he doesn't bring good value for fantasy owners.

And the Celtics were outscored by the Knicks when Green was on the floor in 3 of the 4 games. In the 67 minutes he played, the Knicks outscored the Celtics by 19 points.

Needs to hit more shots, be more active on the boards, avoid stupid turnovers, foul less. Even defensively he can play with more energy, close out every play.

He's capable of playing better, so there's no reason to excuse his performance so far.

[Roy H.]

If we are on a momentum swing, or need a shot that gives us a bigger lead, he'll usually come through and help pad the momentum, or hit down that shot to help chip away at a lead, or to give us the lead back.

He may not do this as much as we'd all like, but, sure enough, if you look at key moments throughout all four games in this sweep, you'll see Green hitting a big basket for us in some form. Why don't we appreciate these things? Because they aren't accompanied by a lights out stat sheet?

Simply put, I don't accept arguments like "Yeah, he puts up mediocre numbers, but he always comes through when we need him to".  I think that such arguments are usually based on a pretty high selection / memory bias.  If Green came through as consistently as you suggest, this *would* show up in the stat sheet, in place of his 33% FG%.

I've seen nothing to make me believe that Jeff Green is any sort of a clutch player. 

[GreenFaith1819]

Perk was, and still is, well liked as a Celtic. People who are against the trade are expecting Green to score like how he did in OKC. But, he just doesn't get enough playing to be able to do that. In the long run, opinions will be changed about the trade, not necessarily people's admiration towards Perkins or even Green.

Right now, Green is a Celtic, so I support him. Perk, as a former Celtic, I support him, too. Until he plays against the C's.

Exactly.

What will be interesting is when Perk - in his role as enforcer with OKC - will try to lay one on KG or Ray as they drive to the basket.

I bet Perk will get some hate here on this board then.

[Kiorrik]

If we are on a momentum swing, or need a shot that gives us a bigger lead, he'll usually come through and help pad the momentum, or hit down that shot to help chip away at a lead, or to give us the lead back.

He may not do this as much as we'd all like, but, sure enough, if you look at key moments throughout all four games in this sweep, you'll see Green hitting a big basket for us in some form. Why don't we appreciate these things? Because they aren't accompanied by a lights out stat sheet?

Simply put, I don't accept arguments like "Yeah, he puts up mediocre numbers, but he always comes through when we need him to".  I think that such arguments are usually based on a pretty high selection / memory bias.  If Green came through as consistently as you suggest, this *would* show up in the stat sheet, in place of his 33% FG%.

I've seen nothing to make me believe that Jeff Green is any sort of a clutch player. 

Agree, but that said, there's potential in the guy. He just needs to stop missing layups

[Roy H.]

If we are on a momentum swing, or need a shot that gives us a bigger lead, he'll usually come through and help pad the momentum, or hit down that shot to help chip away at a lead, or to give us the lead back.

He may not do this as much as we'd all like, but, sure enough, if you look at key moments throughout all four games in this sweep, you'll see Green hitting a big basket for us in some form. Why don't we appreciate these things? Because they aren't accompanied by a lights out stat sheet?

Simply put, I don't accept arguments like "Yeah, he puts up mediocre numbers, but he always comes through when we need him to".  I think that such arguments are usually based on a pretty high selection / memory bias.  If Green came through as consistently as you suggest, this *would* show up in the stat sheet, in place of his 33% FG%.

I've seen nothing to make me believe that Jeff Green is any sort of a clutch player. 

Agree, but that said, there's potential in the guy. He just needs to stop missing layups

Yeah, he's a better player than he showed in the Knicks series.  The truth of Jeff Green definitely falls between the two extremes we see on here ("potential superstar" vs. "garbage".)

[Kiorrik]

If we are on a momentum swing, or need a shot that gives us a bigger lead, he'll usually come through and help pad the momentum, or hit down that shot to help chip away at a lead, or to give us the lead back.

He may not do this as much as we'd all like, but, sure enough, if you look at key moments throughout all four games in this sweep, you'll see Green hitting a big basket for us in some form. Why don't we appreciate these things? Because they aren't accompanied by a lights out stat sheet?

Simply put, I don't accept arguments like "Yeah, he puts up mediocre numbers, but he always comes through when we need him to".  I think that such arguments are usually based on a pretty high selection / memory bias.  If Green came through as consistently as you suggest, this *would* show up in the stat sheet, in place of his 33% FG%.

I've seen nothing to make me believe that Jeff Green is any sort of a clutch player. 

Agree, but that said, there's potential in the guy. He just needs to stop missing layups

Yeah, he's a better player than he showed in the Knicks series.  The truth of Jeff Green definitely falls between the two extremes we see on here ("potential superstar" vs. "garbage".)

In between, or both: "potential garbage-time super-star"

I know, I know, my posts are like poetry in motion. I'm awesome. TP me.

(lol)

[Q_FBE]

Green is working hard out there. THat is good enough for me. He is making some nice contributions that the Stat Fantasy followers won't appreciate or for that matter, those who value the plus-minus stat so much. He is finding his role and I suspect we will see his stats improve over time.

[rondohondo]

If we are on a momentum swing, or need a shot that gives us a bigger lead, he'll usually come through and help pad the momentum, or hit down that shot to help chip away at a lead, or to give us the lead back.

He may not do this as much as we'd all like, but, sure enough, if you look at key moments throughout all four games in this sweep, you'll see Green hitting a big basket for us in some form. Why don't we appreciate these things? Because they aren't accompanied by a lights out stat sheet?

Simply put, I don't accept arguments like "Yeah, he puts up mediocre numbers, but he always comes through when we need him to".  I think that such arguments are usually based on a pretty high selection / memory bias.  If Green came through as consistently as you suggest, this *would* show up in the stat sheet, in place of his 33% FG%.

I've seen nothing to make me believe that Jeff Green is any sort of a clutch player. 

Agree, but that said, there's potential in the guy. He just needs to stop missing layups

I agree, Green is going to come up with a big game that wins us a playoff game. What did Nate Robinson do before the ECF to show that he was any kind of clutch player? He just has to be aggressive and run the floor and attack the rim.

[GreenEnvy]

If we are on a momentum swing, or need a shot that gives us a bigger lead, he'll usually come through and help pad the momentum, or hit down that shot to help chip away at a lead, or to give us the lead back.

He may not do this as much as we'd all like, but, sure enough, if you look at key moments throughout all four games in this sweep, you'll see Green hitting a big basket for us in some form. Why don't we appreciate these things? Because they aren't accompanied by a lights out stat sheet?

Simply put, I don't accept arguments like "Yeah, he puts up mediocre numbers, but he always comes through when we need him to".  I think that such arguments are usually based on a pretty high selection / memory bias.  If Green came through as consistently as you suggest, this *would* show up in the stat sheet, in place of his 33% FG%.

I've seen nothing to make me believe that Jeff Green is any sort of a clutch player. 

What stat would show if a player was clutch?

Rose was ice cold in Game 3, yet hit a huge shot to basically win the game. Stat sheet says he was terrible. But he came up with a huge bucket.

There is no stat for "clutchness." A player can shoot 4-12, but go 3-4 in the final 5 minutes to rally a team to victory. Overall, pretty bad, but came up big when needed down the stretch.

I've seen Green hit some a couple big buckets. He's missed a bunch he shouldn't have. He hasn't been good by any metric, but you can't just throw out big shots because a player's overall numbers are subpar.

[Kiorrik]

Honestly, "clutch-ness", imo, is something you can only measure when someone has had ample opportunity to prove himself in "clutch" moments. Hence, Ray Allen can be Clutch, Rondo can be close to clutch and Avery Bradley... well... not so much.

[guava_wrench]

I remember watching one game where Green looked amazing. He was abusing his defender with turnaround jumpers in the post and other nice little moves. It is easy to only remember moments like this.

Yet I also remember games where he tried essentially the same move and missed horribly or, as he did tonight, lost the ball in a double team.

It is like people who remember Melo's lucky game 2 while forgetting that the chucks he hit in game 2 where many of the same inefficient shots that he missed in the other games.

I am not going to pretend that I can forecast Green's game. But I am aware of how easy it is to remember only a player's good moments or only their bad moments, depending upon what we expect to see from them. This is why stats are a valuable check. Yet this is not enough to forecast since players can vary greatly in efficacy depending upon the system they are playing in. Because of this there is great value in understanding the toolset a player brings to the table. Green seems to be interesting in this respect.

[ballin]

I remember watching one game where Green looked amazing. He was abusing his defender with turnaround jumpers in the post and other nice little moves. It is easy to only remember moments like this.

Yet I also remember games where he tried essentially the same move and missed horribly or, as he did tonight, lost the ball in a double team.

It is like people who remember Melo's lucky game 2 while forgetting that the chucks he hit in game 2 where many of the same inefficient shots that he missed in the other games.

I am not going to pretend that I can forecast Green's game. But I am aware of how easy it is to remember only a player's good moments or only their bad moments, depending upon what we expect to see from them. This is why stats are a valuable check. Yet this is not enough to forecast since players can vary greatly in efficacy depending upon the system they are playing in. Because of this there is great value in understanding the toolset a player brings to the table. Green seems to be interesting in this respect.

Green is the epitome of a player that needs to be stat-checked because he's so versatile and he plays so smooth.

When he does something right, he looks amazing doing it and it looks like he could repeat the feat 10 out of 10 times. And because he's so versatile, fans will remember him hitting a three, or going up for a huge rebound, or sporadically playing some great defense. So he gives off the impression he's an amazing player if you only remember the things he does right, and that leads to a lot of people around here calling him a potential superstar.

The stats cut through this bias and reveal that he's nothing more than a decent bench player on a contender.


Also, people seem to think that he will continue to improve in all aspects of his game, and that in two or three years from now he will be exactly the same player skill-wise but just better in every aspect, like a Jeff Green +plus+.

That's completely unrealistic for a player that's in his fourth year and who came into the league when he was already 21 years old. There's a saying, and it has a lot of truth to it, that you are what you are by your third year in the league. While that's not always true if you come into the league without getting many minutes, Jeff Green came into this league as a starter and has played tons of minutes. Further, he hasn't really shown much improvement at all during this time, so there's not even a positive trend in support of such a theory.

Jeff Green WILL get marginally better, but not by much. He'll never be an all-star, and that's for sure. He's just a good bench player, and it's refreshing to see what a real bench player is like after having to deal with the likes of Glen Davis, etc.