Per 36 career numbers game

[Moranis]

Pretty sure the mystery man is Lin.

Yep.  Player A is Jeremy Lin.

The purpose of this thread was to bring a bit of reality to C-Blog.  I hear all of this talk about how Green and Bradley are going to be stars and how awful Lin is.  Yet when you look at their numbers, the one player you would project most highly is in fact Lin.

Right, and as any exercise without context, this is pretty pointless. Lin put his numbers by being the lead guard on a couple of pretty horrible teams. Green did so playing out of position behind Durant and Westbrook.

And I don't think anyone should or will project Bradley to be as productive as the other two.

Houston had a better record than Boston did last year and I seem to recall Houston have James Harden.  The year before Lin was on a playoff bound Knicks team with a plethora of wing scorers. 

Thanks for proving my point about C-Bloggers lacking reality.

[PhoSita]

I'm still not clear on your point.

Three pretty average players with pretty average-for-their-position production per 36 minutes.

[Fafnir]

I'm still not clear on your point.

Three pretty average players with pretty average-for-their-position production per 36 minutes.

His point appears to be much of "celticsblog" is out of touch and delusional about Green/Bradley and our other players. This is otherwise known as disagreeing with him.

Furthermore I assume he makes this point from his Castle in Latveria while stroking a white cat and monologuing into a TV screen that takes up most of a wall.

[Prof. Clutch]

I'm still not clear on your point.

Three pretty average players with pretty average-for-their-position production per 36 minutes.

His point appears to be much of "celticsblog" is out of touch and delusional about Green/Bradley and our other players. This is otherwise known as disagreeing with him.

Furthermore I assume he makes this point from his Castle in Latveria while stroking a white cat and monologuing into a TV screen that takes up most of a wall.

Moranis is Dr. Claw?

[Fafnir]

Either Dr. Claw or Dr. Doom I'm not sure, it was a strange mixed metaphor that popped into my head.

[PhoSita]

I'm still not clear on your point.

Three pretty average players with pretty average-for-their-position production per 36 minutes.

His point appears to be much of "celticsblog" is out of touch and delusional about Green/Bradley and our other players. This is otherwise known as disagreeing with him.

Furthermore I assume he makes this point from his Castle in Latveria while stroking a white cat and monologuing into a TV screen that takes up most of a wall.

Nice image.

I think it's a bit of a straw-man argument since I doubt that many of the more-informed people on these forums would base their appraisal of Bradley / Green as high quality players on their career per-36 numbers.

[Boris Badenov]

I'd think the best way to make such a point is not by choosing as a comparison someone who plays a different position.

Rather, pick several other players who look very similar and play the same position, but who would be "undervalued" by CBers.

Like, you could show that Green's per-36 numbers last year were not too different from numbers posted in recent years by players like Matt Barnes, Martell Webster, Dorell Wright, DeMarre Carroll and Marvin Williams.

For example.

[PhoSita]

I'd think the best way to make such a point is not by choosing as a comparison someone who plays a different position.

Rather, pick several other players who look very similar and play the same position, but who would be "undervalued" by CBers.

Like, you could show that Green's per-36 numbers last year were not too different from numbers posted in recent years by players like Matt Barnes, Martell Webster, Dorell Wright, DeMarre Carroll and Marvin Williams.

For example.

Right.

Though I think that goes more towards showing that per-36 numbers are flawed than anything else.

I think most people acknowledge that Green's per-36 numbers, even last season, were not particularly impressive.

The thing with Green is that he clearly has a lot of talent, and he'll play 2-3 games in a row where he is one of the best players on the floor, scoring 18-25 points per game.  Then he'll have a game or three where he scores in single digits and is hardly noticeable.

The guys you mentioned have shown themselves to be at best decent role players.  Whereas Green fluctuates wildly between looking like a star #2 or #3 offensive option and looking like a replacement-level small forward who is a pathetic rebounder for his size and athleticism.

[Donoghus]

 
Thanks for proving my point about C-Bloggers lacking reality.

Blanket statement much?  Jeez.   

[Boris Badenov]

I'd think the best way to make such a point is not by choosing as a comparison someone who plays a different position.

Rather, pick several other players who look very similar and play the same position, but who would be "undervalued" by CBers.

Like, you could show that Green's per-36 numbers last year were not too different from numbers posted in recent years by players like Matt Barnes, Martell Webster, Dorell Wright, DeMarre Carroll and Marvin Williams.

For example.

Right.

Though I think that goes more towards showing that per-36 numbers are flawed than anything else.

I think most people acknowledge that Green's per-36 numbers, even last season, were not particularly impressive.

The thing with Green is that he clearly has a lot of talent, and he'll play 2-3 games in a row where he is one of the best players on the floor, scoring 18-25 points per game.  Then he'll have a game or three where he scores in single digits and is hardly noticeable.

The guys you mentioned have shown themselves to be at best decent role players.  Whereas Green fluctuates wildly between looking like a star #2 or #3 offensive option and looking like a replacement-level small forward who is a pathetic rebounder for his size and athleticism.

See? I think we're already having a better discussion. Haha.

I don't think that per-36 numbers are flawed, necessarily. They're just an incomplete picture, like any set of metrics. I do think they can be useful as a starting point, or to help answer basic questions (like who is a better rebounder or 3 point shooter).

I will say that using per-36 numbers for Bradley is even less appropriate, I think, given that they reveal very little about defense. Show me the set of guys with those per-36 numbers on offense and similar Synergy numbers on D and the conversation starts from a much better place.

[PhoSita]

I'd think the best way to make such a point is not by choosing as a comparison someone who plays a different position.

Rather, pick several other players who look very similar and play the same position, but who would be "undervalued" by CBers.

Like, you could show that Green's per-36 numbers last year were not too different from numbers posted in recent years by players like Matt Barnes, Martell Webster, Dorell Wright, DeMarre Carroll and Marvin Williams.

For example.

Right.

Though I think that goes more towards showing that per-36 numbers are flawed than anything else.

I think most people acknowledge that Green's per-36 numbers, even last season, were not particularly impressive.

The thing with Green is that he clearly has a lot of talent, and he'll play 2-3 games in a row where he is one of the best players on the floor, scoring 18-25 points per game.  Then he'll have a game or three where he scores in single digits and is hardly noticeable.

The guys you mentioned have shown themselves to be at best decent role players.  Whereas Green fluctuates wildly between looking like a star #2 or #3 offensive option and looking like a replacement-level small forward who is a pathetic rebounder for his size and athleticism.

See? I think we're already having a better discussion. Haha.

I don't think that per-36 numbers are flawed, necessarily. They're just an incomplete picture, like any set of metrics. I do think they can be useful as a starting point, or to help answer basic questions (like who is a better rebounder or 3 point shooter).

I will say that using per-36 numbers for Bradley is even less appropriate, I think, given that they reveal very little about defense. Show me the set of guys with those per-36 numbers on offense and similar Synergy numbers on D and the conversation starts from a much better place.

Yeah, I was gonna say that with Bradley it should be obvious that the primary reason to have him on the floor is not his box-score production.  Like with Tony Allen, presumably you play him big minutes because you like what he does for the team defense by pressuring the hell out of the opposing ball-handler and you live with the lack of offensive production.

[Moranis]

Either Dr. Claw or Dr. Doom I'm not sure, it was a strange mixed metaphor that popped into my head.

Now that is funny.

[Moranis]

I'd think the best way to make such a point is not by choosing as a comparison someone who plays a different position.

Rather, pick several other players who look very similar and play the same position, but who would be "undervalued" by CBers.

Like, you could show that Green's per-36 numbers last year were not too different from numbers posted in recent years by players like Matt Barnes, Martell Webster, Dorell Wright, DeMarre Carroll and Marvin Williams.

For example.

I chose Lin because there has been a lot of discussion about him on this board recently. 

How about Anthony Morrow

15.8 p, 1.6 a, 3.8 r, 0.9 s, 0.2 b, TS% of 57.0, DRTG 114

Obviously not as good as Green, but not so far off either.  He is also basically the same age with the same experience level.

or maybe Charlie Villanueva (a 3/4 combo though he leans more to the 4 than Green)

17.9 p, 1.5 a, 8.0 r, 0.9 s, 0.9 b, TS% of 52.3, DRTG 109

[kozlodoev]

Pretty sure the mystery man is Lin.

Yep.  Player A is Jeremy Lin.

The purpose of this thread was to bring a bit of reality to C-Blog.  I hear all of this talk about how Green and Bradley are going to be stars and how awful Lin is.  Yet when you look at their numbers, the one player you would project most highly is in fact Lin.

Right, and as any exercise without context, this is pretty pointless. Lin put his numbers by being the lead guard on a couple of pretty horrible teams. Green did so playing out of position behind Durant and Westbrook.

And I don't think anyone should or will project Bradley to be as productive as the other two.

Houston had a better record than Boston did last year and I seem to recall Houston have James Harden.  The year before Lin was on a playoff bound Knicks team with a plethora of wing scorers. 

Thanks for proving my point about C-Bloggers lacking reality.

Lin's career per-36 numbers are chiefly driven by his New York performance, where he put big numbers in short minutes on a horrible team. So perhaps I misspoke, since he only spent one year there as opposed to a couple -- but that's still more than a quarter of his career games.

Jeff Green, on the other hand, spent 4.5 seasons in Oklahoma, 1 season out with surgery, and 1 season recovering from said surgery and coming off the bench behind Paul Pierce (for the most part).

So yeah, my point still stands.

[kozlodoev]

I'd think the best way to make such a point is not by choosing as a comparison someone who plays a different position.

Rather, pick several other players who look very similar and play the same position, but who would be "undervalued" by CBers.

Like, you could show that Green's per-36 numbers last year were not too different from numbers posted in recent years by players like Matt Barnes, Martell Webster, Dorell Wright, DeMarre Carroll and Marvin Williams.

For example.

I chose Lin because there has been a lot of discussion about him on this board recently. 

How about Anthony Morrow

15.8 p, 1.6 a, 3.8 r, 0.9 s, 0.2 b, TS% of 57.0, DRTG 114

Obviously not as good as Green, but not so far off either.  He is also basically the same age with the same experience level.

or maybe Charlie Villanueva (a 3/4 combo though he leans more to the 4 than Green)

17.9 p, 1.5 a, 8.0 r, 0.9 s, 0.9 b, TS% of 52.3, DRTG 109

The problem is not who you pick to compare to, the problem is how you treat Green's production. It's all about context. Using per-36 stats, you can probably argue that the 08-09 version of Nate Robinson was a bigger star than Paul Pierce has ever been, for example.