Starting Point Guard thru December?

[D.o.s.]

I'm a bit surprised this at myself but the numbers I just looked at in the link I published above, say Bradley is possibly the WORST choice on this team to fill in at PG.

There a few caveats because of Bradley's injury, inexperience etc, but his performance has been his performance and his game (statistically) just doesn't lend to him playing the position.

His assists/TO % are abysmal, he can't hasn't shown an ability to create shots for himself or others.

Don't get me wrong, I like they guy, but not as a PG from what I'm seeing.

LOL - here I am - a tried and convicted, 'stats guy' - to say:  "Stats don't mean xxxxx!"  and "Try watching the games with your eyes!!!"

More specifically, that article is, imho, once again simply a very poor usage of statistics.

I'm not saying that Bradley might not be 'the worst' choice to fill in at PG.  But that analysis in that article is pretty much useless to me if I want to ask that question.

<removed a lot of stuff>

Hey, I always go with your interpretation when it comes to stats, but regardless of how you feel about his methodology, what statistical info would you trot out that makes Bradley a good, or even acceptable band aid for the PG position vs Crawford or Lee?

I hear what you're saying but do you think his conclusions are wrong or do you just not like how he got to them?

Do you think the 9 games he played in the D-League and how he played in high school are a better barometer of how he'll perform in the NBA than how he's actually performed in 145 games in the NBA and a year of college?

He's just been mis-coached or under utilized and has been just waiting for the right situation to show he's now an adequate PG?

I'm seriously confused, are you just being contrarian (fellow grouchy old man  )

Well, to answer your question, I wouldn't.

The fact is, I don't see any statistical basis for advocating Bradley as the 'band-aid' starting PG over Crawford -- except maybe defense at PG.

My point is, I also don't see any statistical basis for ruling him _out_ as a better choice for this.

In my opinion, there just really isn't enough data on Bradley playing true point on offense in the NBA to say he's good or bad.

At some point, you have rely on scouting and development and what the staff believes is within the potential of a young player.   No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.

Danny has been scouting Bradley for years and he and his staff know more about all their players than we do.  This is not just an appeal to authority, but rather a simple fact that fans have to accept.  That doesn't mean that the staff won't be wrong at times.

There is a trend that is being used by a couple of executives - most notably whatsisname at Orlando who used to be with OKC.   The idea is that if you have an SG with the right physical attributes - quickness, among other things - you try him out at PG and force-feed him into becoming competent at it.   This was done with Westbrook and is going to happen with Oladipo.  There will be growing pains, but if he makes the transition, you end up with a bigger PG who can shoot.  If he doesn't you slide them back to SG.   

I don't think the Celtic's intend long term to turn Bradley into a starting PG in the same way - because they apparently want Rondo for the long term in that role - but they may feel based on his attributes (beyond what he's displayed in his limited NBA time) that it is possible for Bradley to do the job, with some decent training.   And that it won't hurt his development at SG to try this out.

That seems like selective interpretation to me, as you've pointed out that you disagree with the statistical argument that would lead most people to conclude that Bradley at the point is not a good idea, offensively.

So essentially, you're saying "I see the stats, I don't believe these stats, even though normally I like stats."


If you have any evidence that Bradley would be a serviceable point, please share. I want to be stoked on the idea.

Also, the idea that the Celtics are doing the Westbrook thing with Bradley... I'd say that's a reach.

[Boris Badenov]

None of your snippets mention anything about his passing, not one thing.  His "play creator" capability is exclusively about his scoring.  These snippets do not help make the case that Bradley once upon a time showed the ability to play point guard.  I remember what people said about him him high school.  They said he was amazingly quick, that he was committed to defense way beyond his years and possessed a great pull up jumper but that he was a combo guard all that way.  I think they used the word "combo" only because that's usually what's said about 6'2-6'3 guys who can't play point full time.

In nine games in the D-League in 2011, he averaged 5.2 assists and 4.3 turnovers per game.  If you've ever seen a D-League game and are familiar with the caliber of play, that is not very impressive.  It's not a positive data point in his viability to play point guard.

Well if you followed the links, you'd find that there are comments about his passing - and in particular they mention shortcomings.

And yes, I myself have always projected Bradley as a 2 and not a 1.   But that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying him out at the role.   This is a development season and the team is going to make development decisions.   That's my point that this decision is about far more than the passing and turnover statistics from a limited amount of NBA playing time.

But unless you feel they are incompetent, Danny and his staff aren't going to make those kinds of decisions without basis.   They almost certainly have more information about and familiarity with Bradley's raw capabilities than we do.

For a "tried and convicted" stats guy who loathes to say to people to watch the game, you blast almost every statistical analysis posted here.  Coincidentally or not, the ones you blast always tend to have negative views of the players.  What makes you think that watching Bradley play will lead to the opposite conclusion anyway?  Having seen him all these games, I am 100 percent convinced he can't play point guard oh because I don't know, he can't dribble the freaking ball.

And thanks for the clarification, in case anyone was confused, that Danny and Co. will be the final judges.  I really really doubt that anyone didn't know that.  I think people know that it's just their opinions.

Ya know - you should realize that CelticsBlog has rules about calling people out.

I criticize stat based arguments that I disagree with.  I also criticize non-statistical arguments I disagree with.   It's a blog.

Good to know you are "100 percent convinced he can't play point guard oh because [you] don't know, he can't dribble the freaking ball.".

You may be right.   Apparently, though, Ainge & Stevens are not quite at that '100%' confidence level that you are at yet.

With time, maybe they will reach your level of enlightenment on this.

An alternative explanation is that Ainge and Stevens know full well that Bradley will stink, but don't care too much because winning isn't a priority right now and all the other options are even worse (including spending money to sign a legit PG).

So, they are saying the right things to protect AB's feelings and keep the league off their backs.

[mmmmm]

Okie dokie, My point is, we've had 145 games of NBA play to evaluate Bradley and what he can do and can't do. A portion of those games have been at PG.

I find it somewhat questionable that, at least from his statistical raw %'s for TOV & ASSTS & shot creation, he's going to improve to the point that he's an adequate PG.

If there's some idea that he'd been asked to be a lousy PG before and that NOW the braintrust is going to coach him up and grow him into playing well at the position ( I find it hard to believe that they somehow coached him to be sub-standard before this), that will be a revelation for me.

I'm not sure where you are getting that.  No one is saying that.  I'm pointing out that he's never really been asked to play point - as in run the offense.  That is a completely different thing than saying he was asked to be lousy.

As to coaching, he's never been through a full training camp.

As for "No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.", Sure, but taking that to an extreme, I wouldn't expect the organization to suddenly say "Bradley could play Center, he's just never had a chance to show what he can do there"

Obviously I'm being facetious. Anyways, blah blah blah, I'm not getting your take on this. Maybe that's just me.

The difference is, Bradley clearly does not have the raw physical necessities to play center.   But he does have them to play PG.   We know he has the physical size and quickness. 

We don't know if he has the ability to improve his handle, court awareness and passing.

My 'take' is also that TO% and Assist% are both numbers the depend heavily on role.  They are products of the way a player is used and what they are trying to do on the court.   Further, they are noisy.   Players even in the same role will have those number jump up & down quite a bit year to year.  They only tend to smooth out over around a 3 year average.  For example, Rudy Gay - a player in pretty much the same role year after year in Memphis - had his TO Rate go from almost 13 to just over 10 and then back over 12 in three subsequent years (2009-20011).  That's swinging ~10-25% year to year.  Overall, that evens out.  His assist rate from 2010-2011 jumped from 9.4 all the way to 13.8! 

Looking at the TO & Assist rates of players who were not asked to run the offense (and small sample sizes at that) and then trying to use that as a meaningful indicator of how well they might do when asked seems ridiculous to me.

All that said - I totally share a lot of the skepticism being expressed.  I have always considered Bradley more suited to the SG role, working off the ball.   I like him working along side Rondo in that role.   But I don't claim to know the full extent of Bradley's raw skills or his potential.

I have no problem with thinking that Crawford looks like the most suitable for this role right now.   I think a lot of fans underrate Crawford's value in this regard.   That said, I don't think Crawford represents the long term upside that Danny & Brad are probably looking to build with.   Some decisions are going to be made with that in mind.

[mmmmm]

Well, to answer your question, I wouldn't.

The fact is, I don't see any statistical basis for advocating Bradley as the 'band-aid' starting PG over Crawford -- except maybe defense at PG.

My point is, I also don't see any statistical basis for ruling him _out_ as a better choice for this.

In my opinion, there just really isn't enough data on Bradley playing true point on offense in the NBA to say he's good or bad.

At some point, you have rely on scouting and development and what the staff believes is within the potential of a young player.   No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.

That seems like selective interpretation to me, as you've pointed out that you disagree with the statistical argument that would lead most people to conclude that Bradley at the point is not a good idea, offensively.

So essentially, you're saying "I see the stats, I don't believe these stats, even though normally I like stats."

Um ... so, all 'stats' are created equal?

Just because someone uses numbers in an argument doesn't mean it is a credible use of those numbers.

I don't like the way THAT article uses THOSE statistics because (a) they are lacking common, normalized context (the players being measured aren't all trying to perform the same role) and (b) some of the players have sample sizes that are way too small to be credible predictors of their future performance - especially if in a different role.

This is not being selective.  This is being critical.

If you have any evidence that Bradley would be a serviceable point, please share. I want to be stoked on the idea.

Please refer to my statement up above, in bold - which was right before the statement you bolded in your reply.

[mmmmm]

An alternative explanation is that Ainge and Stevens know full well that Bradley will stink, but don't care too much because winning isn't a priority right now and all the other options are even worse (including spending money to sign a legit PG).

So, they are saying the right things to protect AB's feelings and keep the league off their backs.

That's, of course, certainly possible.

However, absent any way of knowing that other than mind-reading, I'm just going to stick with the 'apparent' explanation, which is simply based on what they are saying and doing.

[Boris Badenov]

An alternative explanation is that Ainge and Stevens know full well that Bradley will stink, but don't care too much because winning isn't a priority right now and all the other options are even worse (including spending money to sign a legit PG).

So, they are saying the right things to protect AB's feelings and keep the league off their backs.

That's, of course, certainly possible.

However, absent any way of knowing that other than mind-reading, I'm just going to stick with the 'apparent' explanation, which is simply based on what they are saying and doing.

You can certainly do that.

My point was more that you might be more careful about dismissing the views of others, based on an assumption that Danny Ainge is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[thirstyboots18]

I have been on vaca, and I am not sure what you guys are talking about, really.  It seems pretty obvious to me that Bradley is a two guard, who thrives on defense.  When he was playing the point, his defense really suffered last year.  Also, it seemed to me that he had a little trouble adjusting when his position was changed...trouble learning the sets and the preferences of his teammates from the point position.  Not a really strong passer, not strong setting up his own scoring, either.

Didn't KO grow up playing the point?  Wasn't his father a coach?  Isn't he supposed to be a good passer?  He can probably play some point forward and help distribute the ball.  I think Bradley's defense is much too important to the team to have him playing the point.  If Kelly is a great rebounder I will rethink my position.  I am hopeful that Sully (assuming his problems are behind him) will pick up the rebounding now that his back has had the summer to rehab.  No one on the team can take Rondo's place, but they should be able to mix it up enough to cover until he gets back.

[Boris Badenov]

I have been on vaca, and I am not sure what you guys are talking about, really.  It seems pretty obvious to me that Bradley is a two guard, who thrives on defense.  When he was playing the point, his defense really suffered last year.  Also, it seemed to me that he had a little trouble adjusting when his position was changed...trouble learning the sets and the preferences of his teammates from the point position.  Not a really strong passer, not strong setting up his own scoring, either.

Didn't KO grow up playing the point?  Wasn't his father a coach?  Isn't he supposed to be a good passer?  He can probably play some point forward and help distribute the ball.  I think Bradley's defense is much too important to the team to have him playing the point.  If Kelly is a great rebounder I will rethink my position.  I am hopeful that Sully (assuming his problems are behind him) will pick up the rebounding now that his back has had the summer to rehab.  No one on the team can take Rondo's place, but they should be able to mix it up enough to cover until he gets back.

Green was much more of a facilitator at Georgetown than he has been as a pro, not so much dribbling and creating, but out of the low and high posts. I'd hope Stevens pursues that route as well.

I worry that KO will not be ready for heavy minutes - particularly with the ball in his hands - early in the season.

[mmmmm]

An alternative explanation is that Ainge and Stevens know full well that Bradley will stink, but don't care too much because winning isn't a priority right now and all the other options are even worse (including spending money to sign a legit PG).

So, they are saying the right things to protect AB's feelings and keep the league off their backs.

That's, of course, certainly possible.

However, absent any way of knowing that other than mind-reading, I'm just going to stick with the 'apparent' explanation, which is simply based on what they are saying and doing.

You can certainly do that.

My point was more that you might be more careful about dismissing the views of others, based on an assumption that Danny Ainge is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Great advice - except that is not what I was doing.

[Eric M VAN]

Okie dokie, My point is, we've had 145 games of NBA play to evaluate Bradley and what he can do and can't do. A portion of those games have been at PG.

I find it somewhat questionable that, at least from his statistical raw %'s for TOV & ASSTS & shot creation, he's going to improve to the point that he's an adequate PG.

If there's some idea that he'd been asked to be a lousy PG before and that NOW the braintrust is going to coach him up and grow him into playing well at the position ( I find it hard to believe that they somehow coached him to be sub-standard before this), that will be a revelation for me.

I'm not sure where you are getting that.  No one is saying that.  I'm pointing out that he's never really been asked to play point - as in run the offense.  That is a completely different thing than saying he was asked to be lousy.

As to coaching, he's never been through a full training camp.

As for "No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.", Sure, but taking that to an extreme, I wouldn't expect the organization to suddenly say "Bradley could play Center, he's just never had a chance to show what he can do there"

Obviously I'm being facetious. Anyways, blah blah blah, I'm not getting your take on this. Maybe that's just me.

The difference is, Bradley clearly does not have the raw physical necessities to play center.   But he does have them to play PG.   We know he has the physical size and quickness. 

We don't know if he has the ability to improve his handle, court awareness and passing.

My 'take' is also that TO% and Assist% are both numbers the depend heavily on role.  They are products of the way a player is used and what they are trying to do on the court.   Further, they are noisy.   Players even in the same role will have those number jump up & down quite a bit year to year.  They only tend to smooth out over around a 3 year average.  For example, Rudy Gay - a player in pretty much the same role year after year in Memphis - had his TO Rate go from almost 13 to just over 10 and then back over 12 in three subsequent years (2009-20011).  That's swinging ~10-25% year to year.  Overall, that evens out.  His assist rate from 2010-2011 jumped from 9.4 all the way to 13.8! 

Looking at the TO & Assist rates of players who were not asked to run the offense (and small sample sizes at that) and then trying to use that as a meaningful indicator of how well they might do when asked seems ridiculous to me.

All that said - I totally share a lot of the skepticism being expressed.  I have always considered Bradley more suited to the SG role, working off the ball.   I like him working along side Rondo in that role.   But I don't claim to know the full extent of Bradley's raw skills or his potential.

I have no problem with thinking that Crawford looks like the most suitable for this role right now.   I think a lot of fans underrate Crawford's value in this regard.   That said, I don't think Crawford represents the long term upside that Danny & Brad are probably looking to build with.   Some decisions are going to be made with that in mind.

I guess I'm not being analytical enough about it.

Bradley started 39 games after Rondo went out last year. If you're telling me he wasn't playing PG during those 39 games, or was thrust into some hybrid type of position that wasn't what he'd be asked to play under this years circumstances, then I suppose you have a point that "we" can't determine how he'll do running an offense under this years model.

To speak to your criticism of the analysis that started this back and forth, I can't condemn the analysis because it's simplistic or measured in some fashion to show every conceivable circumstance.

These guys TOV%, ASST% etc are what they are. Perhaps that's too "5000" feet for you or anyone to actually determine whether a player is more apt to be suitable for one position vs another. I thought (and think) it's an interesting glance at who's actually performed in certain areas you'd want a PG to excel at.

[thirstyboots18]

Green was much more of a facilitator at Georgetown than he has been as a pro, not so much dribbling and creating, but out of the low and high posts. I'd hope Stevens pursues that route as well.

I worry that KO will not be ready for heavy minutes - particularly with the ball in his hands - early in the season.

Just like I don't want Bradley to have to split his mindset away from defense (I don't mean not taking offensive when it is there), I don't particularly want Green going back to being a third option on scoring right now.  I want him to continue to be aggressive on offense and not have to worry about distribution.  I like the way he was taking control of offense last year.  I want more of that. I am not saying that KO is capable of being the primary ball handler or playing long minutes (although he may be in better shape than we think).  I am saying he may be able to help fill in with distribution, and it may add to the defensive problems of opponents, not knowing where the offense is starting.  He seems like a bright kid who can pick up the offensive sets quickly.  Or at least, one can hope.

[KeepBigAl]

When Rondo got hurt last season, and the Cs began their winning streak, everyone commented on how much faster they were pushing the pace.

If you watch those games, they pushed hardest when Lee, Bradley and Barbosa were rotated it at the 1-2.

It didnt matter who was technically the 1, b/c either guy could get up the floor as fast as possible, and run the point (lee did much better than i thought he was capable of). This kept defenses off-balance.

A mix of lee/bradley can work well and it's too bad doc went away from this in the playoffs in favor of more terry/twill.

[Chris]

When Rondo got hurt last season, and the Cs began their winning streak, everyone commented on how much faster they were pushing the pace.

If you watch those games, they pushed hardest when Lee, Bradley and Barbosa were rotated it at the 1-2.

It didnt matter who was technically the 1, b/c either guy could get up the floor as fast as possible, and run the point (lee did much better than i thought he was capable of). This kept defenses off-balance.

A mix of lee/bradley can work well and it's too bad doc went away from this in the playoffs in favor of more terry/twill.

It wasn't so much that it kept defenses off balance.  If defenses were able to set up, they really struggled to score.  But, by leaking guys out, and looking for the outlet, rather than looking for Rondo or Pierce, they were able to get a lot of quick offense. 

[Fafnir]

When Rondo got hurt last season, and the Cs began their winning streak, everyone commented on how much faster they were pushing the pace.

If you watch those games, they pushed hardest when Lee, Bradley and Barbosa were rotated it at the 1-2.

It didnt matter who was technically the 1, b/c either guy could get up the floor as fast as possible, and run the point (lee did much better than i thought he was capable of). This kept defenses off-balance.

A mix of lee/bradley can work well and it's too bad doc went away from this in the playoffs in favor of more terry/twill.

It wasn't so much that it kept defenses off balance.  If defenses were able to set up, they really struggled to score.  But, by leaking guys out, and looking for the outlet, rather than looking for Rondo or Pierce, they were able to get a lot of quick offense.

And it didn't work long term.

That winning streak also coincided with a home streak against some weaker teams too.

Of course the biggest factor was Pierce stopped playing like poo. He was a legit all-nba caliber SF after Rondo's injury. The ten or so games before he was shooting in the 30s and playing awful defense.

[D.o.s.]

Well, to answer your question, I wouldn't.

The fact is, I don't see any statistical basis for advocating Bradley as the 'band-aid' starting PG over Crawford -- except maybe defense at PG.

My point is, I also don't see any statistical basis for ruling him _out_ as a better choice for this.

In my opinion, there just really isn't enough data on Bradley playing true point on offense in the NBA to say he's good or bad.

At some point, you have rely on scouting and development and what the staff believes is within the potential of a young player.   No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.

That seems like selective interpretation to me, as you've pointed out that you disagree with the statistical argument that would lead most people to conclude that Bradley at the point is not a good idea, offensively.

So essentially, you're saying "I see the stats, I don't believe these stats, even though normally I like stats."

Um ... so, all 'stats' are created equal?

Just because someone uses numbers in an argument doesn't mean it is a credible use of those numbers.

I don't like the way THAT article uses THOSE statistics because (a) they are lacking common, normalized context (the players being measured aren't all trying to perform the same role) and (b) some of the players have sample sizes that are way too small to be credible predictors of their future performance - especially if in a different role.

This is not being selective.  This is being critical.

If you have any evidence that Bradley would be a serviceable point, please share. I want to be stoked on the idea.

Please refer to my statement up above, in bold - which was right before the statement you bolded in your reply.

I'm all for being critical, but as to your suggestion that there isn't enough data on whether or not Bradley is fit to play the point, well, I'm not sure that the 'argument from ignorance' angle applies here. There is some statistical argument for keeping Bradley away from the point on offense. I haven't seen any that says he should be there. You've got every right to disagree with the numbers, and I'm not chiding you on that, but it is interesting that, of the data that exists, only one position is really bolstered by the numbers.

Of course, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and someone else may have run the numbers in a way that says Bradley is the way to  go until Rondo gets back. I haven't seen that, though.


Anyway, beyond the numbers:
I thought it was in this thread, but in reading back I guess I posted it in another--I've seen no indication from Bradley's play at the point that he can run the pick and roll as the ballhandler, consistently make successful entry passes into the low post, hit the open man in rhythm for a jumper, and create his own shot at the NBA level*. Those are more or less my criteria for evaluating an NBA point on offense. Last year he was fortunate enough to have Pierce, who could play the point forward well enough to set up the halfcourt. I don't believe that Green can do that as well as The Truth, nor do I think that half-court execution will be the name of the game for this year's squad.



*I live in Portland--I saw him create for himself on the Red Claws, so I know that he can do it there, and there's a lot of evidence that he could do it in high school and in college. But I still haven't seen him do it on the Celtics.