No more excuses for Jeff Green, right?

[clover]

I prefer a starter who brings it like Wallace every possession of every game over one who goes off for 30 or 35 a couple of times a season, but snoozes through 30 or 35% of the games.

Though yes, Wallace is too old to be a significant factor by the time the C's could be good again.

[CelticG1]

The flipside is that short of Jeff Green being a stud, people will make excuses for him if he is playing well

Examples:

"Someone is going to have to score points"

"Yeah he scores a lot but his fg percentage isn't good"

"We are a -x when he's on the floor"

"He isn't a good rebounder"

"He doesn't get others involved"

"He's a ball hog"

"He will never be a top 3 option on contending team"

"He only looks good cause we suck"

The thing with this is that whoever makes these threads needs to set a bar. If not you can always make a case either way for him sucking, being good or in between.

So what does Jeff Greens line need to be? Is it just eye ball test so you can make whatever tou want up? Is it 20 ppg and not care about anything else? Is it 14 ppg 50% shooting 6 rebkunds and 30+ wins?

I'd really like to hesr anything or else this atupid conversation goes round and round

[CelticG1]

Its the same exact thing with the rondo argument.

Do you want him to average the same exact stats game after game? In 82 games (if he was playing all of them) how many dud games do you allow? None? 5?

Same story different player

[wdleehi]

Its the same exact thing with the rondo argument.

Do you want him to average the same exact stats game after game? In 82 games (if he was playing all of them) how many dud games do you allow? None? 5?

Same story different player

Green is not on Rondo's level.  Not even close. 




Rondo is a star player when he was healthy.  There is reason to hope and believe he can be a star player when he returns healthy. 


Green is a good player who has the occasional star level game.

[Cman]

The flipside is that short of Jeff Green being a stud, people will make excuses for him if he is playing well

Examples:

"Someone is going to have to score points"

"Yeah he scores a lot but his fg percentage isn't good"

"We are a -x when he's on the floor"

"He isn't a good rebounder"

"He doesn't get others involved"

"He's a ball hog"

"He will never be a top 3 option on contending team"

"He only looks good cause we suck"

The thing with this is that whoever makes these threads needs to set a bar. If not you can always make a case either way for him sucking, being good or in between.

So what does Jeff Greens line need to be? Is it just eye ball test so you can make whatever tou want up? Is it 20 ppg and not care about anything else? Is it 14 ppg 50% shooting 6 rebkunds and 30+ wins?

I'd really like to hesr anything or else this atupid conversation goes round and round

TP. But get ready for lots of those types of threads. Its going to be a long year with lots of "Ls" and lots of blame to be parsed out....

[Jeff]

In past years Jeff Green has had legit excuses for not performing consistently up to his potential. 

This sentiment really confuses me.

In fact Jeff Green has been incredibly consistent for his entire career, in terms of his overall production over the course of each year. He has been almost exactly the same player since 2007-2008, his rookie year.

He has ups and downs, and hot and cold streaks, of course.

So, he's consistently inconsistent?  Got it.

[Boris Badenov]

In past years Jeff Green has had legit excuses for not performing consistently up to his potential. 

This sentiment really confuses me.

In fact Jeff Green has been incredibly consistent for his entire career, in terms of his overall production over the course of each year. He has been almost exactly the same player since 2007-2008, his rookie year.

He has ups and downs, and hot and cold streaks, of course.

So, he's consistently inconsistent?  Got it.

He has been consistent evaluated on an annual basis, with ups and downs within those years, just like many other players. It's not a contradiction, it's a clarification.

Calling him "inconsistent" without reference to the time period is an incomplete statement. Annually he has been very consistent, actually.

[indeedproceed]

The flipside is that short of Jeff Green being a stud, people will make excuses for him if he is playing well

Examples:

"Someone is going to have to score points"

"Yeah he scores a lot but his fg percentage isn't good"

"We are a -x when he's on the floor"

"He isn't a good rebounder"

"He doesn't get others involved"

"He's a ball hog"

"He will never be a top 3 option on contending team"

"He only looks good cause we suck"

The thing with this is that whoever makes these threads needs to set a bar. If not you can always make a case either way for him sucking, being good or in between.

So what does Jeff Greens line need to be? Is it just eye ball test so you can make whatever tou want up? Is it 20 ppg and not care about anything else? Is it 14 ppg 50% shooting 6 rebkunds and 30+ wins?

I'd really like to hesr anything or else this atupid conversation goes round and round

Well, if Jeff Green is inefficient, if he's a poor rebounder at the 4 (and especially if that's affecting our team rebounding)..those aren't excuses, they're legitimate criticisms.

[Jeff]

I disagree.  What's the use of evaluating annually when you can't be sure which Jeff Green is going to show up on any given night?

I say that he's been inconsistent within the context of the seasons.  There have been excuses for that but at some point he has to get past that if he's going to live up to his own expectations.

[indeedproceed]

I disagree.  What's the use of evaluating annually when you can't be sure which Jeff Green is going to show up on any given night?

I say that he's been inconsistent within the context of the seasons.  There have been excuses for that but at some point he has to get past that if he's going to live up to his own expectations.

One thing that basketball nerd-stats probably already have but should really make available to the public is a figure that looks at the typical range for a player every night. A 'consistency rating'. If a player averages 17 points a night but thats because of staggered high-scoring and low-scoring games, and a player averages 16 points a night but never really strays farther than 3pts from 16 in doing so, isn't the 16ppg player more valuable?

[Jeff]

yes, exactly IP

[Eric M VAN]

I disagree.  What's the use of evaluating annually when you can't be sure which Jeff Green is going to show up on any given night?

I say that he's been inconsistent within the context of the seasons.  There have been excuses for that but at some point he has to get past that if he's going to live up to his own expectations.

One thing that basketball nerd-stats probably already have but should really make available to the public is a figure that looks at the typical range for a player every night. A 'consistency rating'. If a player averages 17 points a night but thats because of staggered high-scoring and low-scoring games, and a player averages 16 points a night but never really strays farther than 3pts from 16 in doing so, isn't the 16ppg player more valuable?

I've seen a few things like this.

Ben Golliver came up with a stat called "SHAKE" a few years ago.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/18/1316184/shake-charts-measuring-in

The formula is there.
What Is "Shake?"

"Shake" is a term I made up to refer to a player's scoring (in)consistency.  It is essentially a measure of a player's variance in scoring.  For those interested, here's how I calculate it.

Calculate the absolute value of the difference between a player's one game point total and his season average.  If a player averages 10 points per game and he scores either 8 or 12 points, the number is 2.
Do this for every game of a season or, in this case, through the 2009-2010 All Star break.  Add them all up to get "Total Shake."  Brandon Roy is the Blazers' most consistent scorer. His total shake through the All Star break was 254 points.
Divide the "Total Shake" by the number of games played.   For Roy, this would be 254/40 or 6.35.  This becomes Roy's "Average Shake Per Game."
Take the player's average shake per game and divide it by his average points per game.  In Roy's case, that's 6.35 / 23.1.  This step yields a percentage.  In Roy's case: 27.49%.  This is what I call his "Shake."

I've also seen a few fantasy sites that have a "consistency" option for reviewing players...can't put a finger on it right now.

This is more recent commentary

http://www.ebablogs.com/index.php/a/2013/03/21/basketball_player_consistency_measure

[indeedproceed]

I disagree.  What's the use of evaluating annually when you can't be sure which Jeff Green is going to show up on any given night?

I say that he's been inconsistent within the context of the seasons.  There have been excuses for that but at some point he has to get past that if he's going to live up to his own expectations.

One thing that basketball nerd-stats probably already have but should really make available to the public is a figure that looks at the typical range for a player every night. A 'consistency rating'. If a player averages 17 points a night but thats because of staggered high-scoring and low-scoring games, and a player averages 16 points a night but never really strays farther than 3pts from 16 in doing so, isn't the 16ppg player more valuable?

I've seen a few things like this.

Ben Golliver came up with a stat called "SHAKE" a few years ago.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/18/1316184/shake-charts-measuring-in

The formula is there.
What Is "Shake?"

"Shake" is a term I made up to refer to a player's scoring (in)consistency.  It is essentially a measure of a player's variance in scoring.  For those interested, here's how I calculate it.

Calculate the absolute value of the difference between a player's one game point total and his season average.  If a player averages 10 points per game and he scores either 8 or 12 points, the number is 2.
Do this for every game of a season or, in this case, through the 2009-2010 All Star break.  Add them all up to get "Total Shake."  Brandon Roy is the Blazers' most consistent scorer. His total shake through the All Star break was 254 points.
Divide the "Total Shake" by the number of games played.   For Roy, this would be 254/40 or 6.35.  This becomes Roy's "Average Shake Per Game."
Take the player's average shake per game and divide it by his average points per game.  In Roy's case, that's 6.35 / 23.1.  This step yields a percentage.  In Roy's case: 27.49%.  This is what I call his "Shake."

I've also seen a few fantasy sites that have a "consistency" option for reviewing players...can't put a finger on it right now.

Actually I'd read that same Shake thing about 2 weeks ago when Golliver or someone else was marveling at Aldridge's consistency. Completely blanked on it. Thanks!

[CFAN38]

I agree with original post this is it for Green. He has to step into his prime this season. He is at the right age and role to shine. If he doesn't play to a all star level this year then it will never happen.

I expect/hope for a him to slightly beat his 08/09 thunder stats and average 17pts 7rbs a game while scoring consistently every game and playing above average SF defense.

[Boris Badenov]

I disagree.  What's the use of evaluating annually when you can't be sure which Jeff Green is going to show up on any given night?

I say that he's been inconsistent within the context of the seasons.  There have been excuses for that but at some point he has to get past that if he's going to live up to his own expectations.

One thing that basketball nerd-stats probably already have but should really make available to the public is a figure that looks at the typical range for a player every night. A 'consistency rating'. If a player averages 17 points a night but thats because of staggered high-scoring and low-scoring games, and a player averages 16 points a night but never really strays farther than 3pts from 16 in doing so, isn't the 16ppg player more valuable?

This a distinction I was trying to get at. Is Green's play unsatisfying because his game to game variance is so high? Or because he "should be" averaging 20/6/3 over the year instead of 15/5/2?

Conceptually the complaints are about different things. I've seen both mentioned. One is that he should be better overall over the course of an entire season. The other is that he should be more consistent overall. And, some people think he should do both.

But it's not right to ask "what's the use of evaluating annually" as though it it rendered irrelevant by inconsistency. If Green averages 20/7/3 with similar game to game inconsistency, that's improvement, right? Or, he could keep his averages the same with a lower variance. Or both.

I'm with the other posters above in that I'd like to see more variance-based metrics. I'd also like to see how consistency game to game relates to player roles and team success. For example, maybe consistency is more valuable for starters, while for 6th men (think Vinnie Johnson) can a high variance actually be a good thing? It'd be interesting.