We Only have three "Real" NBA Players on this team.

[mmmmm]

I would suggest flipping it around:  Do you think the first half of last year is representative of something we will see from Green going forward?   As far as I can tell, he's never had a stretch in his career as bad as last Fall, when it comes to production.   If anything, THAT stretch looks much more like an outlier.

For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't call it an outlier.  Rather, Green was producing almost exactly at his career averages, at least in terms of scoring per minute and his efficiency / shooting.  He just wasn't getting as many minutes, so his production looks down in comparison.

Prior to the All-star game, he averaged something like 15.0 points per 36 minutes, shooting 44.3% FG%, 34.0% 3PT%, .540 TS%.  When you look at his career, that' pretty much who Green is, and he's been remarkably consistent in that regard.  The latter half of last year was the aberration, and let's hope it's a precursor of things to come.

During the fall, it was rare that he got more than 25 minutes.  In November he barely averaged 21 and even in January he averaged under 24.   It was pretty obvious that he was being restricted in how many minutes he could play.    He'd pretty consistently been a 30+ mpg player in past years.

From February on, he averaged over 30 mpg and his production AND his efficiencies all rose dramatically.

[Roy H.]

I would suggest flipping it around:  Do you think the first half of last year is representative of something we will see from Green going forward?   As far as I can tell, he's never had a stretch in his career as bad as last Fall, when it comes to production.   If anything, THAT stretch looks much more like an outlier.

For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't call it an outlier.  Rather, Green was producing almost exactly at his career averages, at least in terms of scoring per minute and his efficiency / shooting.  He just wasn't getting as many minutes, so his production looks down in comparison.

Prior to the All-star game, he averaged something like 15.0 points per 36 minutes, shooting 44.3% FG%, 34.0% 3PT%, .540 TS%.  When you look at his career, that' pretty much who Green is, and he's been remarkably consistent in that regard.  The latter half of last year was the aberration, and let's hope it's a precursor of things to come.

During the fall, it was rare that he got more than 25 minutes.  In November he barely averaged 21 and even in January he averaged under 24.   It was pretty obvious that he was being restricted in how many minutes he could play.    He'd pretty consistently been a 30+ mpg player in past years.

From February on, he averaged over 30 mpg and his production AND his efficiencies all rose dramatically.

I'm not sure that anybody disputes what you're aying.  However, on a per-minute basis, Green was the exact same player that he's always been.  His per-minute scoring, and his shooting / efficiency, were the same as they've always been.

That February stretch was the outlier in terms of the rest of the career.  I'm assuming you don't dispute this. 

Let's hope that the excellent stretch that Green had carries forward.  There are some reasons to be skeptical -- the aforementioned career numbers, the fact that Green was shooting extremely well from 3PT at unsustainable levels -- but I'm hopeful.

[bfrombleacher]

I would suggest flipping it around:  Do you think the first half of last year is representative of something we will see from Green going forward?   As far as I can tell, he's never had a stretch in his career as bad as last Fall, when it comes to production.   If anything, THAT stretch looks much more like an outlier.

For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't call it an outlier.  Rather, Green was producing almost exactly at his career averages, at least in terms of scoring per minute and his efficiency / shooting.  He just wasn't getting as many minutes, so his production looks down in comparison.

Prior to the All-star game, he averaged something like 15.0 points per 36 minutes, shooting 44.3% FG%, 34.0% 3PT%, .540 TS%.  When you look at his career, that' pretty much who Green is, and he's been remarkably consistent in that regard.  The latter half of last year was the aberration, and let's hope it's a precursor of things to come.

During the fall, it was rare that he got more than 25 minutes.  In November he barely averaged 21 and even in January he averaged under 24.   It was pretty obvious that he was being restricted in how many minutes he could play.    He'd pretty consistently been a 30+ mpg player in past years.

From February on, he averaged over 30 mpg and his production AND his efficiencies all rose dramatically.

I'm not sure that anybody disputes what you're aying.  However, on a per-minute basis, Green was the exact same player that he's always been.  His per-minute scoring, and his shooting / efficiency, were the same as they've always been.

That February stretch was the outlier in terms of the rest of the career.  I'm assuming you don't dispute this. 

Let's hope that the excellent stretch that Green had carries forward.  There are some reasons to be skeptical -- the aforementioned career numbers, the fact that Green was shooting extremely well from 3PT at unsustainable levels -- but I'm hopeful.

He's only taken about 2 3's a game though.

[Roy H.]

I would suggest flipping it around:  Do you think the first half of last year is representative of something we will see from Green going forward?   As far as I can tell, he's never had a stretch in his career as bad as last Fall, when it comes to production.   If anything, THAT stretch looks much more like an outlier.

For whatever it's worth, I wouldn't call it an outlier.  Rather, Green was producing almost exactly at his career averages, at least in terms of scoring per minute and his efficiency / shooting.  He just wasn't getting as many minutes, so his production looks down in comparison.

Prior to the All-star game, he averaged something like 15.0 points per 36 minutes, shooting 44.3% FG%, 34.0% 3PT%, .540 TS%.  When you look at his career, that' pretty much who Green is, and he's been remarkably consistent in that regard.  The latter half of last year was the aberration, and let's hope it's a precursor of things to come.

During the fall, it was rare that he got more than 25 minutes.  In November he barely averaged 21 and even in January he averaged under 24.   It was pretty obvious that he was being restricted in how many minutes he could play.    He'd pretty consistently been a 30+ mpg player in past years.

From February on, he averaged over 30 mpg and his production AND his efficiencies all rose dramatically.

I'm not sure that anybody disputes what you're aying.  However, on a per-minute basis, Green was the exact same player that he's always been.  His per-minute scoring, and his shooting / efficiency, were the same as they've always been.

That February stretch was the outlier in terms of the rest of the career.  I'm assuming you don't dispute this. 

Let's hope that the excellent stretch that Green had carries forward.  There are some reasons to be skeptical -- the aforementioned career numbers, the fact that Green was shooting extremely well from 3PT at unsustainable levels -- but I'm hopeful.

He's only taken about 2 3's a game though.

Well, in the playoffs he was taking 3.7 3PTs per game, and making 45.5% of them.  I believe that that level of production is unsustainable for Green.

[Fan from VT]

[Fan from VT]

So looking at the scale, not much change over time. He's already signed to a deal, so fortunately his season finish isn't what a new contract will be based upon. But generally, judging 5 years of a player based on their most recent 20 games is how Blountian mistakes get made.

[mmmmm]

Plot his USG%.

That's the number that was anomalous in the last 35 or so games (29 post-AS, 6 in the playoffs).

Over the course of his career, Green posted a USG% number above 20% only ONCE before last season.   That was 21.2% way back in 2008-09, his 2nd year in the league.   Other than that, the "consistency" over all those years up until last Spring was that his USG% was always under 20%.

Last season, Green posted a career-high USG% of 22.2%.   But more telling is the breakdown over the season:

Pre AS:  20.9%
Post AS:  23.5%

By the end of the season, in April, it was up to 24.7% and it was 24.5% in the playoffs.

That's a very significant difference.    The former number is a '4th option' player.  The latter numbers are '2nd option' level usage (behind Pierce, who was around 27% most of the season.

Fourth option players get crappy end-of-shot-clock plays and with-a-prayer threes.

Second option players get actual plays called for them.

This (last Spring) was the first lengthy span in Green's career where he was getting '2nd option' level of usage.  The vast majority of his career he was typically posting the 4th or even 5th USG% rate on his team.

A big question will be just how Stevens will use Green in his offense.

[PhoSita]

I'd be really interested to see some examples of players who were thoroughly average and not especially efficient through their first 5-6 years in the league who suddenly turned into really valuable contributors.

[mmmmm]

I'd be really interested to see some examples of players who were thoroughly average and not especially efficient through their first 5-6 years in the league who suddenly turned into really valuable contributors.

Stephen Jackson comes to mind as a somewhat similar comp.  His points-per-36 floated around 14-16 for most of his first half dozen years (with one spike to 19 in the middle of that stretch), and then jumped up to 18.5+ and stayed there for about 3 seasons.   This change correlated with his USG% rate.   He's obviously tailed off over the last 3 seasons.

In 'per game' terms, Jackson changed from a guy scoring in the mid-teens his first 6 years (less than that actually in his first couple) to a guy who averaged 20+ for 3 straight seasons.

Efficiency, of course, can be measured in different ways.

Per-minute (and per-possession) production (points, assists) tends to track with USG% rate.   So changing roles on a team (or moving to a new team) CAN dramatically change those rates.

Shot efficiency, the efficiency at which you put the ball into the hoop from the field on a given shot is best measured by eFG%.   Unless a player makes a dramatic change in his shot distribution - taking more or fewer 3PT shots or getting more or fewer shots at the rim, this doesn't tend to change a lot for most players.  It is affected by USG% (because first-option players tend to get better shot quality out of plays), but not as dramatically as 'per-minute' rates.

Jackson's shooting efficiency tended to stay fairly close to his career average of 47% through his 12 year career.   That's not terribly efficient.  It's not bad.  But it's not great.   It's gone up & down over the years, but not by a lot and not in strong correlation with the above-mentioned changes to his production.

Joe Johnson is another player who fits this profile.  His per-36 numbers his first 4 seasons at Boston & Phoenix were in the low-to-mid-teens.  After he went to ATL, they jumped up to over 20 and have generally stay up above 19 per 36 ever since until last year, when he had to share shots with D-Will & others and it dropped to under 16.   Again, like with Stephens, his shooting efficiency has stayed fairly stable, though he is a more efficient shooter at just over 49% for his career.

Green's eFG% for his career is about 49% which is actually pretty good.  For comparison, Paul Pierce' career eFG% is 50%.   Green's eFG% has also stayed pretty close to the latter number, with his career average dragged down a bit by his rookie year (44%, the only year he was below 48.8%).  Last year was his career high at 51%.

Basically, eFG% tends to be a little more 'intrinsic' to the player while 'per-minute' efficiencies tend to be strongly correlated with USG%, which depends on a lot of external factors such as the nature of the team you are on and the role you play on that team.

Note - neither of those statements are absolutes.   But the effect of role and context on a player's production is very real.  This notion that a player 'is who he is' after just a few years only holds true if his role and the context he is filling it in is consistent.

Green was in a consistent role for his first 4 years - 4th option scorer playing as an undersized PF.   This last year, his role finally changed, but it evolved over the year.  He played both PF and SF last year and his USG grew from that of a 4th option to that of a solid 2nd option player.

Now, Green is about to enter a new context - the team has changed dramatically around him AND his role is also changing as it looks like he will be asked to play a lot at SG as well as SF.   From a team perspective, there should be little reason to put Green at PF, given our glut of PFs but it's not clear yet whether that will help his individual production or not. 

And, given that Rondo's presence will undoubtedly have a profound effect on the entire team, we may not get a clear picture of just how valuable Green will be long run for quite some time, at least not until Rondo is back.

[vjcsmoke]

 

Celtics have sank like a brick to the bottom .

Strap in for the  crash landing   2013 is sure to be ugly.

They're just keeping the seat warm for Wiggins.   I wish!

[Fan from VT]

Plot his USG%.

That's the number that was anomalous in the last 35 or so games (29 post-AS, 6 in the playoffs).

Over the course of his career, Green posted a USG% number above 20% only ONCE before last season.   That was 21.2% way back in 2008-09, his 2nd year in the league.   Other than that, the "consistency" over all those years up until last Spring was that his USG% was always under 20%.

Last season, Green posted a career-high USG% of 22.2%.   But more telling is the breakdown over the season:

Pre AS:  20.9%
Post AS:  23.5%

By the end of the season, in April, it was up to 24.7% and it was 24.5% in the playoffs.

That's a very significant difference.    The former number is a '4th option' player.  The latter numbers are '2nd option' level usage (behind Pierce, who was around 27% most of the season.

Fourth option players get crappy end-of-shot-clock plays and with-a-prayer threes.

Second option players get actual plays called for them.

This (last Spring) was the first lengthy span in Green's career where he was getting '2nd option' level of usage.  The vast majority of his career he was typically posting the 4th or even 5th USG% rate on his team.

A big question will be just how Stevens will use Green in his offense.

Well, or 4th option guys get wide open driving lanes because the defense is on its 2nd-4th rotation and/or wide open juicy corner threes while a 1st-2nd option is double teamed and is often tasked with the bail-out iso end of clock prayer shot, so...

Look, if Green plays like he did in the last 20 games for all of a season, then that's a good deal (would put him as similar production to what Demar Derozen-Rudy Gay-Luol Deng did for a whole year stats wise). That would be great for the C's.

The fear people are expressing is that this is 20 games out of ~400, all of which count the same for evaluating a player.

[Boris Badenov]

Plot his USG%.

That's the number that was anomalous in the last 35 or so games (29 post-AS, 6 in the playoffs).

Over the course of his career, Green posted a USG% number above 20% only ONCE before last season.   That was 21.2% way back in 2008-09, his 2nd year in the league.   Other than that, the "consistency" over all those years up until last Spring was that his USG% was always under 20%.

Last season, Green posted a career-high USG% of 22.2%.   But more telling is the breakdown over the season:

Pre AS:  20.9%
Post AS:  23.5%

By the end of the season, in April, it was up to 24.7% and it was 24.5% in the playoffs.

That's a very significant difference.    The former number is a '4th option' player.  The latter numbers are '2nd option' level usage (behind Pierce, who was around 27% most of the season.

Fourth option players get crappy end-of-shot-clock plays and with-a-prayer threes.

Second option players get actual plays called for them.

This (last Spring) was the first lengthy span in Green's career where he was getting '2nd option' level of usage.  The vast majority of his career he was typically posting the 4th or even 5th USG% rate on his team.

A big question will be just how Stevens will use Green in his offense.

The thing I find unsatisfying about this argument is the assertion that higher usage caused better play in Green's case, rather than the other way around.

Why isn't it equally plausible - or even more likely - that his better play caused a higher usage rate, and a change in his role? Doc saw him playing better, so he gave him more shots and an increased role.

In which case Stevens can "use Green in his offense" however he wants, but Green's not going to reach the level of production/efficiency he attained in those 2-3 months, which were outliers relative to the rest of his career.

[D.o.s.]

I'd be really interested to see some examples of players who were thoroughly average and not especially efficient through their first 5-6 years in the league who suddenly turned into really valuable contributors.

Chauncey Billups also fits this model, since he didn't really explode until that playoff series with the Timberwolves--right before he ended up in Detroit.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/billuch01.html

[kozlodoev]

I'd be really interested to see some examples of players who were thoroughly average and not especially efficient through their first 5-6 years in the league who suddenly turned into really valuable contributors.

Chauncey Billups also fits this model, since he didn't really explode until that playoff series with the Timberwolves--right before he ended up in Detroit.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/billuch01.html

Steve Nash also fits the going definition of "average" pretty well up until he moved to Phoenix.

[PhoSita]

I'd be really interested to see some examples of players who were thoroughly average and not especially efficient through their first 5-6 years in the league who suddenly turned into really valuable contributors.

Chauncey Billups also fits this model, since he didn't really explode until that playoff series with the Timberwolves--right before he ended up in Detroit.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/billuch01.html

Looks like he started to put it together in his 4th year (.98 WS/48) and then was a really productive player from there on out (>.150 WS/48 till he hit 34 years old).