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

[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

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

Looks like from the 5th year on Nash was really good.  Definitely a bit up and down before that, though.

[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.

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.

I'm seeing that after the first 3 full seasons, Joe Johnson was over 15 PER and regularly over .100 WS/48 all the way until he joined the Nets this past year (and that's definitely an example of a different role hurting a player's effectiveness -- same thing happened to Gerald Wallace).

[LarBrd33]

"Real proven NBA starters that you can count on each and every night.  In my opinion it's Wallace, Rondo, And Sullinger."

Lol, what?

[fairweatherfan]

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.

I'd suggest Bruce Bowen except his value never really showed up in efficiency stats, so it's kinda hard to compare. 

[LarBrd33]

Thanks for these.  They back up what I've been saying for a while.  Jeff is a solid player.  The idea that he massively improved is a myth... he's always been a solid player when given minutes and touches.  He'll never be a star, but he'll always be capable of giving a bad team 15-18 a night.  Danny loves these type of fringe all-star Ricky Davis types he can buy low and sell high.

[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

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).

Fascinating. Coincidentally, Jeff Green had a comparable WS/48 in his 4th year (.095 to Billups' .098), which was actually a step down from the WS/48 he had the year before. After that, he obviously had a heart surgery.

You're trying to make this more straightforward than it is. Jeff Green has been a decent player so far, and he may or may not take it to the next level -- but there's nothing suggesting that he won't, and there certainly are other examples of players who have.

[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.

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.

I don't think I stated that Green's higher USG caused better play in Green's case.

I'm pointing out that higher USG is what is correlated with his better play.

USG also very clearly tends to track a player's role in an offense.     So a big change in USG is indicative of a big change in the way a player is being used.   You can argue over whether the tail is wagging the dog or vice versa.  I'm just pointing out that their is a wag.

If Doc played him more and he responded by playing better - that's good, right?

If he simply started playing better (perhaps because further removed from his rehab?) and so Doc responded by playing him more - that's also good, right?

Why does it matter which came first?

The thing I disagree with, is the contention made by many on this blog that a player simply "is who he is" after a few years as if context and role do not matter.  As if how a player is utilized by his coach and his teammates doesn't matter.

It's not an easy thing to search for, given the nature of the search tools on most web sites.  So I hesitate to assert just how common it is.   But just anecdotally, this thread has already turned up several examples that show that a player's production CAN change dramatically with a change in context and/or role.   Jackson, Johnson and Billups all experienced dramatic up-ticks.   Wallace experienced sudden degradation in performance.   Maybe he'll bounce back in this new situation?

It's also kinda strange how folks who want to dismiss Green's performance last Spring by averaging it into the entire season tend to completely gloss over the probable impact on his performance in the Fall that missing the entire prior season due to open heart surgery might have been.

This is a case where taking an average definitely obscures a lot of information.

[PhoSita]

You're trying to make this more straightforward than it is. Jeff Green has been a decent player so far, and he may or may not take it to the next level -- but there's nothing suggesting that he won't, and there certainly are other examples of players who have.

What I'm suggesting, like Roy, is that at least over significant sample sizes (i.e. whole seasons) Jeff Green has been remarkably consistent in terms of almost any stat you can think of, traditional or advanced.

Expecting him to become a drastically different player -- e.g. 17+ PER, scoring 20+ points a game, becoming a good rebounder for his size / position, becoming a good playmaker for somebody who handles the ball as much as he does -- seems extremely optimistic considering there's very little evidence aside from a game, or a handful of games, or a month here and there where Green was hitting a lot more threes or taking a lot more shots than he normally does.


Green's greatest asset as a player is probably that you know exactly what to expect from him -- over the long haul.  His biggest weakness is that you can't rely on him to do anything especially well in any particular game. 

I think we should talk about how valuable he is on that basis, not on the basis that six years after he was drafted he's going to change.

[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.

If Doc played him more and he responded by playing better - that's good, right?

If he simply started playing better (perhaps because further removed from his rehab?) and so Doc responded by playing him more - that's also good, right?

Why does it matter which came first?

It's critical, actually. If giving him a bigger role has a causal effect on his playing better...then, to quote you, "how Stevens will use him in the offense" has an independent effect on his quality of play.

If not, then how Stevens uses him won't have any causal effect. In which case, how Stevens uses him needn't be a "big question" - it might  actually be totally irrelevant.

It's probably a combination of the two, of course, but we just can't assert that "how he is used" will matter based on the correlation. That would confuse correlation and causality.

[Boris Badenov]

You're trying to make this more straightforward than it is. Jeff Green has been a decent player so far, and he may or may not take it to the next level -- but there's nothing suggesting that he won't, and there certainly are other examples of players who have.

What I'm suggesting, like Roy, is that at least over significant sample sizes (i.e. whole seasons) Jeff Green has been remarkably consistent in terms of almost any stat you can think of, traditional or advanced.

Expecting him to become a drastically different player -- e.g. 17+ PER, scoring 20+ points a game, becoming a good rebounder for his size / position, becoming a good playmaker for somebody who handles the ball as much as he does -- seems extremely optimistic considering there's very little evidence aside from a game, or a handful of games, or a month here and there where Green was hitting a lot more threes or taking a lot more shots than he normally does.


Green's greatest asset as a player is probably that you know exactly what to expect from him -- over the long haul.  His biggest weakness is that you can't rely on him to do anything especially well in any particular game. 

I think we should talk about how valuable he is on that basis, not on the basis that six years after he was drafted he's going to change.

I agree with Pho.

Saying that something could happen is very different than saying that something is likely to happen.

Even if some players have "taken it to the next level," it's important to benchmark that against all the players who haven't. If only 1 out of 50 average players ever improve substantially at age 26, even those who string together a great month or two, the natural conclusion is that it's unlikely.

As one example, Green himself had some monthly splits during 2008-2009 that were equal to or better than his "breakout" months last year. He then just regressed to being the same old Jeff Green.

Charlie Villanueva had two months in the same year where he averaged 20/6/3 on 50/40/80 shooting. He never reached those levels again.

Kyle Lowry averaged 20/5/8 for a month in 2011. He's never touched that level of productivity again.

Even the greats like Bird, Magic, Jordan etc. had streaks in which they totally outperformed their "normal" numbers for a month or two.

Etc...you can go on and on here with examples of guys who've had a couple of great months here and there, and who never reached those levels again.

[KGs Knee]

I see this turned into another Jeff Green thread.

A lot has been said on both sides of the argument; I he worth it, or can he be the man, etc..

When he proves it to me, I'll believe it.  Until then, Green will always be pretty "meh" to me.  Nobody worth getting excited over.

[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.

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.

If Doc played him more and he responded by playing better - that's good, right?

If he simply started playing better (perhaps because further removed from his rehab?) and so Doc responded by playing him more - that's also good, right?

Why does it matter which came first?

It's critical, actually. If giving him a bigger role has a causal effect on his playing better...then, to quote you, "how Stevens will use him in the offense" has an independent effect on his quality of play.

If not, then how Stevens uses him won't have any causal effect. In which case, how Stevens uses him needn't be a "big question" - it might  actually be totally irrelevant.

It's probably a combination of the two, of course, but we just can't assert that "how he is used" will matter based on the correlation. That would confuse correlation and causality.

Uh .. it is definitely a combination of the two.

Even if Green's intrinsic performance is independent of 'how Stevens uses him' - if he doesn't get the minutes AND utilization, his production won't be realized.

Reality ends up being the measured.   If you don't look, you don't see it.

That's why I don't think the distinction you are reaching for in how/why Green performed better last Spring is 'critical' but the question of how Stevens uses him IS still a 'big question'.

[kozlodoev]

I see this turned into another Jeff Green thread.

A lot has been said on both sides of the argument; I he worth it, or can he be the man, etc..

When he proves it to me, I'll believe it.  Until then, Green will always be pretty "meh" to me.  Nobody worth getting excited over.

It didn't "turn" into one, it was one from the very beginning.Topic title and first sentence of the original post read:

We Only have three "Real" NBA Players on this team. And Jeff Green Is not one of them.

Also, note that being "the man" and being a "real NBA player" are two distinctly different things. Whether he's equipped to be the man can be the topic of a meaningful discussion, the real NBA player shtick seems, well, tailor-made for trolling.

[Moranis]

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.

Nash just started shooting more about his 5th year in the league, but was basically the same player (just more shots) his entire career.  Phoenix ran such a high tempo that Nash's totals increased, but he was nearly as efficient in Dallas.

Billups basically just improved his shooting percentages (and was continually doing that) a couple of points and that is all it took for him to up his scoring.  He was basically the same player on a per minute basis his entire career (with modest shooting increases) who finally reached his peak shooting in Detroit and who happened to be surrounded by a bunch of other quality players (a big boost for a PG).

I just don't see Green all of a sudden becoming a better shooter (when history doesn't show it).  He has had the same role with the same minutes virtually his entire career and hasn't improved much in those areas.  It just isn't going to happen all of a sudden.

[Snakehead]

We Only have three "Real" NBA Players on this team. And Jeff Green Is not one of them.

Also, note that being "the man" and being a "real NBA player" are two distinctly different things. Whether he's equipped to be the man can be the topic of a meaningful discussion, the real NBA player shtick seems, well, tailor-made for trolling.

Well put and an important distinction.  I think right now this team is basically all role players (with young players that can achieve more down the line).  I really like Green and think he is a great complementary player who is long, can defend, can stretch the floor, and finish and run the floor, he just isn't ever going to be a reliable All Star.