Which SF do you prefer?

[PhoSita]

All counting stats are per-36 minutes.


Player A:
14.4 points, 5.4 ast, 6.5 reb, .8 stl, .6 blk, .439/.400/.850

Player B:
17.0 pts, 4.8 reb, 1.8 ast, .4 stl, .5 blk .434/.368/.759

Player C:
12.7 points, 2.2 ast, 5.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 1.0 blk .413/.333/.871

Player D:
19.6 pts, 1.4 ast, 3.3 reb, 1.1 stl, .3 blk .451/.325/.786

Player E:
15.8 pts, 1.7 ast, 7.6 reb, 2.2 stl, .4 blk, .525/.280/.769



So who is who?  Which players do you prefer ahead of the others?


...........................
























A - Nic Batum
B - Jeff Green
C - Jimmy Butler
D - Nick Young
E - Kawhi Leonard


Personally, I'd take Batum, Leonard, and Butler before Green or Young.


The point of all this is that I'd much prefer an all around player.  Jeff Green, like Nick Young, does very little for a team other than score.  This is what makes him so expendable.  That's why Gerald Wallace does more to help this team win despite hardly scoring at all.

[NocturnalRebel]

I mean who wouldn't want an all around player. Can't ever go wrong with a versatile player.

[Celtics18]

All counting stats are per-36 minutes.


Player A:
14.4 points, 5.4 ast, 6.5 reb, .8 stl, .6 blk, .439/.400/.850

Player B:
17.0 pts, 3.9 reb, 1.8 ast, .4 stl, .5 blk .434/.368/.759

Player C:
12.7 points, 2.2 ast, 5.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 1.0 blk .413/.333/.871

Player D:
19.6 pts, 1.4 ast, 3.3 reb, 1.1 stl, .3 blk .451/.325/.786

Player E:
15.8 pts, 1.7 ast, 7.6 reb, 2.2 stl, .4 blk, .525/.280/.769



So who is who?  Which players do you prefer ahead of the others?


...........................
























A - Nic Batum
B - Jeff Green
C - Jimmy Butler
D - Nick Young
E - Kawhi Leonard


Personally, I'd take Batum, Leonard, and Butler before Green or Young.


The point of all this is that I'd much prefer an all around player.  Jeff Green, like Nick Young, does very little for a team other than score.  This is what makes him so expendable.  That's why Gerald Wallace does more to help this team win despite hardly scoring at all.

Jeff Green averages 4.8 rebounds per 36, not 3.9.

[D.o.s.]

I went with the player who ended up being Batum, but if that's this season's stats, I gotta bring up the fact that it's only been ten games.

[NocturnalRebel]

I went with the player who ended up being Batum, but if that's this season's stats, I gotta bring up the fact that it's only been ten games.

Yup. A long 72 more to go.

[PhoSita]

Jeff Green averages 4.8 rebounds per 36, not 3.9.

you're correct -- messed that one up looking at his actual averages, i guess.

doesn't change any of my personal conclusions

[PhoSita]

I went with the player who ended up being Batum, but if that's this season's stats, I gotta bring up the fact that it's only been ten games.

Well, my point stands whether Batum regresses a bit or not --

Give me the guy who averages 12-14 points but impacts the game in a number of different areas over the guy who can score 20+ on any given night but who doesn't make anybody else better and isn't a superlative defensive player.

I mean who wouldn't want an all around player. Can't ever go wrong with a versatile player.

absolutely.

the idea of the thread is meant to be a question between taking the guy who puts up a high scoring number, or a guy closer to "average" points production but who does a lot of other things. 

many people value Green much more highly than they ought to because of the allure of a 18-20 point scorer. 

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Based on the stats there I was leaning towards player E until I saw that 3pt%. Otherwise its either player B if he commits to upping his rebounds or Player A

[PhoSita]

Based on the stats there I was leaning towards player E until I saw that 3pt%. Otherwise its either player B if he commits to upping his rebounds or Player A

people have been waiting for Green to "commit to upping his rebounds" for years and years.  he's just not a good rebounder.

[BballTim]

All counting stats are per-36 minutes.


Player A:
14.4 points, 5.4 ast, 6.5 reb, .8 stl, .6 blk, .439/.400/.850

Player B:
17.0 pts, 4.8 reb, 1.8 ast, .4 stl, .5 blk .434/.368/.759

Player C:
12.7 points, 2.2 ast, 5.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 1.0 blk .413/.333/.871

Player D:
19.6 pts, 1.4 ast, 3.3 reb, 1.1 stl, .3 blk .451/.325/.786

Player E:
15.8 pts, 1.7 ast, 7.6 reb, 2.2 stl, .4 blk, .525/.280/.769

So who is who?  Which players do you prefer ahead of the others?

...........................

A - Nic Batum
B - Jeff Green
C - Jimmy Butler
D - Nick Young
E - Kawhi Leonard


Personally, I'd take Batum, Leonard, and Butler before Green or Young.


The point of all this is that I'd much prefer an all around player.  Jeff Green, like Nick Young, does very little for a team other than score.  This is what makes him so expendable.  That's why Gerald Wallace does more to help this team win despite hardly scoring at all.

  I don't see anything in the stats that would point to player C being a better all-around player than B or D. Also, I'm curious about what leads you to believe that Wallace is doing so much more to help the team win than Green.

[PhoSita]

All counting stats are per-36 minutes.


Player A:
14.4 points, 5.4 ast, 6.5 reb, .8 stl, .6 blk, .439/.400/.850

Player B:
17.0 pts, 4.8 reb, 1.8 ast, .4 stl, .5 blk .434/.368/.759

Player C:
12.7 points, 2.2 ast, 5.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 1.0 blk .413/.333/.871

Player D:
19.6 pts, 1.4 ast, 3.3 reb, 1.1 stl, .3 blk .451/.325/.786

Player E:
15.8 pts, 1.7 ast, 7.6 reb, 2.2 stl, .4 blk, .525/.280/.769

So who is who?  Which players do you prefer ahead of the others?

...........................

A - Nic Batum
B - Jeff Green
C - Jimmy Butler
D - Nick Young
E - Kawhi Leonard


Personally, I'd take Batum, Leonard, and Butler before Green or Young.


The point of all this is that I'd much prefer an all around player.  Jeff Green, like Nick Young, does very little for a team other than score.  This is what makes him so expendable.  That's why Gerald Wallace does more to help this team win despite hardly scoring at all.

  I don't see anything in the stats that would point to player C being a better all-around player than B or D. Also, I'm curious about what leads you to believe that Wallace is doing so much more to help the team win than Green.

Player C (Jimmy Butler) rebounds well for size and generates steals and blocks.  He does so while not being a major part of the offense.  He's a nice role player.  Still, he's not so much farther ahead of Green than the other guys. 

As for Nick Young's stat line, I think the main thing with him has always been how awful he is defensively.  That said, when a player is scoring 17-20 points a game per 36, that suggests a very high usage rate, so when a player generates so few assists despite getting that many touches offensively, that points to an inability to add a lot of value in a team offense.  He's also a very weak rebounder, though he's really more of a SG than a SF -- I included him mainly because he's the first guy that comes to mind when I think of players who basically score and don't do much else.

With Gerald Wallace, it's not so much about the stats.  Obviously I don't want to play a guy 36 minutes a game who only scores 5 points.  That said, what I see with Wallace is that he facilitates, rebounds, generates turnovers, and plays with a lot of energy.  I think he is a valuable glue guy for the team.  At this point in his career, he's only really effective doing it for 15-20 minutes a game, though.

Green, on the other hand, is a far more efficient scorer.  But again, for a guy who has such a prominent role in the offense, he doesn't bring much else to the table.  He doesn't make other players better, he doesn't generate extra possessions at all.  So while that doesn't make Green a bad player, it does make him easily expendable, because you'd much rather have a guy who maybe doesn't take as many shots, but who does more all around to help you win.

Paul Pierce, of course, scored at a high level and did a lot of the other stuff, and when you needed him to step up a part of his game for the sake of the team (passing or rebounding), he could do it.  But that's what made him a star.


I guess my overall point is, in the absence of an elite player like Pierce, or even just a truly elite scorer, give me somebody who makes a lot of hustle plays and moves the ball around well over the guy who has a nice scoring night every couple games.  Players like Jeff Green make more sense coming off the bench.

[BballTim]

All counting stats are per-36 minutes.


Player A:
14.4 points, 5.4 ast, 6.5 reb, .8 stl, .6 blk, .439/.400/.850

Player B:
17.0 pts, 4.8 reb, 1.8 ast, .4 stl, .5 blk .434/.368/.759

Player C:
12.7 points, 2.2 ast, 5.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 1.0 blk .413/.333/.871

Player D:
19.6 pts, 1.4 ast, 3.3 reb, 1.1 stl, .3 blk .451/.325/.786

Player E:
15.8 pts, 1.7 ast, 7.6 reb, 2.2 stl, .4 blk, .525/.280/.769

So who is who?  Which players do you prefer ahead of the others?

...........................

A - Nic Batum
B - Jeff Green
C - Jimmy Butler
D - Nick Young
E - Kawhi Leonard


Personally, I'd take Batum, Leonard, and Butler before Green or Young.


The point of all this is that I'd much prefer an all around player.  Jeff Green, like Nick Young, does very little for a team other than score.  This is what makes him so expendable.  That's why Gerald Wallace does more to help this team win despite hardly scoring at all.

  I don't see anything in the stats that would point to player C being a better all-around player than B or D. Also, I'm curious about what leads you to believe that Wallace is doing so much more to help the team win than Green.

Player C (Jimmy Butler) rebounds well for size and generates steals and blocks.  He does so while not being a major part of the offense.  He's a nice role player.  Still, he's not so much farther ahead of Green than the other guys. 

As for Nick Young's stat line, I think the main thing with him has always been how awful he is defensively.  That said, when a player is scoring 17-20 points a game per 36, that suggests a very high usage rate, so when a player generates so few assists despite getting that many touches offensively, that points to an inability to add a lot of value in a team offense.  He's also a very weak rebounder, though he's really more of a SG than a SF -- I included him mainly because he's the first guy that comes to mind when I think of players who basically score and don't do much else.

With Gerald Wallace, it's not so much about the stats.  Obviously I don't want to play a guy 36 minutes a game who only scores 5 points.  That said, what I see with Wallace is that he facilitates, rebounds, generates turnovers, and plays with a lot of energy.  I think he is a valuable glue guy for the team.  At this point in his career, he's only really effective doing it for 15-20 minutes a game, though.

Green, on the other hand, is a far more efficient scorer.  But again, for a guy who has such a prominent role in the offense, he doesn't bring much else to the table.  He doesn't make other players better, he doesn't generate extra possessions at all.  So while that doesn't make Green a bad player, it does make him easily expendable, because you'd much rather have a guy who maybe doesn't take as many shots, but who does more all around to help you win.

Paul Pierce, of course, scored at a high level and did a lot of the other stuff, and when you needed him to step up a part of his game for the sake of the team (passing or rebounding), he could do it.  But that's what made him a star.


I guess my overall point is, in the absence of an elite player like Pierce, or even just a truly elite scorer, give me somebody who makes a lot of hustle plays and moves the ball around well over the guy who has a nice scoring night every couple games.  Players like Jeff Green make more sense coming off the bench.

  I agree with what you're saying in general but not necessarily in particular. I don't place a huge premium on scoring over all-around play but it's not meaningless either. Wallace generates more possessions than Green with his rebounds and steals but he also turns the ball over more. I don't think he does anything (or everything) so much better than Green that it tips the scales over the 10 ppg more from Green. I also don't know that I'd really consider Butler ahead of Green.

[saltlover]

All counting stats are per-36 minutes.


Player A:
14.4 points, 5.4 ast, 6.5 reb, .8 stl, .6 blk, .439/.400/.850

Player B:
17.0 pts, 4.8 reb, 1.8 ast, .4 stl, .5 blk .434/.368/.759

Player C:
12.7 points, 2.2 ast, 5.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 1.0 blk .413/.333/.871

Player D:
19.6 pts, 1.4 ast, 3.3 reb, 1.1 stl, .3 blk .451/.325/.786

Player E:
15.8 pts, 1.7 ast, 7.6 reb, 2.2 stl, .4 blk, .525/.280/.769

So who is who?  Which players do you prefer ahead of the others?

...........................

A - Nic Batum
B - Jeff Green
C - Jimmy Butler
D - Nick Young
E - Kawhi Leonard


Personally, I'd take Batum, Leonard, and Butler before Green or Young.


The point of all this is that I'd much prefer an all around player.  Jeff Green, like Nick Young, does very little for a team other than score.  This is what makes him so expendable.  That's why Gerald Wallace does more to help this team win despite hardly scoring at all.

  I don't see anything in the stats that would point to player C being a better all-around player than B or D. Also, I'm curious about what leads you to believe that Wallace is doing so much more to help the team win than Green.

Player C (Jimmy Butler) rebounds well for size and generates steals and blocks.  He does so while not being a major part of the offense.  He's a nice role player.  Still, he's not so much farther ahead of Green than the other guys. 

As for Nick Young's stat line, I think the main thing with him has always been how awful he is defensively.  That said, when a player is scoring 17-20 points a game per 36, that suggests a very high usage rate, so when a player generates so few assists despite getting that many touches offensively, that points to an inability to add a lot of value in a team offense.  He's also a very weak rebounder, though he's really more of a SG than a SF -- I included him mainly because he's the first guy that comes to mind when I think of players who basically score and don't do much else.

With Gerald Wallace, it's not so much about the stats.  Obviously I don't want to play a guy 36 minutes a game who only scores 5 points.  That said, what I see with Wallace is that he facilitates, rebounds, generates turnovers, and plays with a lot of energy.  I think he is a valuable glue guy for the team.  At this point in his career, he's only really effective doing it for 15-20 minutes a game, though.

Green, on the other hand, is a far more efficient scorer.  But again, for a guy who has such a prominent role in the offense, he doesn't bring much else to the table.  He doesn't make other players better, he doesn't generate extra possessions at all.  So while that doesn't make Green a bad player, it does make him easily expendable, because you'd much rather have a guy who maybe doesn't take as many shots, but who does more all around to help you win.

Paul Pierce, of course, scored at a high level and did a lot of the other stuff, and when you needed him to step up a part of his game for the sake of the team (passing or rebounding), he could do it.  But that's what made him a star.


I guess my overall point is, in the absence of an elite player like Pierce, or even just a truly elite scorer, give me somebody who makes a lot of hustle plays and moves the ball around well over the guy who has a nice scoring night every couple games.  Players like Jeff Green make more sense coming off the bench.

  I agree with what you're saying in general but not necessarily in particular. I don't place a huge premium on scoring over all-around play but it's not meaningless either. Wallace generates more possessions than Green with his rebounds and steals but he also turns the ball over more. I don't think he does anything (or everything) so much better than Green that it tips the scales over the 10 ppg more from Green. I also don't know that I'd really consider Butler ahead of Green.

I like Jeff Green.  I think the problem with him is that he's not an elite scorer at a position where many teams find their elite scorer.  Most championship teams have at least one elite scorer, so that puts pressure on the Celtics to either win without one or find one at a different position. That's not Green's fault per se, but on this Celtics roster, he's the player with the most tools currently to be that guy, but he just isn't that guy.  But I like the scoring he does bring, his ability to run the iso, and I love his length on defense, even if it doesn't generate rebounding.

Still, I'd be curious to see the difference in green and Butler's usage rate, as I bet Butler's is lower, and I think he could score at green's level with the same usage.  Also, I think green is who he is, whereas butler is still young enough to add to his game.  If they're a push this season, I'd still want butler long-term.

[pearljammer10]

Based on the stats there I was leaning towards player E until I saw that 3pt%. Otherwise its either player B if he commits to upping his rebounds or Player A

I chose player E too despite the fact his 3 point percentage was low.  Steals, FG%, points and rebounds were too good of numbers to pass on.

[KGs Knee]

Kawhi Leonard...hands down.

Leonard's defense is easily the best of that bunch.