Jeff Green couldn't even be the FOURTH best player on a championship team.

[Boris Badenov]

This post tells me more about your methodology than it does about Green or any of the players listed.

Yup

Agreed.

Related (and serious) question though: has Green been one of the 4 best players on the Celtics so far this year?

[2short]

those are some interesting stats….baseball anyone

for the opposite end of spectrum read the very interesting article that was up from last week on how efficient jeff green plays, he doesn't hog the ball, moves it quickly to teammates and scores within the offense

[Celtics18]

This post tells me more about your methodology than it does about Green or any of the players listed.

Yup

Agreed.

Related (and serious) question though: has Green been one of the 4 best players on the Celtics so far this year?

Tough question.  One of the things that is so appealing about the current Celtics squad is that it's really hard to rank the five starters as far as respective value to the team right now. 

If I had to rank them, I'd go:

1.  Crawford
2.  Green
3.  Bass
4.  Sullinger
5.  Bradley

But, honestly, you could rank those guys in almost any order, and I wouldn't have too much disagreement.

[BirdMchaleParish]

I can agree with the original poster that the 4th best player on those championship teams could be better than green. But I disagree that him being traded for the 4th best players on one of those teams would have sacrificed the championship.

[BballTim]

This post tells me more about your methodology than it does about Green or any of the players listed.

  I'd agree with this. Stats are great, but they are what they are. The first thing you have to look at with stats is what they're really measuring. The next thing is figuring out what factors they might not take into account or why they might not translate to every situation. People generally don't get to that step.

[LooseCannon]

battier and anderson scoring 43... they would never. i dont think either has ever reached 30 points in their career this is amusing the talent level is not even close

Shane Battier's career high is 33.  He has one other 30-point game in his career.  On the other hand, Chris Andersen doesn't even have a 20-point game.  His career high is 18.

[Boris Badenov]

This post tells me more about your methodology than it does about Green or any of the players listed.

Yup

Agreed.

Related (and serious) question though: has Green been one of the 4 best players on the Celtics so far this year?

Tough question.  One of the things that is so appealing about the current Celtics squad is that it's really hard to rank the five starters as far as respective value to the team right now. 

If I had to rank them, I'd go:

1.  Crawford
2.  Green
3.  Bass
4.  Sullinger
5.  Bradley

But, honestly, you could rank those guys in almost any order, and I wouldn't have too much disagreement.

I agree that it's not crystal clear. I think I'd rank Crawford and Sully as the two best (in no particular order), and the other three as all about the same, maybe with Bass getting a slight edge.

Not to change the subject again, but I think it's hilarious that over the last six months we have swung from arguing about whether Green is on the level of Carmelo/Durant/Lebron as a "top 5 SF" to arguing about whether he's worse than Shane Battier - all while Green's production has remained pretty much constant.

[BballTim]

This post tells me more about your methodology than it does about Green or any of the players listed.

Yup

Agreed.

Related (and serious) question though: has Green been one of the 4 best players on the Celtics so far this year?

Tough question.  One of the things that is so appealing about the current Celtics squad is that it's really hard to rank the five starters as far as respective value to the team right now. 

If I had to rank them, I'd go:

1.  Crawford
2.  Green
3.  Bass
4.  Sullinger
5.  Bradley

But, honestly, you could rank those guys in almost any order, and I wouldn't have too much disagreement.

I agree that it's not crystal clear. I think I'd rank Crawford and Sully as the two best (in no particular order), and the other three as all about the same, maybe with Bass getting a slight edge.

Not to change the subject again, but I think it's hilarious that over the last six months we have swung from arguing about whether Green is on the level of Carmelo/Durant/Lebron as a "top 5 SF" to arguing about whether he's worse than Shane Battier - all while Green's production has remained pretty much constant.

  Somewhat like the way there were threads yesterday or the day before about how Crawford would never bring back a 1st rounder in a trade, and about how he should be an all-star this year.

[D.o.s.]

This just in--different CB'ers have different views on Celtics players.

More at 11.

[ManUp]

Personally, from just what I've seen, his production, and style of play I'd say 4th is the sweet spot for Green. He's not up to the level of 3rd options like Bynum, Bosh, Allen, or Ginobli but he's not too far off either. His inconsistency and one dimensional production is what keeps him from being a top 3 type of player, in my eyes.

[Mr October]

I rank Green # 1 on the celtics so far, he leads the team in scoring, is the most consistent threat when it comes to drawing fouls and getting to the line, is perhaps the only player who can make a drive all the way to the rim at least once per game, and displays an excellent all around game on defense, as an inside scorer and outside scorer.

1. Green
2. Sullinger
3. Crawford - can he keep it up for an entire season?
4. Bradley
5. Bass

[Mr October]

Can jeff green be a 4th best player on a contender? I say yes. Compare him to these other finalist 4th men:

Old Ray Allen, old ginobili, old Battier, old Marion, young ibaka, Haslem, Bynum, young rondo in 08, old fisher, old Finley, Antoine walker on the heat, old stackhouse, old horry, etc.

I dont think green is good enough to be 3rd best player on a contender. That is bosh, prime rondo, prime odom, 32 year old ray Allen, tony Parker territory. In other words a legit all star, or perhaps just outside of the all star cut off.

[yoursweatersux]

Some of the responses in here make me wonder why I even bother, like Sketch apparently not having a single clue about how wp48 works.

All of the people saying how "dumb" stats are (clearly while not understanding how they work, themselves) probably think Carmelo and Bargnani are amazing and are totally confused as to why the Knicks suck right now.

If people are going to be so dismissive of my poins without actually addressing their merits, I have neither the time nor the inclination to type a reasonable response.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

The thing I know about stats is they can be made to say anything. If  I wasn't so lazy I could probably put together a 'you can't win a championship  without a Jeff Green type player' by just cherry picking the stats that agree with me and running with them.

[byennie]

You are retroactively analyzing per-48 win shares of guys who played on championship teams. Take some of those players, multiply their wp48 by their total minutes and divide by 48. See what percentage of their team's total wins they contributed. Not to mention the selection bias of picking on teams that already won a ton of games.

I'd be willing to bet Matt Bonner contributed a lot smaller percentage of the Spurs wins than Jeff Green to the Celtics. Maybe 2 of their 60 wins while Green maybe 5 out of 40?