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

[More Banners]

So, we keep Green then?

From what I read here of Green, he's sort of like a prime-Lamar Odom, a luxury forward on a winner, or perhaps best player on a loser that fades in and out.

We do have Wallace right here to step into his place...

I really do love having them both; they lock up the SF position so well.

But to get a C without giving up much in the way of picks to a Houston team that is looking to win now, I'd give up Green, or Wallace + the CLips' pick.

Green is probably worth a high-level starting player on a contender, so Asik would be good value, right?

[Celtics18]

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't want a "best" or a "4th best" player...I want a team of team players who all recognize and fill their roles.

I agree, although I think that one "role" that pretty much every title team has is that of "superstar."

Which is to say, most really good teams have 2-3 guys who do a LOT of different things while also carrying a major load offensively (i.e. using 20-30 percent of the team's possessions).

That is a really important role for those guys to play, because having that role filled by 2-3 players makes it much easier to find guys in the other 6-7 spots in the rotation to fill the team's remaining needs.  So you can get guys who are just really good at one or two things (e.g. the classic 3-and-D players like Bowen).

When people decry Green for not being capable of being "the guy," what they're saying essentially is that Green can't fill that "superstar" role for a team.  That rankles a certain subset of people who see that Green is capable of scoring 15-25 points on any given night, and think that means he's star caliber.  The thing is, simply being able to score a good number of points efficiently isn't enough to fill that "superstar" role, as I explained above.

So if Green isn't the star guy, what role does he fill on a really good team?  If he's not getting a lot of touches offensively, he doesn't bring that much to the table because he doesn't have any other elite skills.  If your team already has 2-3 guys taking 20-30 shots a game, Green is basically just a really expensive offensive pressure valve (pretty much the role he played for the Celtics last year).

That's actually a pretty decent and valuable role, but if you're going to pay a guy 9-10 million dollars a year to be in that role, you're going to need to have some really good guys (on cheap contracts) in the other spots in your rotation to connect the rest of the dots for winning.

A team like Miami is a good illustration of that idea.  On Miami, Green would get tons of nice looks.  He could easily score 14-15 points a game in a sixth man role with very good efficiency, similar to what Beasley is doing for them this year.  But Miami can slot much less talented players than Green into that role and still have success because their 3 best guys -- particularly LeBron -- do so much that they pretty much just need spot up shooters (especially from the corner) who can defend and rebound.

Since LeBron, Wade, and Bosh are easily capable of scoring 60+ points together, Miami doesn't really need a player in Green's role to take more than 10 shots a game, at most. 

But a player who can shut down the opponent's best player, allowing James to save energy on offense, while also spacing the floor, grabbing rebounds, and hitting a ton of corner three shots, could be a lot more valuable than Green.  Similarly, a big man who grabs a very high percentage of offensive rebounds, finishes looks inside at a very high rate, and also blocks or bothers shots at the rim is very useful.

That's how Miami might have more use for Shane Battier or Chris Andersen than Jeff Green.  But if your team needs somebody to take 15-20 shots and play big minutes, Green is a much better bet.  He just can't be expected to also create for others, rebound, force turnovers, protect the paint, shut down the opponent's best player, etc.

But, we are not the Miami Heat, and when our team is rebuilt, it probably won't look anything like the Heat.  There's not much chance of us getting Lebron James or a player like Lebron James (as there's only one of those in the league).  Considering the fact that our best player's best skill is passing the ball, I think it makes sense to surround him with guys who are capable scorers, but not necessarily elite shot creators.  Jeff Green fits that bill nicely.  I believe that he is a nice complementary piece for this team. 

Miami may well have more use for Shane Battier or Chris Andersen, but we have more use for Jeff Green. 

[BballTim]

But a player who can shut down the opponent's best player, allowing James to save energy on offense, while also spacing the floor, grabbing rebounds, and hitting a ton of corner three shots, could be a lot more valuable than Green.  Similarly, a big man who grabs a very high percentage of offensive rebounds, finishes looks inside at a very high rate, and also blocks or bothers shots at the rim is very useful.

That's how Miami might have more use for Shane Battier or Chris Andersen than Jeff Green.  But if your team needs somebody to take 15-20 shots and play big minutes, Green is a much better bet.  He just can't be expected to also create for others, rebound, force turnovers, protect the paint, shut down the opponent's best player, etc.

  Battier's value over Green is mainly (if not exclusively) his doing less for less money. Green's a good defender, a better rebounder than Battier and one of the best corner three shooters in the league. It's probably true that Green won't be a top player on a title team but people (not necessarily you) are comparing him unfavorably to players that he's much better than.

[PhoSita]

But a player who can shut down the opponent's best player, allowing James to save energy on offense, while also spacing the floor, grabbing rebounds, and hitting a ton of corner three shots, could be a lot more valuable than Green.  Similarly, a big man who grabs a very high percentage of offensive rebounds, finishes looks inside at a very high rate, and also blocks or bothers shots at the rim is very useful.

That's how Miami might have more use for Shane Battier or Chris Andersen than Jeff Green.  But if your team needs somebody to take 15-20 shots and play big minutes, Green is a much better bet.  He just can't be expected to also create for others, rebound, force turnovers, protect the paint, shut down the opponent's best player, etc.

  Battier's value over Green is mainly (if not exclusively) his doing less for less money. Green's a good defender, a better rebounder than Battier and one of the best corner three shooters in the league. It's probably true that Green won't be a top player on a title team but people (not necessarily you) are comparing him unfavorably to players that he's much better than.

Green is definitely better than Battier at this point.

But you're right, the crux of the argument is that Battier makes less money, and doesn't need as many touches on offense to stay engaged and involved in the game.

Really the point I'm making is that Green could easily be the 4th best player on a championship team if that team is loaded like Miami, but so could any number of other players who make less money than he does.

[Fred Roberts]

Jeff is an excellent player. If you put him on the Heat or Spurs he's in their top 3 best players.

If the knock on him is that he's no superstar or he's not a guy who can create buckets on his own, fine. He's extremely capable in many facets of the game (defends wings like LeBron well, runs the break, drives well, hits 3's and mid-range jumpers, foul shots, team player, etc).

He's getting paid $8.7 M this year. That's a good value. He is not KD or LJ, but people act like he should be.

I'm bummed Jeff is only averaging 16.7 pts so far this year, but his FG% is good at .462, and his 3 pt % is great at .415.

Jeff Green could be the second best player on a championship team if he were paired with LeBron James and a bunch of other guys.

[D.o.s.]

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.

I think I addressed the merit of your post pretty well. I even offered a supporting example.

[PhoSita]

Miami may well have more use for Shane Battier or Chris Andersen, but we have more use for Jeff Green.

Oh, I certainly agree with you, at least as the team is currently constructed.  This team lacks scorers, and Green is filling an important role right now.

But what's the long term plan?  If we're aiming to put together something like the mid-2000s Pistons, then we're going for the offense-by-committee approach with 4 to 5 high quality starters.  That's fine, but in that situation Green is making a lot of money and playing a lot of minutes but he only really contributes in points.

I'd be reticent about tying up much cap space in essentially a complimentary scorer unless the top two players on the team are well-rounded stars scoring 18+ points a game and demanding a lot of defensive attention.

[PhoSita]

Jeff is an excellent player. If you put him on the Heat or Spurs he's in their top 3 best players.

Eh, Bosh is probably better and Kawhi Leonard is CERTAINLY better.

[PhoSita]

So, we keep Green then?

From what I read here of Green, he's sort of like a prime-Lamar Odom, a luxury forward on a winner, or perhaps best player on a loser that fades in and out.

Sort of, only Lamar was a very good rebounder for a combo forward who could also handle the ball pretty well and create for others a bit.  Definitely more well-rounded than Green.  Odom was / is a headcase, though, which Green most definitely is not.

[mmmmm]

As long as it is a championship team, what difference does it make what part he plays in it?  Glen Davis was a member of a championship team, as was Brian Scalabrine.  That 2008 team may or may not have been a championship team without them. I happen to believe that what each gave was what was needed at the time...you may not feel that way.  I guess I believe in Ubuntu. 

Great comment, tb18!

TP

[GreenWarrior]

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.

I'd rather you just came out and said you don't like jeff green.

the problem with stats is they can be used to support any pov.

this game isn't played with calculators or degrees.

[wiley]

So, we keep Green then?

From what I read here of Green, he's sort of like a prime-Lamar Odom, a luxury forward on a winner, or perhaps best player on a loser that fades in and out.

We do have Wallace right here to step into his place...

I really do love having them both; they lock up the SF position so well.

But to get a C without giving up much in the way of picks to a Houston team that is looking to win now, I'd give up Green, or Wallace + the CLips' pick.

Green is probably worth a high-level starting player on a contender, so Asik would be good value, right?

good value unless you think as I do that Jeff Green is a better playoff asset than Asik.

[moiso]

So, we keep Green then?

From what I read here of Green, he's sort of like a prime-Lamar Odom, a luxury forward on a winner, or perhaps best player on a loser that fades in and out.

Sort of, only Lamar was a very good rebounder for a combo forward who could also handle the ball pretty well and create for others a bit.  Definitely more well-rounded than Green.  Odom was / is a headcase, though, which Green most definitely is not.
[/quote/ Odom showed up to play and played very well during the Laker years.  I think he kept the headcase stuff under wraps.  Green has his own "headcase" issue that  effects his

[moiso]

Sorry.  Trying to post from a tiny phone.  Green's passivity could be looked at as a headcase issue- more than any issue Odom showed during the Laker years.

[Moranis]

Jeff is an excellent player. If you put him on the Heat or Spurs he's in their top 3 best players.

Eh, Bosh is probably better and Kawhi Leonard is CERTAINLY better.

Bosh is probably better?  Huh.  Bosh is significantly better than Jeff Green.  Not even close. 

And Leonard, Ginobili, Parker, and Duncan are all better (even still at this point for manu and td) than Jeff Green.