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

[wiley]

Defense underrated here by the OP. 

The Clippers, as mentioned by Tim, are the best example of a team that would love to add Green.  He'd be their third best player some nights and their 4th best player others.  And if Matt Barnes had a great game on the same night as DeAndre Jordan, you could imagine him as the 5th best player that night.  But on a night when he scores 40 in the playoffs and defends Durant well, and Chris Paul has a rough night and Blake is thwarted by Ibaka.  Well then on that night Green is #1.

Which call into the question the integrity of such a ranking system.

And points to what Thirsty Boots is saying....

[yoursweatersux]

Well I'm glad at least Moranis and Pho Sita are picking up what I'm putting down. Definitely better than comments like "the game isn't played on calculators"...

The fact of the matter is, in the NBA it's much, much more valuable to be REALLY GOOD at 1-2 things than it is to be merely average at everything. Average players simply have no place in championship-caliber teams, other than as dead weights who can fill in minutes.

I think people that don't understand this really just don't understand how a basketball game is won (# of possessions * efficiency of each possession).

Everybody here in particular has mocked the notion that Matt Bonner could be more useful to the Spurs. That simply can't be possible, can it? The Red Rocket versus somebody who looks like an actual basketball player? Well guess what, it's more than possible. If you put JG on that Spurs team, every shot he takes is a shot that he takes away from Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, or Leonard. The other team WANTS him to shoot more, and not those guys. On the other hand, Bonner comes in and rarely ever shoots, so he doesn't take any shots away from those very good players. When he does shoot, it's almost exclusively a corner 3, of which he hit 47 percent of during the Spurs' playoff run. So when he does shoot, he's helping his team. When he doesn't shoot, he's helping his team (by leaving the shooting to the more efficient players).

JG on the other hand might provide better better defense, but he's going to harm them on offense with his pedestrian shooting. This is why Green's career TS% is .535 while Bonner's is .588. In other words, this isn't a hypothetical scenario at all... Bonner has DEMONSTRABLY BEEN PROVEN to help his team more on offense over the course of actual NBA games. All of this, without even considering the disparity in salary, which is definitely a factor that leans far in Bonner's favor.

The whole point is, there's a colorable argument here that even if you factor in defense, JG is merely an equivalent player to Bonner. And Bonner is essentially a role player. Hence how one might come to the conclusion that JG could not, under any circumstances, be even the fourth best player on a championship team.

Of course the people who don't understand stats or what I'm saying will just repeat themselves - "Stats can show anything!" (actually no, they can't). Or they'll just claim that what I'm saying is preposterous and can't simply be true "Come on, you don't REALLY think that Bonner is better, do you? You're obviously insane." (despite the fact that Bonner has a higher TS%).

[D.o.s.]

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they misunderstand what you're saying.

Your original post lacked any display of the nuanced understanding of what would have to be understood about the numbers to in order for your argument to have merit.

So, for all practical purposes, given the level of cognition shown in the OP, there would've been no practical difference to your post had you used "points scored" or "minutes played" in place of ws/48.

Just so I'm clear--I'm not mocking the idea that Matt Bonner could be more valuable than Jeff Green. I'm mocking your delivery and your initial methodology coupled with your outrage and the belittling tone you're using for people who aren't so stat friendly.

[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.

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.

Yeah, you got me there.  Bosh is way better.

I think I was just pre-empting the Bosh haters who might eat me alive if I suggested as such.  But you've kept me honest.

[celticsclay]

A few things:

Comparing the true shooting percentage of two players with vastly different skills, on two different teams, with different roles is kind of silly. For one, Bonner never creates his own shot. His shots are generally wide open 3's or occasionally layups from nice ball movement. If Green were to shoot those exact same shots, the true shooting percentages would probably be very different. Secondly, you can't just dismiss defense from the argument. Green can, and does, frequently guard an opponents best small forward and does a pretty good job with it. Bonner is a complete liability on defense, can not guard quicker small forwards or power forwards and has to be masked in their defensive rotations as much as possible. Also, it is not just my opinion here that Bonner has limited value, it is also one reflected by their coach as his minutes continue to dwindle. He is getting in a career low 12 minutes minutes again, which is actually higher than what he really plays because he has been a healthy inactive several times. Why are you going to say a guy that is currently not in the rotation for his team is better than a guy having a very solid season that is 8 years younger? 

Well I'm glad at least Moranis and Pho Sita are picking up what I'm putting down. Definitely better than comments like "the game isn't played on calculators"...

The fact of the matter is, in the NBA it's much, much more valuable to be REALLY GOOD at 1-2 things than it is to be merely average at everything. Average players simply have no place in championship-caliber teams, other than as dead weights who can fill in minutes.

I think people that don't understand this really just don't understand how a basketball game is won (# of possessions * efficiency of each possession).

Everybody here in particular has mocked the notion that Matt Bonner could be more useful to the Spurs. That simply can't be possible, can it? The Red Rocket versus somebody who looks like an actual basketball player? Well guess what, it's more than possible. If you put JG on that Spurs team, every shot he takes is a shot that he takes away from Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, or Leonard. The other team WANTS him to shoot more, and not those guys. On the other hand, Bonner comes in and rarely ever shoots, so he doesn't take any shots away from those very good players. When he does shoot, it's almost exclusively a corner 3, of which he hit 47 percent of during the Spurs' playoff run. So when he does shoot, he's helping his team. When he doesn't shoot, he's helping his team (by leaving the shooting to the more efficient players).

JG on the other hand might provide better better defense, but he's going to harm them on offense with his pedestrian shooting. This is why Green's career TS% is .535 while Bonner's is .588. In other words, this isn't a hypothetical scenario at all... Bonner has DEMONSTRABLY BEEN PROVEN to help his team more on offense over the course of actual NBA games. All of this, without even considering the disparity in salary, which is definitely a factor that leans far in Bonner's favor.

The whole point is, there's a colorable argument here that even if you factor in defense, JG is merely an equivalent player to Bonner. And Bonner is essentially a role player. Hence how one might come to the conclusion that JG could not, under any circumstances, be even the fourth best player on a championship team.

Of course the people who don't understand stats or what I'm saying will just repeat themselves - "Stats can show anything!" (actually no, they can't). Or they'll just claim that what I'm saying is preposterous and can't simply be true "Come on, you don't REALLY think that Bonner is better, do you? You're obviously insane." (despite the fact that Bonner has a higher TS%).

[Fafnir]

Rants belittling other posters aren't going to win you any arguments. The thing is, most of the posters here understand the analytics you're referring to. The key is that we disagree with how you are interpreting them.

[celticsclay]

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.

Guys Battier is shooting 37% from the field and 30% on threes right now. I guess his defense is still solid, but he is 35. I know the stats were originally from last years playoffs/season, but his game is falling off a cliff. Regardless of money (he makes 3.5 btw), him and Green are not in the same conversation at this point of their career.

[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.

Guys Battier is shooting 37% from the field and 30% on threes right now. I guess his defense is still solid, but he is 35. I know the stats were originally from last years playoffs/season, but his game is falling off a cliff. Regardless of money (he makes 3.5 btw), him and Green are not in the same conversation at this point of their career.

Yeah; I think we can all agree that the discussion has been about the Battier of the last couple of years, rather than this season.

[celticsclay]

Not to split hairs, but the guy said Battier of last year was better than Green in the OP. I don't think, without any injury, Battier got old in the 6 months from last years finals. He has been regressing for quite some time. He is actually one year younger than pierce

[GreenWarrior]

The fact of the matter is, in the NBA it's much, much more valuable to be REALLY GOOD at 1-2 things than it is to be merely average at everything. Average players simply have no place in championship-caliber teams, other than as dead weights who can fill in minutes.

I absolutely agree with this and anyone thinking jeff green is anything more than a scorer or the next paul pierce was setting themselves up for disappointment. I think his best role would be as a 6th man for a scoring punch coming off the bench for a contender.

but I don't really understand the point of pointing this out?

[celticsclay]

The fact of the matter is, in the NBA it's much, much more valuable to be REALLY GOOD at 1-2 things than it is to be merely average at everything. Average players simply have no place in championship-caliber teams, other than as dead weights who can fill in minutes.

I absolutely agree with this and anyone thinking jeff green is anything more than a scorer or the next paul pierce was setting themselves up for disappointment. I think his best role would be as a 6th man for a scoring punch coming off the bench for a contender.

but I don't really understand the point of pointing this out?

Isn't Haslem like the definition of average at everything? He is a decent short to mid range shooter, decent rebounder, decent defender. Would be really hard to say he was great at anything, but has been key part of all heat's championships.

[wiley]

Well I'm glad at least Moranis and Pho Sita are picking up what I'm putting down. Definitely better than comments like "the game isn't played on calculators"...

The fact of the matter is, in the NBA it's much, much more valuable to be REALLY GOOD at 1-2 things than it is to be merely average at everything. Average players simply have no place in championship-caliber teams, other than as dead weights who can fill in minutes.

I think people that don't understand this really just don't understand how a basketball game is won (# of possessions * efficiency of each possession).

Everybody here in particular has mocked the notion that Matt Bonner could be more useful to the Spurs. That simply can't be possible, can it? The Red Rocket versus somebody who looks like an actual basketball player? Well guess what, it's more than possible. If you put JG on that Spurs team, every shot he takes is a shot that he takes away from Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, or Leonard. The other team WANTS him to shoot more, and not those guys. On the other hand, Bonner comes in and rarely ever shoots, so he doesn't take any shots away from those very good players. When he does shoot, it's almost exclusively a corner 3, of which he hit 47 percent of during the Spurs' playoff run. So when he does shoot, he's helping his team. When he doesn't shoot, he's helping his team (by leaving the shooting to the more efficient players).

JG on the other hand might provide better better defense, but he's going to harm them on offense with his pedestrian shooting. This is why Green's career TS% is .535 while Bonner's is .588. In other words, this isn't a hypothetical scenario at all... Bonner has DEMONSTRABLY BEEN PROVEN to help his team more on offense over the course of actual NBA games. All of this, without even considering the disparity in salary, which is definitely a factor that leans far in Bonner's favor.

The whole point is, there's a colorable argument here that even if you factor in defense, JG is merely an equivalent player to Bonner. And Bonner is essentially a role player. Hence how one might come to the conclusion that JG could not, under any circumstances, be even the fourth best player on a championship team.

Of course the people who don't understand stats or what I'm saying will just repeat themselves - "Stats can show anything!" (actually no, they can't). Or they'll just claim that what I'm saying is preposterous and can't simply be true "Come on, you don't REALLY think that Bonner is better, do you? You're obviously insane." (despite the fact that Bonner has a higher TS%).

Of course the specialist shooter Bonner shines.  He plays for the Spurs.  Do you really think a team of 5 Matt Bonners would defeat a team of 5 Jeff Greens?

If Leanord went down Pops would trade Bonner for Green in a nano-second.

Fafnir was right.  There's nothing wrong with your stats but what you're drawing from them is bunk.

[aporel#18]

Jeff Green would start on the Heat replacing Battier's role.

Leonard is a very good offensive player, on a cheaper contract, so if I'm the Spurs I like him better than Green. But if Pop had Green, he would start because of his defense.

Players aren't piano keys, they all complement their teammates in different ways, and the best teams are those who find the best complementary role players to their main stars. If you had the best PG in the game (don't look now, Rondo haters) and a difference-making center, like Marc Gasol, do you think a guy like Jeff Green could be useful as the starting SF?

but he's not a #1 option, yadayadayadda... BS. You have to build a team, and that's Danny Ainge's job, with the help of Coach Stevens. You need 5 guys who can score, pass and defend at all time, 48 minutes, and you want the best possible talent. You don't have to model your team after the Heat, the Spurs or the Pacers, it's about maximizing the players you have and the players you are able to trade for or draft or sign.

It's sad to go through 5 pages of a thread whose OP is arguing Jeff Green isn't worth to have on the Cs. But like the "trade Rondo" threads, it's another of CelticBlog's charms. Good job, good effort.

[kozlodoev]

To be a nice guy to Jeff and give him the benefit of the doubt, I've decided to only use his wp48 over the last 3 seasons (which omits is absolutely abysmal rookie year). As a result, JG clocks in at .107.

That's dandy. And Rondo, with his career WS of about .140 would have solidly been the fourth best player of all of these teams. Sounds about right, yes?

[Moranis]

To be a nice guy to Jeff and give him the benefit of the doubt, I've decided to only use his wp48 over the last 3 seasons (which omits is absolutely abysmal rookie year). As a result, JG clocks in at .107.

That's dandy. And Rondo, with his career WS of about .140 would have solidly been the fourth best player of all of these teams. Sounds about right, yes?

Well given that Rondo was pretty much the 4th best player on Boston all those years, that is probably pretty accurate, wouldn't you think?