How Inconsistent is Jeff Green, really?

[PickNRoll]

Player	PPG	Avg Deviation (pts)	Avg Deviation %
2013-14 Jeff Green	17	6.15	36.15%
87-88 Larry Bird	29.9	7	23.30%
90-91 Jordan	31.40	5.6	17.84%
2011-12 Rondo	11.88	5.98	50.35%

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.  Rondo had slightly less absolute variance (in points), but extremely high variance as a percentage of his scoring output.  Somehow I expected that. 

These comps are completely arbitrary and not the most useful.  Just a sniff test.

[mmmmm]

Player	PPG	Avg Deviation (pts)	Avg Deviation %
2013-14 Jeff Green	17	6.15	36.15%
87-88 Larry Bird	29.9	7	23.30%
90-91 Jordan	31.40	5.6	17.84%
2011-12 Rondo	11.88	5.98	50.35%

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.  Rondo had slightly less absolute variance (in points), but extremely high variance as a percentage of his scoring output.  Somehow I expected that. 

These comps are completely arbitrary and not the most useful.  Just a sniff test.

The tricky things to control in the comparison are just how 'consistent' is the team context is (clearly a 'tanking' / 'development' season is not a consistent environment for any of the players on a team) and what the USG profile is for the player.  A #1 option player getting consistent USG above 26% is going to probably get a more consistent 'floor' of shots per game than a #3 or #4 option player getting 22% USG.

Just another anecdotal comparison to add to yours:  I was looking at the frequency of 'outliers' -- extreme games.

During our last 'developmental' season (2006-07), Paul Pierce scored 40% below his season average (25ppg) in 11% of his games and 40% over his average in 12% of them.   Pierce's USG was 30.7% that season.

So far this season, though with a much lower USG (23.5%)  and lower mean average (17ppg), Green has scored 40% under his mean in 9% of his games, while scoring 40% over it in 18% of them.

Now, interestingly, in 2009-10, Pierce' USG dropped significantly, down to 23.8%, as he shared much more of the offensive load with KG, Ray & Rondo.  He was still our highest USG regular, but not by so huge a margin as in other seasons.  His mean scoring average dropped to 18.3ppg.    In that season, he scored 40% below his mean in 12.7% of his games and 40% above his mean in 16.9% of his games.

In other words, Pierce' 2009-10 season looks very similar to Jeff Green's 2013-2014 season (in this particular respect).   The teams around them were both different and similar.  That Celtics team 'struggled' through a very inconsistent, streaky regular season until everyone finally got healthy at the same time and they burned through the playoffs until finally coming up just short in Game 7 (after losing Perkins in Game 6).

[indeedproceed]

Player	PPG	Avg Deviation (pts)	Avg Deviation %
2013-14 Jeff Green	17	6.15	36.15%
87-88 Larry Bird	29.9	7	23.30%
90-91 Jordan	31.40	5.6	17.84%
2011-12 Rondo	11.88	5.98	50.35%

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.  Rondo had slightly less absolute variance (in points), but extremely high variance as a percentage of his scoring output.  Somehow I expected that. 

These comps are completely arbitrary and not the most useful.  Just a sniff test.

First, Tommy Point for actually making a legit table. I never have the patience.

But one thing you should factor in with this is % of ppg with the average deviation. Bird's % is 23%, Greens is higher, and therefor has a more pronounced impact .

[hwangjini_1]

tps all the way around for a good thread and good stats. by the way, by average deviation are you referring to standard deviation?

next, i dont know if this would add to the debate, but for green et al, it may also be revealing to see the NUMBER of games in which green exceeds the average deviation.

that is, are we looking at a few extreme outliers that surround a regular, steady scoring range?

or, is there a pronounced pattern of scoring low/high a great many times?

[sed522002]

Imagine how the Pacers fans are feeling about PG right now and he's a legit go to guy.

[kozlodoev]

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.

That's not really what it is, assuming that by "average deviation" you mean the calculated standard deviation of whatever sample of games you chose to work with.

If so, what the data shows that in roughly 95% of his games, Jeff Green will score between 5 and 29 points, and Bird will score between 16 and 44.

The coefficient of variation (that's what you call "average deviation %") is somewhat useful to the extent that we usually expect players that score more to have higher absolute volatility.

Overall, I'm not sure what this tells us, exactly. Numeric analysis is only useful if it's answering a very specific question, and in this case this thread is pretty meaningless unless we have established criteria by which to evaluate "consistency".

[Yoki_IsTheName]

I've made peace with Green's inconsistencies offensively.

I just want him to be consistent defensively. If he scores 28 one game, and drops 6 the next, I think I'll be fine as long as he puts the same high effort on defense. Can he atleast do that?

[PickNRoll]

Player	PPG	Avg Deviation (pts)	Avg Deviation %
2013-14 Jeff Green	17	6.15	36.15%
87-88 Larry Bird	29.9	7	23.30%
90-91 Jordan	31.40	5.6	17.84%
2011-12 Rondo	11.88	5.98	50.35%

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.  Rondo had slightly less absolute variance (in points), but extremely high variance as a percentage of his scoring output.  Somehow I expected that. 

These comps are completely arbitrary and not the most useful.  Just a sniff test.

First, Tommy Point for actually making a legit table. I never have the patience.

But one thing you should factor in with this is % of ppg with the average deviation. Bird's % is 23%, Greens is higher, and therefor has a more pronounced impact .

Right, that's why I included it as a percentage.    Absolute deviation doesn't mean much since we'd all welcome a guy who scores 35 +/- 12. 

Deviation % doesn't tell the whole story either.  Rondo is wildly inconsistent as a % of his output, but it's mitigated by the fact that we don't rely on him to score as much.  However, I think the truth is somewhere in between.  My eyes tell me that the team is better when Rondo is  playing aggressive offensively.  You don't know if you're going to get 22 from Rondo or just 6 on a given night, and I think that puts a burden on the team.  Without getting too "zen", it's hard to build an identity when the individual roles are too fluid.

[Roy H.]

I think when people say that Jeff Green is inconsistent, they mean he has a lot of really bad games.

2014 Jeff Green -- Games below 40% FG%:  27 out of 69
1988 Larry Bird -- Games below 40% FG%: 10 out of 76

The other part of the "consistency" Green lacks (that stars usually possess) is the ability to impact the game in other ways when their shot isn't falling.  When Larry wasn't shooting well, he usually impacted the games through rebounding or passing.  Green doesn't do that.

(One rough estimate of impact on a game is John Hollinger's "game score" (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html).  In 1988, Larry only had 4 games where his game score was below 10.0; so far in 2014, Jeff Green has had 36 such games, including 5 where his game score was negative.  I know you weren't comparing them as players, but in terms of ability to consistently impact the game, Larry was at a much higher and more consistent level.)

[mmmmm]

tps all the way around for a good thread and good stats. by the way, by average deviation are you referring to standard deviation?

next, i dont know if this would add to the debate, but for green et al, it may also be revealing to see the NUMBER of games in which green exceeds the average deviation.

that is, are we looking at a few extreme outliers that surround a regular, steady scoring range?

or, is there a pronounced pattern of scoring low/high a great many times?

That's kind of the thing I was looking at.  Basically counting outliers.  I didn't use the std dev as my threshold, though that would make more sense.  I used the arbitrary '40%' because I initially looked at Pierce' 2006-07 data and his mean points per game was 25 and I just wanted to count how often he was 10 points below or above that average.     If I can get some free time, I'll redo this using the actual standard deviation, but I think even the simplistic '40%' threshold provides a useful picture.  Basically, Green went outside that threshold on the low side 9% of the time and above it 18% of the time so far in his first 68 games this season.    Percentage wise, he actually had fewer low outliers than the two PP seasons I looked at, but he also had more high outliers.

[PickNRoll]

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.

That's not really what it is, assuming that by "average deviation" you mean the calculated standard deviation of whatever sample of games you chose to work with.

If so, what the data shows that in roughly 95% of his games, Jeff Green will score between 5 and 29 points, and Bird will score between 16 and 44.

The coefficient of variation (that's what you call "average deviation %") is somewhat useful to the extent that we usually expect players that score more to have higher absolute volatility.

Overall, I'm not sure what this tells us, exactly. Numeric analysis is only useful if it's answering a very specific question, and in this case this thread is pretty meaningless unless we have established criteria by which to evaluate "consistency".

By "average deviation" I mean average deviation about the mean, or Median Absolute Deviation, not standard deviation.  Absolute deviation is less sensitive to outliers and does answer the question, "on average Jeff Greens scores n +/- y".  Here are the standard deviations if you're curious.

Green: 8.12
Bird: 8.77
Jordan: 7.07
Rondo: 7.74

e.g. If a guy scores 0,20,20,20,20,40 , standard deviation is high (12.6).  MAD is low (6.66).  That guys looks fairly consistent to me.  SD and MAD are both limited, just in different ways.

[mmmmm]

I think when people say that Jeff Green is inconsistent, they mean he has a lot of really bad games.

2014 Jeff Green -- Games below 40% FG%:  27 out of 69
1988 Larry Bird -- Games below 40% FG%: 10 out of 76

The other part of the "consistency" Green lacks (that stars usually possess) is the ability to impact the game in other ways when their shot isn't falling.  When Larry wasn't shooting well, he usually impacted the games through rebounding or passing.  Green doesn't do that.

(One rough estimate of impact on a game is John Hollinger's "game score" (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html).  In 1988, Larry only had 4 games where his game score was below 10.0; so far in 2014, Jeff Green has had 36 such games, including 5 where his game score was negative.  I know you weren't comparing them as players, but in terms of ability to consistently impact the game, Larry was at a much higher and more consistent level.)

Goodness, I hope we aren't going to hold Green up to Bird for measurement...

In 1988, Bird was a 30% USG player on a 57 win team with a very balanced, complementary roster.  Green has never been expected to shoulder that kind of offensive load, and certainly not on anything remotely resembling a solid roster.   Apples and Oranges.

I would hope no one is going to remotely suggest that Green is in anywhere near a comparable player, consistency or otherwise.

Game Score, btw, is just another of Hollinger's arbitrarily weighted roll-ups of a bunch of counting stats.   I don't put much stock into it for measuring anything.

[PickNRoll]

I only chose Bird and Jordan as players whose consistency wouldn't be questioned.

[clover]

Player	PPG	Avg Deviation (pts)	Avg Deviation %
2013-14 Jeff Green	17	6.15	36.15%
87-88 Larry Bird	29.9	7	23.30%
90-91 Jordan	31.40	5.6	17.84%
2011-12 Rondo	11.88	5.98	50.35%

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.  Rondo had slightly less absolute variance (in points), but extremely high variance as a percentage of his scoring output.  Somehow I expected that. 

These comps are completely arbitrary and not the most useful.  Just a sniff test.

Just from your data set, it looks like the higher the average points scored, the lower the variation as a percentage of scoring output.

[PickNRoll]

Player	PPG	Avg Deviation (pts)	Avg Deviation %
2013-14 Jeff Green	17	6.15	36.15%
87-88 Larry Bird	29.9	7	23.30%
90-91 Jordan	31.40	5.6	17.84%
2011-12 Rondo	11.88	5.98	50.35%

Put simply, Green scores 17 +/- 6.  Bird scored 30 +/- 7.  Rondo had slightly less absolute variance (in points), but extremely high variance as a percentage of his scoring output.  Somehow I expected that. 

These comps are completely arbitrary and not the most useful.  Just a sniff test.

Just from your data set, it looks like the higher the average points scored, the lower the variation as a percentage of scoring output.

That would stand to reason.

Avg Deviation % = Avg Deviation / Avg PPG

It's a very limited stat.  It punishes low scorers like Rondo and forgives high scorers like Bird.  A more valid measure might be "for all scorers who average between 15 and 20ppg,how does Green rank?".  You could also looks at Z scores for points or deviations.  I think Roy's analysis is actually a better measure than what I presented, but the 40% threshold is arbitrary.