CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Fan from VT on October 10, 2012, 12:30:03 PM

Title: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Fan from VT on October 10, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
For anyone interested, Hollinger's doing his 2 per day in depth team Recaps/Forecasts. Today was Celtics and Thunder.

Link to Celtics:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/preview2012/story/_/page/hollinger-bos-forecast/boston-celtics-outlook

Its insider, so I won't cut and paste the whole thing.

But here are some points that are sure to trigger debate:

From the Overview:
Quote
In other ways, Boston was farther off than people realize -- once Chris Bosh came back, Miami won the last two games rather handily, and this team nearly lost to eighth-seeded Philadelphia in the previous round.
Quote
this will be their ceiling unless the Celtics get better on offense, where strong field goal percentages were more than offset by high turnover rates and a near-total aversion to offensive rebounding (more on that below).

From the Recap:
Quote
By the end, Boston was in a familiar spot: second in defensive efficiency. The Celtics led the NBA in field goal defense and 3-point defense, but they fouled more than the league average, which is why the Bulls had a better efficiency mark overall.

Quote
The thing a lot of people didn't understand about Boston last season is how bad it was on offense. The Celtics finished 24th in offensive efficiency, and the core problem was how rarely they got second chances. Boston rebounded only 19.7 percent of its misses (see chart), which was the worst offensive rebound rate of all time. Yes, ever.

Quote
Between that and an above-average turnover rate, the Celtics averaged fewer shots per possession than any team in basketball, and you can't very well score if you don't shoot. They shot the ball just fine; in fact the Celtics were well above the league average in shooting and TS%. They just didn't generate nearly enough attempts.

Notice in the chart that the second-worst team in this category, Oklahoma City, was still about as close to the league average as they were to the Celtics. While the Thunder and Heat were bad in this area too, the Celtics were magnitudes worse.

The good news in Boston's offensive malaise is that much of it was the result of the bench, not the core group. The Celtics got an astounding 4,315 minutes from players with single-digit PERs last season, and not one of them will be on the roster this season. If they can just replace the Pietruses, Hollinses and O'Neals of last season with halfway decent offensive players, they may improve quite a bit at this end.

From the Offseason Moves:
Quote
Can they amnesty Green yet, or do they have to wait until the games start...Green was a fungible player before he missed last season with a heart problem; guaranteeing him four years (with a player option on the fourth!) at a rate far beyond any rational market level is something we might expect from a couple of the league's bumbling organizations, but certainly not this one.

I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer.

He's then very in favor of the Terry signing, Lee trade, and KG signing, and justifies the Stiemsma/O'neal dump in favor of Sullinger/Melo

From the 2012-2013 Outlook:
Quote
The big-picture view is that they'll defend, though perhaps not quite as well, and they'll struggle to score, but perhaps not quite as badly.
Quote
The good news, however, is that the added offense, especially from Terry, should take some of the strain off Garnett, Pierce and Rondo. The former two players struggle to create easy looks in one-on-one situations, and while Rondo can be a dynamite set-up man, his own inability to score makes it hard to use him as the focal point.
Quote
Overall, then, Boston is poised to end up right back where it was last season. With no daunting power in the East beyond Miami, the race for the second position in the conference is there for the taking. I have the Celtics projected in a tight pack with several other teams, so they could easily finish as low as sixth or seventh or as high as second. But given their recent track record, nobody will count them out in the playoffs regardless of where they're seeded.


Prediction: 48-34, 1st in Atlantic Division, 3rd in Eastern Conference
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: rondohondo on October 10, 2012, 12:35:38 PM
Hollinger is moronic, guess he doesn't take into account that Green played PF for the majority of his career. Any time he has played SF he has put up very solid numbers and shooting % .

He is the last person I would trust, he is a stat geek that doesn't take anything else but stats into account for how a team will preform .
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: action781 on October 10, 2012, 01:16:56 PM

Quote
The thing a lot of people didn't understand about Boston last season is how bad it was on offense. The Celtics finished 24th in offensive efficiency, and the core problem was how rarely they got second chances. Boston rebounded only 19.7 percent of its misses (see chart), which was the worst offensive rebound rate of all time. Yes, ever.


A lot of what he says is pretty accurate actually, but there is a glaring problem with a lot of his stats, particularly this one quoted above.  That problem is that a large portion of these stats were accumulated in the beginning of the year when the celtics were, frankly, pretty terrible.  I think they were lazy and not trying.  Then, something happened after the all-star break, and if we look at the celtics numbers post-break and including the playoffs, we'd see very different numbers I assume.  And that is the celtics team I expect to see this season rather than the first-half celtics of last season.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: FatjohnReturns on October 10, 2012, 01:29:10 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 01:39:15 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MJohnnyboy on October 10, 2012, 01:44:14 PM
Back in 2010 Hollinger said nothing was stopping Orlando from getting back to the NBA finals after the Second round was done.

I learned that year that his system of statistics is quite flawed as I remember the C's kicking the Magic in the teeth in the ECF.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MBunge on October 10, 2012, 01:51:36 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

Jeff Green's career averages - 13.9 pts, 44% shooting, 5.5 rebs, 1.6 assists.

I picked Wilson Chandler's name out of thin air.  Here are his career averages - 13.5 pts, 44% shooting, 5.2 rebs, 1.8 assists.

Does Hollinger say Chandler isn't "any good"?

Now, there's a serious argument to be made that Boston is overpaying Green based on his past performance.  This "Jeff Green sucks" meme, however, is just the latest thing the stat-heads have latched onto to prove how they understand basketball so much better than everyone else.

Mike
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 01:56:27 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

My problem with Hollinger's take on Green was:

Quote
guaranteeing him four years (with a player option on the fourth!) at a rate far beyond any rational market level

That is a bold statement, that isn't based in fact.  While the heart is a confounding factor, there is absolutely precedent for a market of talented, yet unproven swingmen/tweeners getting the type of money Green got.

If you want to go back to Marvin Williams, thats a pretty easy one.  Tyrus Thomas is in a similar boat.  Thaddeus Young is very comparable.  Nic Batum is being paid more, and is still pretty unproven.  Marcus Thornton and Trevor Ariza were in the same tax bracket.

And of course, the market was set with Gerald Wallace, who is likely on the downside of his career getting his huge contract.

Now, we can quibble about which of those guys are better or worse, but when you look at their resumes and skillsets, they are all on similar levels to Green, and they all were paid in the same ballpark.

So, unless Green's heart is about to explode (and if it does, I assume Insurance covers his contract), I think Hollinger was taking a bit of a liberty to suggest it was "beyond any reasonable market level".  In fact, it is right at market level.  It just wasn't the bargain I think most of us thought he could get, given the year off, and the good will Danny put up.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: FatjohnReturns on October 10, 2012, 02:04:20 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

Sure he did. He said"Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good"

The truth is Green in his best two seasons put up 16.5ppg/6.7rpg in 08/09 and 15.1 ppg/6 rpg in 09/10.NO evidence he actually any good? gimmie a break. 

Secondly this "and considerable evidence that he's a health risk"

Is Hollinger a doctor now? The Celtics medical staff has cleared Green healthy enough to play.

"This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

Isnt a little early to declare, without a doubt,  the worst contract of the summer?

 but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false. What do you mean he didnt say anything false? The whole paragraph is all untrue.

Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 02:05:21 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

Jeff Green's career averages - 13.9 pts, 44% shooting, 5.5 rebs, 1.6 assists.

I picked Wilson Chandler's name out of thin air.  Here are his career averages - 13.5 pts, 44% shooting, 5.2 rebs, 1.8 assists.

Does Hollinger say Chandler isn't "any good"?

Now, there's a serious argument to be made that Boston is overpaying Green based on his past performance.  This "Jeff Green sucks" meme, however, is just the latest thing the stat-heads have latched onto to prove how they understand basketball so much better than everyone else.

Mike

Jeff Green's career averages don't knock Hollinger's point. They look okay without context, but when you factor in it was over 34 minutes per game, with atrocious defense as a 4, its not only unimpressive, its below average. He's an okay scorer as a mismatch 4, terrible defender at the 4, terrible rebounder.

Like someone said earlier, it is all upside with Jeff Green. We didn't sign him for what he was, we signed him because we thought he could be better if used right.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 02:07:48 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

Jeff Green's career averages - 13.9 pts, 44% shooting, 5.5 rebs, 1.6 assists.

I picked Wilson Chandler's name out of thin air.  Here are his career averages - 13.5 pts, 44% shooting, 5.2 rebs, 1.8 assists.

Does Hollinger say Chandler isn't "any good"?

Now, there's a serious argument to be made that Boston is overpaying Green based on his past performance.  This "Jeff Green sucks" meme, however, is just the latest thing the stat-heads have latched onto to prove how they understand basketball so much better than everyone else.

Mike

Jeff Green's career averages don't knock Hollinger's point. They look okay without context, but when you factor in it was over 34 minutes per game, with atrocious defense as a 4, its not only unimpressive, its below average. He's an okay scorer as a mismatch 4, terrible defender at the 4, terrible rebounder.

Like someone said earlier, it is all upside with Jeff Green. We didn't sign him for what he was, we signed him because we thought he could be better if used right.

But if you are going to throw in context, you have to also include the fact that he was being forced to play out of position, and he was playing with 2 black holes, who only passed it to him when they needed to be bailed out.  Context goes both ways.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: wdleehi on October 10, 2012, 02:10:52 PM
Why do we keep mistaking "overpayed' with "not a good player"?




I agree Green was overpayed. 



He had to many "could be" to get that type of deal.


He "could be" healthy for the rest of his career.


He "could be" great at SF.



Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: j804 on October 10, 2012, 02:12:53 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

Jeff Green's career averages - 13.9 pts, 44% shooting, 5.5 rebs, 1.6 assists.

I picked Wilson Chandler's name out of thin air.  Here are his career averages - 13.5 pts, 44% shooting, 5.2 rebs, 1.8 assists.

Does Hollinger say Chandler isn't "any good"?

Now, there's a serious argument to be made that Boston is overpaying Green based on his past performance.  This "Jeff Green sucks" meme, however, is just the latest thing the stat-heads have latched onto to prove how they understand basketball so much better than everyone else.

Mike

Jeff Green's career averages don't knock Hollinger's point. They look okay without context, but when you factor in it was over 34 minutes per game, with atrocious defense as a 4, its not only unimpressive, its below average. He's an okay scorer as a mismatch 4, terrible defender at the 4, terrible rebounder.

Like someone said earlier, it is all upside with Jeff Green. We didn't sign him for what he was, we signed him because we thought he could be better if used right.

But if you are going to throw in context, you have to also include the fact that he was being forced to play out of position, and he was playing with 2 black holes, who only passed it to him when they needed to be bailed out.  Context goes both ways.
Good point well said
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 02:16:23 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

Jeff Green's career averages - 13.9 pts, 44% shooting, 5.5 rebs, 1.6 assists.

I picked Wilson Chandler's name out of thin air.  Here are his career averages - 13.5 pts, 44% shooting, 5.2 rebs, 1.8 assists.

Does Hollinger say Chandler isn't "any good"?

Now, there's a serious argument to be made that Boston is overpaying Green based on his past performance.  This "Jeff Green sucks" meme, however, is just the latest thing the stat-heads have latched onto to prove how they understand basketball so much better than everyone else.

Mike

Jeff Green's career averages don't knock Hollinger's point. They look okay without context, but when you factor in it was over 34 minutes per game, with atrocious defense as a 4, its not only unimpressive, its below average. He's an okay scorer as a mismatch 4, terrible defender at the 4, terrible rebounder.

Like someone said earlier, it is all upside with Jeff Green. We didn't sign him for what he was, we signed him because we thought he could be better if used right.

But if you are going to throw in context, you have to also include the fact that he was being forced to play out of position, and he was playing with 2 black holes, who only passed it to him when they needed to be bailed out.  Context goes both ways.

I said it in the first response. Come on, Chris! If you're not going to go over what I say with a fine-toothed-comb, why are we here?
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 02:18:50 PM
Why do we keep mistaking "overpayed' with "not a good player"?




I agree Green was overpayed. 



He had to many "could be" to get that type of deal.


He "could be" healthy for the rest of his career.


He "could be" great at SF.

Right.  My problem is that I am not sure the evidence is there that he is all that overpaid. 

I think what we have just seen is a precedent that heart surgery does not necessarily affect a players value (actually, I think we saw that with Eddie Curry already).

And when you take the heart surgery out of the equation, he ended up right around market value. 


I said it in the first response. Come on, Chris! If you're not going to go over what I say with a fine-toothed-comb, why are we here?

Reading everything thoroughly gets in the way of my grandstanding. 
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MBunge on October 10, 2012, 02:25:15 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

Jeff Green's career averages - 13.9 pts, 44% shooting, 5.5 rebs, 1.6 assists.

I picked Wilson Chandler's name out of thin air.  Here are his career averages - 13.5 pts, 44% shooting, 5.2 rebs, 1.8 assists.

Does Hollinger say Chandler isn't "any good"?

Now, there's a serious argument to be made that Boston is overpaying Green based on his past performance.  This "Jeff Green sucks" meme, however, is just the latest thing the stat-heads have latched onto to prove how they understand basketball so much better than everyone else.

Mike

Jeff Green's career averages don't knock Hollinger's point. They look okay without context, but when you factor in it was over 34 minutes per game, with atrocious defense as a 4, its not only unimpressive, its below average. He's an okay scorer as a mismatch 4, terrible defender at the 4, terrible rebounder.

Like someone said earlier, it is all upside with Jeff Green. We didn't sign him for what he was, we signed him because we thought he could be better if used right.

1.  Jeff Green's career average - 33.6 minutes a game.

Wilson Chandler's career average - 31.9 minutes a game.


2.  Is Wilson Chandler some kind of super-defender at the 3?  How do you think he'd do defending 4's?

Is Green being overpaid?  Very possibly, though we have to see how he does playing more at the 3 this season and we have to factor in the replacement costs.  What would Boston have had to pay to get someone like Jeff Green if he walked away?  Could they even have done it?

Again, the stat-heads have embraced this "Jeff Green sucks" meme as evidence of how brilliantly insightful they are.

Mike
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: FatjohnReturns on October 10, 2012, 02:26:11 PM
Why do we keep mistaking "overpayed' with "not a good player"?




I agree Green was overpayed. 



He had to many "could be" to get that type of deal.


He "could be" healthy for the rest of his career.


He "could be" great at SF.

Player contracts are given not only on what you have done in the past but what the organization believes you are capable of doing in the future. When Danny gave Rondo his last contract was he overpayed at that time? I think so. Now it seems he is outplaying his contract.

I think the reason Danny gave him the contract is because he believes in the long run Green will perform up to or exceed his contract.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: ianboyextreme on October 10, 2012, 02:35:24 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: ianboyextreme on October 10, 2012, 02:40:30 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.
Contracts from this summer: Omer Asik (3 years, 25 mil.), Nic Batum(4 years, 46 million), Jeremy Lin (3 years, 25 mil., making 14 mil in 3rd year of contract), and yet Jeff's is the worst contract of the summer? He's not even making 10 million this year or any of the years in the contract. He will live up to that contract.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: ianboyextreme on October 10, 2012, 02:42:05 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

My problem with Hollinger's take on Green was:

Quote
guaranteeing him four years (with a player option on the fourth!) at a rate far beyond any rational market level

That is a bold statement, that isn't based in fact.  While the heart is a confounding factor, there is absolutely precedent for a market of talented, yet unproven swingmen/tweeners getting the type of money Green got.

If you want to go back to Marvin Williams, thats a pretty easy one.  Tyrus Thomas is in a similar boat.  Thaddeus Young is very comparable.  Nic Batum is being paid more, and is still pretty unproven.  Marcus Thornton and Trevor Ariza were in the same tax bracket.

And of course, the market was set with Gerald Wallace, who is likely on the downside of his career getting his huge contract.

Now, we can quibble about which of those guys are better or worse, but when you look at their resumes and skillsets, they are all on similar levels to Green, and they all were paid in the same ballpark.

So, unless Green's heart is about to explode (and if it does, I assume Insurance covers his contract), I think Hollinger was taking a bit of a liberty to suggest it was "beyond any reasonable market level".  In fact, it is right at market level.  It just wasn't the bargain I think most of us thought he could get, given the year off, and the good will Danny put up.
Watch it with the "heart about to explode" comment. Pretty insensitive.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: ianboyextreme on October 10, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
For someone who relies purely on stats, Hollinger sure offers up a lot of opinion.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 02:46:02 PM
1.  Jeff Green's career average - 33.6 minutes a game.

Wilson Chandler's career average - 31.9 minutes a game.

I understand why you'd look at Wilson Chandler; he's a multi-tool, multi-positional player. He's a good comparison to Jeff Green in some ways.

Quote
2.  Is Wilson Chandler some kind of super-defender at the 3?  How do you think he'd do defending 4's?

You're missing the point. Jeff Green's box scores you're putting out as proof that he's actually pretty good are almost completely reliant on his scoring numbers. His scoring numbers though are likely a bit inflated because he was an offensive mismatch. But, you've gotta pay the piper too. Jeff Green is an offensive mismatch, but cost his team more in terrible rebounding and terrible defense than he gave them in slightly below-average scoring output.

Quote
Is Green being overpaid?  Very possibly, though we have to see how he does playing more at the 3 this season and we have to factor in the replacement costs.  What would Boston have had to pay to get someone like Jeff Green if he walked away?  Could they even have done it?

You kept on comparing Jeff Green to Wilson Chandler. You should compare their contracts. Wilson Chandler will cost the Nugs approximately $10 million dollars less over the next 4 years than Jeff Green will cost the C's.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Fafnir on October 10, 2012, 02:48:09 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: BballTim on October 10, 2012, 02:49:41 PM
Back in 2010 Hollinger said nothing was stopping Orlando from getting back to the NBA finals after the Second round was done.

I learned that year that his system of statistics is quite flawed as I remember the C's kicking the Magic in the teeth in the ECF.

  I thought that stretch was fairly telling. It wasn't just that he was shocked that the Celts did well in the playoffs (many were) but he really didn't have the slightest idea about why it was happening.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: rondohondo on October 10, 2012, 02:53:00 PM
1.  Jeff Green's career average - 33.6 minutes a game.

Wilson Chandler's career average - 31.9 minutes a game.

I understand why you'd look at Wilson Chandler; he's a multi-tool, multi-positional player. He's a good comparison to Jeff Green in some ways.

Quote
2.  Is Wilson Chandler some kind of super-defender at the 3?  How do you think he'd do defending 4's?

You're missing the point. Jeff Green's box scores you're putting out as proof that he's actually pretty good are almost completely reliant on his scoring numbers. His scoring numbers though are likely a bit inflated because he was an offensive mismatch. But, you've gotta pay the piper too. Jeff Green is an offensive mismatch, but cost his team more in terrible rebounding and terrible defense than he gave them in slightly below-average scoring output.

Quote
Is Green being overpaid?  Very possibly, though we have to see how he does playing more at the 3 this season and we have to factor in the replacement costs.  What would Boston have had to pay to get someone like Jeff Green if he walked away?  Could they even have done it?

You kept on comparing Jeff Green to Wilson Chandler. You should compare their contracts. Wilson Chandler will cost the Nugs approximately $10 million dollars less over the next 4 years than Jeff Green will cost the C's.


What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.

It is Hollinger nonsense....
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.

It is Hollinger nonsense....

The question being bandied about there was 'was Jeff Green overpayed?'.

The question 'Does it hurt us if we overpaid for Jeff Green' is different.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MBunge on October 10, 2012, 02:57:14 PM
You kept on comparing Jeff Green to Wilson Chandler. You should compare their contracts. Wilson Chandler will cost the Nugs approximately $10 million dollars less over the next 4 years than Jeff Green will cost the C's.

But if somebody isn't "any good", then it doesn't matter if you pay them $10 million dollars less or $10 million dollars more.  Hollinger didn't say "Jeff Green's an okay/mediocre player that Boston is overpaying".  He said Green isn't "any good".  Those are not the same thing.

Mike
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MBunge on October 10, 2012, 02:58:45 PM
What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.

It is Hollinger nonsense....

The question being bandied about there was 'was Jeff Green overpayed?'.

But whether Jeff Green is overpaid and by how much depends largely on how good he is.  If he's roughly on the same level as Wilson Chandler, then he's probably overpaid but not by any incredible amount.

Mike
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 03:00:59 PM
You kept on comparing Jeff Green to Wilson Chandler. You should compare their contracts. Wilson Chandler will cost the Nugs approximately $10 million dollars less over the next 4 years than Jeff Green will cost the C's.

But if somebody isn't "any good", then it doesn't matter if you pay them $10 million dollars less or $10 million dollars more.  Hollinger didn't say "Jeff Green's an okay/mediocre player that Boston is overpaying".  He said Green isn't "any good".  Those are not the same thing.

Mike

Yeah, I guess that Hollinger indulged in a bit of hyperbole there. He didn't say though that 'Jeff Green isn't any good', he said 'there is no evidence that he is actually any good', and to that end, he's partially correct. If we were buying Jeff Green the 30+mpg power forward, there isn't any evidence that he's an overall plus to our roster.

We bought Jeff Green the reinvented perimeter defender and gazelle though, so who knows. There is some evidence that Jeff green does a pretty good job on the wing as a defender, and he finishes at the hoop better over 3's as well.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 03:05:51 PM
What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.

It is Hollinger nonsense....

The question being bandied about there was 'was Jeff Green overpayed?'.

But whether Jeff Green is overpaid and by how much depends largely on how good he is.  If he's roughly on the same level as Wilson Chandler, then he's probably overpaid but not by any incredible amount.

Mike

There isn't an conclusive evidence that Jeff Green will be as good at the 3 in the long term as Wilson Chandler.

There are some good signs that he has a future there, but that's why i said that Jeff Green is in fact, all upside.

And I think this conversation has kind of spiraled into a weird place now. When you get down to brass tacks, I think we likely overpaid for Jeff Green, but I'm not super concerned about it, and I have a lot of hope that he matures well in his new role and takes a big step forward this year.

The only real beef I have is when people point to his OKC numbers and say, "Look, he's a perfectly fine power-forward, he should start over Bass at the 4". He was a really bad power-forward, and those superficial box scores don't tell the story of Jeff Green at the 4. We don't want that guy playing 30 mpg for us as a starter at the 4. We want the multi-tool 3.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 03:15:17 PM
Quote


"I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer."

This is just crap. When the year is finished there is a strong possibility that it could be the best contract of the summer.

Green is young,big,athletic and wants to be a Celtic. He is going to be the goto guy on the second unit, he will get more opportunities this year than any previoulsy and he will deliver.

Its all upside with Green.

It's all upside because what he's actually accomplished to this point isn't by any stretch remarkable. There is some context to that, beginning with him playing out of position as a starting 4, but aside from Hollinger's last sentence, he didn't say anything false.

My problem with Hollinger's take on Green was:

Quote
guaranteeing him four years (with a player option on the fourth!) at a rate far beyond any rational market level

That is a bold statement, that isn't based in fact.  While the heart is a confounding factor, there is absolutely precedent for a market of talented, yet unproven swingmen/tweeners getting the type of money Green got.

If you want to go back to Marvin Williams, thats a pretty easy one.  Tyrus Thomas is in a similar boat.  Thaddeus Young is very comparable.  Nic Batum is being paid more, and is still pretty unproven.  Marcus Thornton and Trevor Ariza were in the same tax bracket.

And of course, the market was set with Gerald Wallace, who is likely on the downside of his career getting his huge contract.

Now, we can quibble about which of those guys are better or worse, but when you look at their resumes and skillsets, they are all on similar levels to Green, and they all were paid in the same ballpark.

So, unless Green's heart is about to explode (and if it does, I assume Insurance covers his contract), I think Hollinger was taking a bit of a liberty to suggest it was "beyond any reasonable market level".  In fact, it is right at market level.  It just wasn't the bargain I think most of us thought he could get, given the year off, and the good will Danny put up.
Watch it with the "heart about to explode" comment. Pretty insensitive.

It would be insensitive if it was the case.  But, by all reports (and confirmed by nearly $40 million), his heart is all better after the surgery.  Which is the point. It should not be part of the discussion.  And by his basketball resume alone, he is making market value.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MBunge on October 10, 2012, 03:16:00 PM
The only real beef I have is when people point to his OKC numbers and say, "Look, he's a perfectly fine power-forward, he should start over Bass at the 4". He was a really bad power-forward, and those superficial box scores don't tell the story of Jeff Green at the 4. We don't want that guy playing 30 mpg for us as a starter at the 4. We want the multi-tool 3.

Well, that I completely agree with.  I'd rather start Sully at the 4 than Green.  Heck, I'd rather start Darko at the 5 and move KG back to 4.

Mike
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.

It is Hollinger nonsense....

The question being bandied about there was 'was Jeff Green overpayed?'.

But whether Jeff Green is overpaid and by how much depends largely on how good he is.  If he's roughly on the same level as Wilson Chandler, then he's probably overpaid but not by any incredible amount.

Mike

There isn't an conclusive evidence that Jeff Green will be as good at the 3 in the long term as Wilson Chandler.


And there isn't conclusive evidence that Chandler will be good outside of D'Antoni's system.  So far, the number aren't great. 

Here are his numbers since he left NY:

MPG   29.55
FG%   0.41
3pt%   0.33
Reb   5.03
Pts   11.62
TOV   1.90
AST   1.76

Not so great.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: nostar on October 10, 2012, 03:31:30 PM
The only real beef I have is when people point to his OKC numbers and say, "Look, he's a perfectly fine power-forward, he should start over Bass at the 4". He was a really bad power-forward, and those superficial box scores don't tell the story of Jeff Green at the 4. We don't want that guy playing 30 mpg for us as a starter at the 4. We want the multi-tool 3.

I tend to agree that pointing to a players numbers on a team 3 seasons ago where he played out of position and with ball-hogs isn't the best way to make a good assessment. On the other hand I'm not sure that Jeff Green would make a bad PF on a team with KG, Pierce, AB and Rondo. Garnett is famous for covering up the defensive blemishes of lesser players and the Celtics play better team defense than the Thunder ever have. With defensive stats you have to take the other players into account and there is no stratosphere where Nenad Krstic is rivaling KG.

You will see Green at the 4 when guys like Lebron, Carmello and Durant play the 4. Also I think a lot of people forget that Green is 6'9 and 235lbs. Those are pretty close to the same numbers that Josh Smith is playing at PF.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Boris Badenov on October 10, 2012, 03:34:29 PM
What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.

It is Hollinger nonsense....

The question being bandied about there was 'was Jeff Green overpayed?'.

But whether Jeff Green is overpaid and by how much depends largely on how good he is.  If he's roughly on the same level as Wilson Chandler, then he's probably overpaid but not by any incredible amount.

Mike

There isn't an conclusive evidence that Jeff Green will be as good at the 3 in the long term as Wilson Chandler.


And there isn't conclusive evidence that Chandler will be good outside of D'Antoni's system.  So far, the number aren't great. 

Here are his numbers since he left NY:

MPG   29.55
FG%   0.41
3pt%   0.33
Reb   5.03
Pts   11.62
TOV   1.90
AST   1.76

Not so great.

I also did a comparison of Batum and Green over the summer, and they were far more similar (on offense) than you might expect.

Essentially Batum's only edge is 3 pt shooting. If Green can shoot 35-37% from 3 this year, he will essentially match Batum in PER.

Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Boris Badenov on October 10, 2012, 03:38:08 PM
I have one other comment about the Hollinger preview, or the snippets anyway.

It seems really odd that he would not be more optimistic, because he posted something last year about how our 2nd half defense was rated even better than the 2008 defense.

Did he not mention that in the original article? I mean, in my view we can still be 15th in the league in offense (however you rate it) and win the championship, if we have the best defense in the league by a significant margin.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 03:41:43 PM
What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.

It is Hollinger nonsense....

The question being bandied about there was 'was Jeff Green overpayed?'.

But whether Jeff Green is overpaid and by how much depends largely on how good he is.  If he's roughly on the same level as Wilson Chandler, then he's probably overpaid but not by any incredible amount.

Mike

There isn't an conclusive evidence that Jeff Green will be as good at the 3 in the long term as Wilson Chandler.


And there isn't conclusive evidence that Chandler will be good outside of D'Antoni's system.  So far, the number aren't great. 

Here are his numbers since he left NY:

MPG   29.55
FG%   0.41
3pt%   0.33
Reb   5.03
Pts   11.62
TOV   1.90
AST   1.76

Not so great.

True. The Nugs though have bounced him around a lot. His PT has been up and down, and his role, and his position. We'll see though.

The only real beef I have is when people point to his OKC numbers and say, "Look, he's a perfectly fine power-forward, he should start over Bass at the 4". He was a really bad power-forward, and those superficial box scores don't tell the story of Jeff Green at the 4. We don't want that guy playing 30 mpg for us as a starter at the 4. We want the multi-tool 3.

I tend to agree that pointing to a players numbers on a team 3 seasons ago where he played out of position and with ball-hogs isn't the best way to make a good assessment.

This is all true.

Quote
On the other hand I'm not sure that Jeff Green would make a bad PF on a team with KG, Pierce, AB and Rondo. Garnett is famous for covering up the defensive blemishes of lesser players and the Celtics play better team defense than the Thunder ever have. With defensive stats you have to take the other players into account and there is no stratosphere where Nenad Krstic is rivaling KG.

This is true to some degree, but Green's biggest problem was that he just couldn't defend traditional 4's in any meaningful capacity. Too strong, too big for him. KG will help that a little, but that kind of liability, when you have perfectly good matchups for Green at the 3, just doesn't seem necessary.

Quote
You will see Green at the 4 when guys like Lebron, Carmello and Durant play the 4. Also I think a lot of people forget that Green is 6'9 and 235lbs. Those are pretty close to the same numbers that Josh Smith is playing at PF.

I think this is spot on though, and I think it is a part of the equation that Hollinger is leaving out. We'll see LeBron 3 times this season, and we'll have to beat him in the playoffs. That's a big portion of why we overpaid for green, IMO.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Fan from VT on October 10, 2012, 03:43:44 PM
I have one other comment about the Hollinger preview, or the snippets anyway.

It seems really odd that he would not be more optimistic, because he posted something last year about how our 2nd half defense was rated even better than the 2008 defense.

Did he not mention that in the original article? I mean, in my view we can still be 15th in the league in offense (however you rate it) and win the championship, if we have the best defense in the league by a significant margin.


I think I pulled a quote mentioning we were Second in defense last year, Chicago number 1. Chicago may take a step back (losing Asik), but we also might take a step back because Hollinger pointed out that our bench last year was basically all D/No O, and we traded that for some lesser defenders that can actually contribute on offense.

In fact, Hollinger made the point you did. Our offense was very bad last year (24th). So if we can integrate the bench guys/new guys and get Bradley healthy, and have a top 3 defense (reasonable) but get into the top 10-15 on offense, then that is a very potent combination. Last season's 2/24 combo was not enough; changing that to, say, 3/12 in terms of defense/offense rank would be huge.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 03:50:13 PM


True. The THUNDER though have bounced him around a lot. His PT has been up and down, and his role, and his position. We'll see though.


Fixed.  Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 04:08:04 PM


True. The THUNDER though have bounced him around a lot. His PT has been up and down, and his role, and his position. We'll see though.


Fixed.  Sound familiar?

Well the Thunder were pretty consistent, they kept him at 4, even when Serge Ibaka emerged as a better player. I don't think Green and Chandler went through similar experiences (Chandler on the Nugs, Green on the Thunder), but I do think that Green and Chandler are similar on their new teams in that they have neither had a real shot to get their feet under them on the court, as it were.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 04:31:42 PM


True. The THUNDER though have bounced him around a lot. His PT has been up and down, and his role, and his position. We'll see though.


Fixed.  Sound familiar?

Well the Thunder were pretty consistent, they kept him at 4, even when Serge Ibaka emerged as a better player. I don't think Green and Chandler went through similar experiences (Chandler on the Nugs, Green on the Thunder), but I do think that Green and Chandler are similar on their new teams in that they have neither had a real shot to get their feet under them on the court, as it were.

In Denver in 2010-2011, Chandler played 376 minutes at SF, 127 minutes at SG, and just 16 minutes at PF.

Since I don't think there is a huge difference between SG and SF, I don't think Chandler was being yanked around all that much either.

I think they are different in the fact that Chandler played years in a system that emphasized his strengths, while Green played in one that emphasized his weaknesses.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: SAS on October 10, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Quote

What does it matter what Jeff Green is getting paid? We are over the salary cap for the next 2 years anyways. We couldn't get anyone comparable to Green if we just let him walk because we didn't want to pay him 2 mil extra a year.


This.  C's are all in for the next couple of years, and without Green the C's would have absolutely nobody to take some of Pierce's minutes.  Could Danny have played hardball and bargained Green down a million or two per year?  Probably.  But given the context, paying an extra couple of million for a guy that they really seem to like and believe in seems far from making this a disastrous contract.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MJohnnyboy on October 10, 2012, 04:34:15 PM
Quote
In other ways, Boston was farther off than people realize -- once Chris Bosh came back, Miami won the last two games rather handily, and this team nearly lost to eighth-seeded Philadelphia in the previous round.

Right Hollinger, because Bosh had so much to do with Lebron's best game as a pro in game 6.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: LooseCannon on October 10, 2012, 04:37:12 PM
Over on the TrueHoops blog, Henry Abbott points out a possible flaw (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/50257/offensive-rebounds-come-with-a-cost) in Hollinger's criticism of the Celtics' low shots per possession.

Quote
You know which three teams got the fewest shots per possession last year?

Worst by a country mile was the Celtics. Second was the Thunder. Third was the Heat.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Chris on October 10, 2012, 04:38:47 PM
Quote
In other ways, Boston was farther off than people realize -- once Chris Bosh came back, Miami won the last two games rather handily, and this team nearly lost to eighth-seeded Philadelphia in the previous round.

Right Hollinger, because Bosh had so much to do with Lebron's best game as a pro in game 6.

Eh, I actually do think Bosh helped the rest of the team from completely blowing it.  And he made a large impact in game 7.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Neurotic Guy on October 10, 2012, 04:48:56 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.

Sorry for the upcoming nitpick, but the comment wasn't that 15ppg is either remarkable or something to get excited about. The comment was it's evidence of 'good'.  If the remark were amended to say 'good offensive stats' I'd say 15 ppg and 6 rebounds constitutes 'good' stats by NBA standards.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: MJohnnyboy on October 10, 2012, 04:54:45 PM
Quote
In other ways, Boston was farther off than people realize -- once Chris Bosh came back, Miami won the last two games rather handily, and this team nearly lost to eighth-seeded Philadelphia in the previous round.

Right Hollinger, because Bosh had so much to do with Lebron's best game as a pro in game 6.

Eh, I actually do think Bosh helped the rest of the team from completely blowing it.  And he made a large impact in game 7.

I agree, but if Lebron hadn't become completely unstoppable in that game it would have been much more interesting than it really was.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 04:57:49 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.

Sorry for the upcoming nitpick, but the comment wasn't that 15ppg is either remarkable or something to get excited about. The comment was it's evidence of 'good'.  If the remark were amended to say 'good offensive stats' I'd say 15 ppg and 6 rebounds constitutes 'good' stats by NBA standards.

In37 minutes per game, as a power forward, at 45% shooting?

Not really.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Fafnir on October 10, 2012, 05:11:40 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.

Sorry for the upcoming nitpick, but the comment wasn't that 15ppg is either remarkable or something to get excited about. The comment was it's evidence of 'good'.  If the remark were amended to say 'good offensive stats' I'd say 15 ppg and 6 rebounds constitutes 'good' stats by NBA standards.
The average PF in 08-09 played 19.5 MPG:

They scored 15.5 PP/40 min at .525 TS% with 19.21 Usage
compared to
Jeff Green scored 17.9 PP/40 min at .536 TS% with 21.18 Usage (played 36.8 MPG)

That includes scrubs and spot minute PFs if we up the filter to guys playing 20+ minutes per game (so heavy rotation and starting level players)

The average heavy rotation PF played 31 MPG:

They scored 18.2 PP/40 min at .547 TS% with 21.52 Usage
compared to
Jeff Green scored 17.9 PP/40 min at .536 TS% with 21.18 Usage (played 36.8 MPG)

Nothing about Jeff Green's offensive production in his highest PPG year says anything but meh. His stats are pretty consistent the next year as well. He was just average at best.
 
Now you can argue that his mismatch helped space the floor for his team (he certainly shot way more 3s than most PFs) but that's another level of complexity.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: pearljammer10 on October 10, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
I have never been able to stand Hollinger and this further persuades my opinion on him.

I dont understand why the Green contract is getting so much crap... A young versatile athletic swinging big man that is entering his prime making 9 mil isnt all that crazy. How is the green contract any worse than the Asik or Lin deals?
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Fan from VT on October 10, 2012, 05:21:49 PM
Over on the TrueHoops blog, Henry Abbott points out a possible flaw (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/50257/offensive-rebounds-come-with-a-cost) in Hollinger's criticism of the Celtics' low shots per possession.

Quote
You know which three teams got the fewest shots per possession last year?


Worst by a country mile was the Celtics. Second was the Thunder. Third was the Heat.


He does acknowledge that all of those teams had few shots per possession but were very efficient with those shots. However, his point was that the Celtics were VERY far off; that the Thunder/Heat, though 2nd and 3rd worst, were closer to average than the Celtics.

Also, while the Thunder/Heat were 2nd and 3rd worst at that specific category, they somehow managed to be 2nd and 6th respectively in total overall offense with Boston 24th. So either Miami/OKC were SOO much better with their shots that they had good offenses despite low shot attempts, or Boston was just THAT FAR in last place that it provided a handicap they just couldn't overcome, or some combination.

So I just checked, and though Boston's actual shot efficiency was 7th best in the league, well, Miami was 4th and OKC was 1st. And guess what, Boston was closer to average than to Miami. So not only did Boston take BY FAR fewer shots than OKC and Miami, while all 3 made up for it by being very efficient with their shots, OKC and Miami were FAR more efficient than even Boston.

So to recap: BOston took teh fewest shots per possession BY FAR, with their rivals being closer to average than to Boston's low mark, and those rivals were much more efficient with those shots than Boston, as Boston was closer to average than to those two rivals in efficiency.

Add that all up and you get a bad offense last year.



Basically, the point is not that few shots per possession is necessarily bad, but if you are getting fewer shots off you have to make up for it somehow. Those other very good low-shot teams made up for it WAY better than the C's. If you don't make up for few shots per possession with excellent efficiency, you just aren't going to score enough per possession to be a good offense.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: LooseCannon on October 10, 2012, 05:36:42 PM
I honestly think that one of the problems with the Celtics offense is that they were 24th in attempted threes last season.  The Celtics need to be able to stick three credible three-point shooters on the floor with Rondo more often.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Neurotic Guy on October 10, 2012, 05:42:50 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.

Sorry for the upcoming nitpick, but the comment wasn't that 15ppg is either remarkable or something to get excited about. The comment was it's evidence of 'good'.  If the remark were amended to say 'good offensive stats' I'd say 15 ppg and 6 rebounds constitutes 'good' stats by NBA standards.

In37 minutes per game, as a power forward, at 45% shooting?

Not really.

I disagree.  It's not a great compliment really --  but his offensive stats from OKC are good.  They are not VERY good. But they are good.

Compare to better players:
Luol Deng (2011-12) 39MPG    14 shots per game    41%    6 RPG    15 ppg
Paul Pierce (2008-9 All-Star) 37 MPG  15 shots  46%  20.5ppg
David West (2007-8 all-star)   37 MPG   48%   20ppg


This doesn't mean I think he is a good player -- just means his offensive stats, compared to PFs and SFs in the NBA are good, not very good, but good.

Look at a list of all SFs and PFs in the NBA.  Hard to not place Green's offense above the average line.

Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 06:33:07 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.

Sorry for the upcoming nitpick, but the comment wasn't that 15ppg is either remarkable or something to get excited about. The comment was it's evidence of 'good'.  If the remark were amended to say 'good offensive stats' I'd say 15 ppg and 6 rebounds constitutes 'good' stats by NBA standards.

In37 minutes per game, as a power forward, at 45% shooting?

Not really.

I disagree.  It's not a great compliment really --  but his offensive stats from OKC are good.  They are not VERY good. But they are good.

Compare to better players:
Luol Deng (2011-12) 39MPG    14 shots per game    41%    6 RPG    15 ppg
Paul Pierce (2008-9 All-Star) 37 MPG  15 shots  46%  20.5ppg
David West (2007-8 all-star)   37 MPG   48%   20ppg


This doesn't mean I think he is a good player -- just means his offensive stats, compared to PFs and SFs in the NBA are good, not very good, but good.

Look at a list of all SFs and PFs in the NBA.  Hard to not place Green's offense above the average line.

Among starters on a per-minute basis, I don't think they're impressive. Someone else would have to do the legwork, but I can't imagine he ranks very highly efficiency wise.

But like I said before, that's really the only upside as a PF. His offensive mismatch gave him a quickness advantage that translated to what, 13 pp36 mins? His rebounding was atrocious, his defense bad as well.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: ianboyextreme on October 10, 2012, 06:40:03 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.

Sorry for the upcoming nitpick, but the comment wasn't that 15ppg is either remarkable or something to get excited about. The comment was it's evidence of 'good'.  If the remark were amended to say 'good offensive stats' I'd say 15 ppg and 6 rebounds constitutes 'good' stats by NBA standards.

In37 minutes per game, as a power forward, at 45% shooting?

Not really.

I disagree.  It's not a great compliment really --  but his offensive stats from OKC are good.  They are not VERY good. But they are good.

Compare to better players:
Luol Deng (2011-12) 39MPG    14 shots per game    41%    6 RPG    15 ppg
Paul Pierce (2008-9 All-Star) 37 MPG  15 shots  46%  20.5ppg
David West (2007-8 all-star)   37 MPG   48%   20ppg


This doesn't mean I think he is a good player -- just means his offensive stats, compared to PFs and SFs in the NBA are good, not very good, but good.

Look at a list of all SFs and PFs in the NBA.  Hard to not place Green's offense above the average line.

Among starters on a per-minute basis, I don't think they're impressive. Someone else would have to do the legwork, but I can't imagine he ranks very highly efficiency wise.

But like I said before, that's really the only upside as a PF. His offensive mismatch gave him a quickness advantage that translated to what, 13 pp36 mins? His rebounding was atrocious, his defense bad as well.
What evidence is there that his defense was bad?
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: indeedproceed on October 10, 2012, 07:32:01 PM
I really really dont understand how anyone in the league averaging 15 ppg is not evidence that that player is "good".
Scoring 15 PPG in 30+ MPG on roughly 15 shots per game (actually like 14.75) isn't all that remarkable.

Its not bad, but its not anything to get excited about.

Sorry for the upcoming nitpick, but the comment wasn't that 15ppg is either remarkable or something to get excited about. The comment was it's evidence of 'good'.  If the remark were amended to say 'good offensive stats' I'd say 15 ppg and 6 rebounds constitutes 'good' stats by NBA standards.

In37 minutes per game, as a power forward, at 45% shooting?

Not really.

I disagree.  It's not a great compliment really --  but his offensive stats from OKC are good.  They are not VERY good. But they are good.

Compare to better players:
Luol Deng (2011-12) 39MPG    14 shots per game    41%    6 RPG    15 ppg
Paul Pierce (2008-9 All-Star) 37 MPG  15 shots  46%  20.5ppg
David West (2007-8 all-star)   37 MPG   48%   20ppg


This doesn't mean I think he is a good player -- just means his offensive stats, compared to PFs and SFs in the NBA are good, not very good, but good.

Look at a list of all SFs and PFs in the NBA.  Hard to not place Green's offense above the average line.

Among starters on a per-minute basis, I don't think they're impressive. Someone else would have to do the legwork, but I can't imagine he ranks very highly efficiency wise.

But like I said before, that's really the only upside as a PF. His offensive mismatch gave him a quickness advantage that translated to what, 13 pp36 mins? His rebounding was atrocious, his defense bad as well.
What evidence is there that his defense was bad?

82games.com has positional breakdowns. Look for anything 2010 and prior.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Fan from VT on October 10, 2012, 07:45:26 PM
One reason that the Celtics shots per possession was worst in the league last year was terrible offensive rebounding.

Interestingly enough, a guy named John Schuhman found that Boston was a Top 5 transition defense team. Not surprising. However, he found that the quality of transition defense correlates very strongly with the quality of a team's general defense, and barely correlates at all with good or bad offensive rebounding. In other words, building good transition defense is basically independent of getting offensive rebounds. So being absolutely awful at offensive rebounds is just not justified by having a good transition D; there's just no excuse for being so poor in a potentially valuable facet of the game.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: moiso on October 10, 2012, 09:22:48 PM
Good stats doesnt always equal good player.  15 and 6 doesnt mean anything if the team plays better with that player on the bench.  There have been tons of guys who put up far better numbers than 15 and 6 who dont help their teams.  Im pretty sure Boozer aveaged 20 and 10 one year and his team played better without him.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: snively on October 11, 2012, 02:23:29 AM
Curious as to why Hollinger thinks we'll be a little worse defensively.  KG aging?  The loss of Stiemsma & Pietrus?

Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: saltlover on October 11, 2012, 03:14:02 AM
Curious as to why Hollinger thinks we'll be a little worse defensively.  KG aging?  The loss of Stiemsma & Pietrus?

I'm not an espn insider, and I rarely read Hollinger, but I'm fairly certain he uses statistical models.  Sports stats typically pull everyone closer to the mean.  For instance, he has us at 48-34, and third in the East.  The last time a team finished third in the East (in a non-strike year) with that poor a record was in 2002, but models will regularly hedge records downward.

Again, I don't read Hollinger, so I could be wrong, but I see this in baseball stats all the time.  The statistical models almost never pick teams to win or lose 100 games, even tho hit happens virtually every year.  On the whole they're pretty good at forecasting, but at the positive or negative extremes they tend to miss.  So teams or players that do something extremely well, even if it's consistent from year to year, are never forecast to do as well the following year, due to the inherent assumption (in my opinion not incorrect) that players and/or teams tend to have similarities to each other.  Therefore, rather than only looking at the individual player or team's history, you consider similar players' and teams' histories, which gives you a more robust dataset.  This improves the overall accuracy, but means that uniqueness is not generally recognized.  Combined with laws of central tendency, and you typically get more vanilla forecasts -- the extremely bad teams (or aspects of teams) are typically not as bad as the prior year, and the extremely good teams (or aspects) are not as good as the prior year, barring some significant changes (either in personal, health, or critical ages on development curves.)

Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: saltlover on October 11, 2012, 03:46:52 AM
I think Hollinger is somewhat of a slave to PER and his models.  And that's okay, because he made them and he's getting paid because of them.  But PER can't account for things that aren't publicly tracked.  For instance, if I had the time, I'd love to see the fg% of shots that come off of Rondo passes, vs. other's passes, vs. the dribble.  My gut instinct says that Rondo is amazing at creating better shots for people, but I don't know.  Maybe he just gets a lot of assists because he passes the ball a lot.  It's not tracked.

Similarly, there may be things that Jeff Green does which the Celtics place value on, but do not show up on a statline.  Furthermore, they may see things that Jeff Green does well under certain situations, and they have the ability to put him in those situations better than the Thunder did, and better than they did mid-season a couple years ago.  Perhaps those situations are unique to the Celtics, or perhaps Jeff Green being in the wrong situation was unique to his time in OKC, since Kevin Durant was a similar but much better player, and thus was not complimentary to Green.  If the Celtics are unique in their ability to utilize Green, then they did indeed overpay.  If the Celtics are not unique, then they may not have.  Unless he performs well, is traded, and continues to perform well, we'll never know if they didn't overpay.  If he doesn't perform well, we'll know they did overpay.

Also, Hollinger's model probably hates Jeff Green, because he was an average player, and he missed a year, which the model will assume was a serious injury with a lengthy recovery time.  In basketball, these are typically ACL tears, which rob players of effectiveness for multiple seasons.  Assuming that his heart ailment was truly a one-shot deal, he won't have problems with speed, agility, and strength, like those recovering from ACL's would, but just stamina, which will be mitigated due to his reserve role.

In what (admittedly little since he was paywalled) I've read from Hollinger, I've never seen him point out why his model might be wrong at times.  That bothers me.  It may or may not be wrong about Jeff Green, but it is certainly imperfect, and he needs to articulate those imperfections better.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: Q_FBE on October 11, 2012, 10:41:29 AM
Hollinger, the ESPN mathematician is add it again apparently. His statistics were based over the full 66 games and I admit, the Celtics were horrible the 1st half of the season. Over the last half they made a significant surge with KG at Center. Ultimately the Celtics lost at Miami in seven games when Ray Allen missed the critical 3 pointer with 2:23 remaining in Game 2 to put the Celtics ahead 97-89. The Celtics could have easily closed this out in Five Games last year and we would all be singing a different tune.

Lets see - we lost Ray Allen (to our current arch rivals) and Greg Stiesma and got back Jeff Green (presumably upgrade), Jason Collins (upgrade), Darko Milicic (unknown), rookies Sullenger, Fab Melo.

Maybe Hollinger is using his spreadsheet and computer program to make a mis diagnoses of how NBA teams will do this year.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: sofutomygaha on October 11, 2012, 03:08:32 PM
Hollinger gets a bad rap. What he's trying to do it very hard and he generally limits himself to trying to tell people what the numbers say.

To his credit, he laboriously acknowledges that PER is an offensive stat. In his scouting reports, he always dedicates a paragraph to what the +/- and synergy numbers say about a player's defensive value, and he discusses how well those very imperfect measures pass the eye test. He also frequently warns about the difference between good assists and bad assists by frequently pointing out the shooting percentages of the shot recipients and the home/road differentials that might suggest inflated assist totals (see Chris Paul's near MVP season).

Critics are right to point out that his evaluations are unforgivingly performance-driven. A player can flash certain abilities or demonstrate potential, but Hollinger won't have anything to say about it until they've been putting it to effect for a year or more. Hollinger acknowledged that Green was playing out of position in OKC and his '11-12 report reflected that. The difference of outlook comes from the fact that there isn't enough data on Green at SF to judge that he is worth $8M at that position.  Look at what he says- he doesn't say "Jeff Green is a bad player," he says that Green hasn't done anything yet to prove that he's more than a passable combo forward off the bench.

Hollinger's schema is notoriously hard on college players who haven't produced yet, even though he and everyone else knows how important it is to identify potential and not to always trust ultra productive college players with the wrong style of game.

I think that you should take Hollinger's stuff for what it is- an extremely useful way to look at what a player has accomplished. We obviously expect a lot more from Green than what he's accomplished so far, but you'd have to concede that his resumé so far is not that of an $8M small forward. He's completely right. We traded for him and we're paying him because we're betting that he will beat the projections- if he does you can be sure Hollinger will be hard at work showing people how he did it.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: More Banners on October 11, 2012, 03:46:15 PM
$9M is the size of the hole in the roster if Jeff Green doesn't sign.

We might have the best rotation of any team we've seen in my lifetime, and Green makes that possible.  Since we're going for all the marbles, you try to carry the biggest guns you can muster, and Green was surely the best player we could possibly add, and we had $9M to give him.  Fine.

He's a good bet as a sub-star due to his versatility; he could play next to just about anyone.  No reason not to lock him up.

Perhaps $7M would have been better, but in context of what we're trying to do, if the only quibble on the roster is an extra $2M to Green, that's not a wild gamble, especially when you have an aging star 3 that has go go against Carmelo and Gerald Wallace in his division and Lebron every playoffs.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: saltlover on October 11, 2012, 04:06:20 PM
Honestly, if he's not using statistical projections, and rather relying on a metric that only looks at what players have done in the past, to evaluate a contract, he's doing it wrong.  But his comments about Jeff Green look foolish in their hyperbole.  "No evidence that he's actually any good?"  Come on.  "Major health risk?"  He'd played in almost every game prior to last season, and suffered from a serious but not chronic condition that has been completely addressed.

Was this a risky deal?  Yes, it was.  But comments like "Can they amnesty him yet?" are complete overkill, and help to confuse the less informed readers (since Green's contract is ineligible for the amnesty provision.)  It's these statements, based upon an metric with a lot of flaws.  For instance, it rewards players who take more shots.  In fact, much of the drop in Green's PER from the 09-10 season to the 10-11 season can be explained by the fact that he took fewer shots, even though his TS% increased.  My criticism isn't that PER is flawed -- I think it has it's uses.  My criticism is that he makes unapologetic pronouncements from it as if it weren't flawed, and this hurts his credibility specifically, and the credibility of advanced sports statistics at large.
Title: Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
Post by: bdm860 on October 11, 2012, 04:24:25 PM
Hollinger, the ESPN mathematician is add it again apparently.

Oh I see that pun you snuck in there.  ;)

Completely off topic, but before my post, has there ever been a page of a thread on Celticsblog with so many words and no pictures? 5 posts and 4 different posters, several paragraphs of hundreds to thousands of words but no quotes, no avatars, no sigs, no embedded images, no youtube clips, nothing?  Just looks kind of weird.  Sorry for posting and ruining this page of monochromaticity with my quote, avatar, and sig.

(http://contactglenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/giveThanks300.gif)
(http://www.howtogeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DANCING_BABY.gif)

Carry on.