CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Roy H. on January 11, 2013, 11:57:28 AM
-
Looking at Jeff Green's game log, he has yet to put together a three game streak of good scoring games. (I'm defining a "good scoring game" fairly loosely as double-digit points, and 40%+ from the field.
Green came closest between 12/7 and 12/12, as he scored between 15 and 19 points in three straight games. However, in the 3rd game he shot 5-for-16 (31.3%).
His game log is pretty crazy. Anybody see a pattern here?:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
12/21: 14 points on 44% shooting
12/25: 15 points on 63% shooting
followed by:
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
followed by:
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/2: 10 points on 80% shooting
followed by:
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
1/7: 16 points on 50% shooting
1/9: 14 points on 56% shooting
It's just bizarre. With one outlier, he's basically had a pattern of two good games followed by two bad games for the past month.
Why can't this guy put a streak together?
-
Consistently inconsistent.
-
He needs to play more , ALOT MORE.
I would let him start a couple games and see IF that helps his game any.
The biger role he has the better for the future.
-
He needs to play more , ALOT MORE.
I would let him start a couple games and see IF that helps his game any.
The biger role he has the better for the future.
Has more playing time helped his game?
In games where he's played 30+ minutes (only three games so far), he's shooting 32%. I'm not sure that that's the answer.
It's just a really weird pattern. It doesn't seem to change much depending upon how much rest he gets, or his playing time, or the quality of opponent. Rather, it's just 2 good games, then 2 bad ones.
-
I think one simple reason (although would only be part of the story) is that he feasts on poor defenders. I don't think its a coincidence that he had great games facing Melo/Novak and then facing the Suns in general. But, when he faces an aggressive defender who takes away his right hand, suddenly he becomes much less effective.
-
I think one simple reason (although would only be part of the story) is that he feasts on poor defenders. I don't think its a coincidence that he had great games facing Melo/Novak and then facing the Suns in general. But, when he faces an aggressive defender who takes away his right hand, suddenly he becomes much less effective.
Yep, I've noticed this. When he has a horrible defender on him he actually seems awake.
-
I think one simple reason (although would only be part of the story) is that he feasts on poor defenders. I don't think its a coincidence that he had great games facing Melo/Novak and then facing the Suns in general. But, when he faces an aggressive defender who takes away his right hand, suddenly he becomes much less effective.
I doubt that's the case. Of course, good defenders will always affect your play, but I think this has more to do with him than whomever is guarding him. In those poor games he still gets good looks, still gets to the basket, but for some reason he doesn't convert.
But while he's being inconsistent with his scoring, he has become more consistent with his defense and effort, and overall offensive activity.
-
He needs to play more , ALOT MORE.
I would let him start a couple games and see IF that helps his game any.
The biger role he has the better for the future.
Has more playing time helped his game?
In games where he's played 30+ minutes (only three games so far), he's shooting 32%. I'm not sure that that's the answer.
It's just a really weird pattern. It doesn't seem to change much depending upon how much rest he gets, or his playing time, or the quality of opponent. Rather, it's just 2 good games, then 2 bad ones.
While this doesn't really excuse Green's randomness, when reporters asked Doc about cutting the minutes of PP and RA (3-4 years ago) he said that those guys need to play 30+ minutes a game to stay in rhythm.
-
I think one simple reason (although would only be part of the story) is that he feasts on poor defenders. I don't think its a coincidence that he had great games facing Melo/Novak and then facing the Suns in general. But, when he faces an aggressive defender who takes away his right hand, suddenly he becomes much less effective.
I doubt that's the case. Of course, good defenders will always affect your play, but I think this has more to do with him than whomever is guarding him. In those poor games he still gets good looks, still gets to the basket, but for some reason he doesn't convert.
See, I disagree. I think there is a distinct difference in the shots he is getting in the games where he is successful and not, at least for the most part.
When he is playing a team that is successfully taking away his right hand (and thats the key defending him, do NOT let him get a step with his right hand), then he is taking a lot more unbalanced jumpers, and circus layups where he is just hoping for a foul. But, when he is able to get to his right hand, either off the dribble, or (my favorite play for him) a curl handoff play, going to his right, he is generally able to get close enough to the basket before he jumps that he actually has a chance to make the layups, and the rhythm pullups work more, because he is able to do it from his right hand, which he seems so much more comfortable with.
Basically, offensively, he is just a mirror image of Delonte West. If you take away his strong hand, he disappears, but if you give him that, he looks like a superstar.
I do agree that his aggressiveness on defense and the boards has been picking up though (along with the rest of the team.
-
I agree with the QUALITY of the opponent and , maybe is his opponent a left hand or righthand specialist.
Jeff does seems to be like a wolf and go for the weak players to feast on. But, heck I guess I would too.
Also ...feasting on weak players may be an indication he is just not a good choice to play the 4 spot period.
Green seems to abuse the smaller 3 more.
Thats why we need Green a 3 , KG at 4 , and Cousins at 5... ;D
den we sho Heats sumpin.
-
Looking at Jeff Green's game log, he has yet to put together a three game streak of good scoring games. (I'm defining a "good scoring game" fairly loosely as double-digit points, and 40%+ from the field.
Green came closest between 12/7 and 12/12, as he scored between 15 and 19 points in three straight games. However, in the 3rd game he shot 5-for-16 (31.3%).
His game log is pretty crazy. Anybody see a pattern here?:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
12/21: 14 points on 44% shooting
12/25: 15 points on 63% shooting
followed by:
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
followed by:
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/2: 10 points on 80% shooting
followed by:
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
1/7: 16 points on 50% shooting
1/9: 14 points on 56% shooting
It's just bizarre. With one outlier, he's basically had a pattern of two good games followed by two bad games for the past month.
Why can't this guy put a streak together?
LoL .....well.it is a streak.....abit..just an odd type of one I suppose..... maybe he is an alien. ;D
I weird streak is better than an all bad streak.... ;D
-
I remember Thunder fans specifically saying Green's biggest weakness is his inconsistency and it apparently drove them crazy, so I kind of expected this. Green did have his day a few times when he was first traded to Boston.
One day he looks spectacular the next day he looks awful. I wonder if it's all a matter of match-ups. Remember Green was torching the likes of Steve Novak and Michael Beasley the last 2 games, not exactly defensive pests. I'm a little worried about what will happen when he has to face the likes of Shane Battier or Mickael Pietrus.
-
Tremendous research Roy. Thanks much for sharing that. You make a great point that I hope about a horrible pattern that I HOPE is broken tonight.
Smitty77
-
Minutes issue.
He needs 25 plus.
Too small a sample size when looking at 3 games of poor shooting with 30+ min.
I think we were struggling early on and Doc leaned on vets a little more than he wanted because he was desperate. Hopefully if we get a little streak going withbsome breathing room Doc will be able rondo be a little less conservative
-
I think one simple reason (although would only be part of the story) is that he feasts on poor defenders. I don't think its a coincidence that he had great games facing Melo/Novak and then facing the Suns in general. But, when he faces an aggressive defender who takes away his right hand, suddenly he becomes much less effective.
I doubt that's the case. Of course, good defenders will always affect your play, but I think this has more to do with him than whomever is guarding him. In those poor games he still gets good looks, still gets to the basket, but for some reason he doesn't convert.
See, I disagree. I think there is a distinct difference in the shots he is getting in the games where he is successful and not, at least for the most part.
When he is playing a team that is successfully taking away his right hand (and thats the key defending him, do NOT let him get a step with his right hand), then he is taking a lot more unbalanced jumpers, and circus layups where he is just hoping for a foul. But, when he is able to get to his right hand, either off the dribble, or (my favorite play for him) a curl handoff play, going to his right, he is generally able to get close enough to the basket before he jumps that he actually has a chance to make the layups, and the rhythm pullups work more, because he is able to do it from his right hand, which he seems so much more comfortable with.
Basically, offensively, he is just a mirror image of Delonte West. If you take away his strong hand, he disappears, but if you give him that, he looks like a superstar.
I do agree that his aggressiveness on defense and the boards has been picking up though (along with the rest of the team.
I think Chris has come close to nailing as anyone and inclined to agree with this opinion.
I really don't think its a minutes thing.
-
Sooo... against Houston he will stink...tonight?
I no likey it amigo :'(
-
Sooo... against Houston he will stink...tonight?
I no likey it amigo :'(
maybe he breaks it tonight.... im gonna be cautiously optimistic
-
Sooo... against Houston he will stink...tonight?
I no likey it amigo :'(
maybe he breaks it tonight.... im gonna be cautiously optimistic
yay... lets be ;D
Go C's
-
Sooo... against Houston he will stink...tonight?
I no likey it amigo :'(
I think it's more mental from post surgery and he will get better and better as the year goes on. I think the playoffs Jeff will be nothing like we see him now. He's looked more comfortable and confident with each game.
-
His problem is he has the talent, just not the mentality.
I really think his first few minutes are huge every game. If it starts out ok, he gains confidence and plays well. If not, then he plays bad. I have no stats to back that up, I just feel like he isn't comfortable in his own skin and has no confidence.
-
Offensive End ~ Because he has no left hand. Defenders who take it away make him passive, because he's not a good enough shooter to make guys pay for backing off and shading him left. He misses a few shots, then gets passive. I think if he worked on driving in a more diverse capacity, he'd benefit greatly.
Defensive End ~ It gets a little scarier here. His effort as a man defender and rebounder is oddly poor. In short he has the talent and size to be above average at both, but he doesn't focus every time down the floor, rendering him well below average at each. I'd argue he's the worst man defender on the team, and he certainly shouldn't be.
Bottom Line ~ Much like the Celtics as a team, I think good defense would foster good offense for Green. When he's doing his Ole! routine on the defensive end and defensive glass, he looks equally passive on the offensive end. I hope Doc is preaching defense first to Green in hopes of getting a more consistent effort from him every night...
-
It may not be a minutes thing but I don't like how he's played less than 25 min 20 times so far and less than 20 minutes 9 times
-
It may not be a minutes thing but I don't like how he's played less than 25 min 20 times so far and less than 20 minutes 9 times
In games where he's played below 21 minutes, Green is shooting 20-for-64 (31%). If you take out two games where he was playing well, in the other 9 games Green shot 22.4%.
It could be that the reason he didn't see more minutes in those games was because he was playing poorly.
-
It may not be a minutes thing but I don't like how he's played less than 25 min 20 times so far and less than 20 minutes 9 times
While I agree some players need consistent minutes to play well, it's not like Green has been playing well enough to deserve those minutes.
Chicken or the egg? Poor play=low min or low min=poor play?
-
I think the biggest factor in his up and down play are the match ups. When he has a mismatch the Cs tend to look for him to score (ex novak). The problem is when he doesn't have a favorable match-up the Cs dont look to him at all.
Jeff has 3 sides to his game. 1. the corner 3pt shooter 2. triple threat driving the lane 3. post scorer. Doc needs to start incorporating all 3 into every game plan. Most teams don't have a player who can stop him at all 3. The corner 3 is always there, driving the lane should happen when ever a bigger slower player is on him, and when teams play him small he needs to work on the block. Doc needs to make him match up problem every game.
-
It may not be a minutes thing but I don't like how he's played less than 25 min 20 times so far and less than 20 minutes 9 times
In games where he's played below 21 minutes, Green is shooting 20-for-64 (31%). If you take out two games where he was playing well, in the other 9 games Green shot 22.4%.
It could be that the reason he didn't see more minutes in those games was because he was playing poorly.
That could be a reason.
IMO Green just will not be that great a player coming off the bench playing under 20 minutes a game. He's not a volume shooter and he's not going to get a ton of looks playing that amount. So sometimes he will do alright and sometimes he will go 0-3 and not have a chance to make up ground.
Even in Greens best games he plays around 25 min. Its not like he gets rewarded that much even when he is playing well. So to me the minutes don't really make any sense. I would like to see 25min or so at least a game and see what we've got. He hasn't been given that opportunity yet. Maybe he doesn't deserve it but he hasn't really been given a huge opportunity (even though he was given a fat contract)
-
Looking at Jeff Green's game log, he has yet to put together a three game streak of good scoring games. (I'm defining a "good scoring game" fairly loosely as double-digit points, and 40%+ from the field.
Green came closest between 12/7 and 12/12, as he scored between 15 and 19 points in three straight games. However, in the 3rd game he shot 5-for-16 (31.3%).
His game log is pretty crazy. Anybody see a pattern here?:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
12/21: 14 points on 44% shooting
12/25: 15 points on 63% shooting
followed by:
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
followed by:
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/2: 10 points on 80% shooting
followed by:
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
1/7: 16 points on 50% shooting
1/9: 14 points on 56% shooting
It's just bizarre. With one outlier, he's basically had a pattern of two good games followed by two bad games for the past month.
Why can't this guy put a streak together?
1) He was eased into the season
2) He doesn't play enough consistent minutes
That is all.
-
Looking at Jeff Green's game log, he has yet to put together a three game streak of good scoring games. (I'm defining a "good scoring game" fairly loosely as double-digit points, and 40%+ from the field.
Green came closest between 12/7 and 12/12, as he scored between 15 and 19 points in three straight games. However, in the 3rd game he shot 5-for-16 (31.3%).
His game log is pretty crazy. Anybody see a pattern here?:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
12/21: 14 points on 44% shooting
12/25: 15 points on 63% shooting
followed by:
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
followed by:
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/2: 10 points on 80% shooting
followed by:
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
followed by:
1/7: 16 points on 50% shooting
1/9: 14 points on 56% shooting
It's just bizarre. With one outlier, he's basically had a pattern of two good games followed by two bad games for the past month.
Why can't this guy put a streak together?
1) He was eased into the season
2) He doesn't play enough consistent minutes
That is all.
How do either of those things explain why he's been in a consistent pattern of "two good games, two bad games" for the last month now? His up-and-down struggles early in the season might be explained by that, but not his recent play.
It's just bizarre. Offensively, Green looks valuable 50% of the time, and borderline terrible the other 50% of the time. He doesn't really go through slumps, or through hot streaks. Rather, he is schizophrenic in two-game blocks.
-
Well he is a BENCH player. Not even Terry or Ginobli in their primes ever had consistent scoring outputs
IMO Doc needs to play Green at least 30 min a game for every game
-
What scares me is that in Green's GOOD games he averages 14 points on 50% shooting. He hasn't had a 20 point game yet this year. With bad defense and rebounding, and a completely overblown reputation as a passer, to boot.
If the totally overused cliche 'scoring wings are a dime a dozen in the NBA' holds any truth, then why pay Jeff Green $40Mil to be inconsistently... average?
-
Not even Terry or Ginobli in their primes ever had consistent scoring outputs
This isn't true at all. I'm curious what this argument is based upon.
In 2008, Ginobili averaged 19.5 points on 46% shooting and a 40% 3PT%.
In 2009, Terry averaged 19.6 points on 46% shooting and a 37% 3PT%.
Both Ginobili and Terry were very consistent players. That doesn't mean they scored 15 or 20 points every night -- no player does -- but they played very well consistently.
-
His per36 numbers are actually right there with past seasons, except his shooting %
-
The percentages aren't there, but as I've said before, with our guard and wing depth, the bench player's individual points will fluctuate. What matters to me is the overall bench output.
Glad to see Jeff playing good defense lately. That's half the game.
-
If the totally overused cliche 'scoring wings are a dime a dozen in the NBA' holds any truth, then why pay Jeff Green $40Mil to be inconsistently... average?
Cap space, Bird Rights, Pierce backup, defense.
-
His per36 numbers are actually right there with past seasons, except his shooting %
This is true, which is why a lot of fans were never all that high on Jeff Green to begin with. His primary skill is scoring, and he's mediocre at that. What we're seeing now isn't really new, or due to role, or due to health.
But, this isn't a bash Jeff Green thread. He's filled his offensive role solidly about 50% of the time.
-
If the totally overused cliche 'scoring wings are a dime a dozen in the NBA' holds any truth, then why pay Jeff Green $40Mil to be inconsistently... average?
Cap space, Bird Rights, Pierce backup, defense.
not a great list...
-
I really don't think its a minutes thing.
Agreed. The minutes are a direct result of his inconsistent play, not a cause of it.
-
I really don't think its a minutes thing.
Agreed. The minutes are a direct result of his inconsistent play, not a cause of it.
+1
-
If the totally overused cliche 'scoring wings are a dime a dozen in the NBA' holds any truth, then why pay Jeff Green $40Mil to be inconsistently... average?
Cap space, Bird Rights, Pierce backup, defense.
We probably could have had Matt Barnes, who is better than Green IMO, for the vet minimum.
-
not a great list...
It's reality. If we don't give JG his payday, we either have to blow up some of the other offseason moves (like Terry or Lee) to free up some money, or we pick up some leftover SF at the vet min. Sign and trade wasn't an option, either, iirc.
So enjoy the somewhat stale sandwich known as Jeff Green. He's imperfect, but he's ours. Personally I like the match-up problems he causes, and I'm hoping that he'll become a little more consistent as the season wears on.
Fortunately we'll get another test of Roy's theory tonight. Who's Jeff most likely to match up against? Delfino? Random minutes against Parsons?
-
not a great list...
It's reality. If we don't give JG his payday, we either have to blow up some of the other offseason moves (like Terry or Lee) to free up some money, or we pick up some leftover SF at the vet min. Sign and trade wasn't an option, either, iirc.
So enjoy the somewhat stale sandwich known as Jeff Green. He's imperfect, but he's ours. Personally I like the match-up problems he causes, and I'm hoping that he'll become a little more consistent as the season wears on.
Fortunately we'll get another test of Roy's theory tonight. Who's Jeff most likely to match up against? Delfino? Random minutes against Parsons?
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
Not only that, but Matt Barnes performance this season is an outlier.
In previous years he was a plus rebounding, minus defender, and okay shooting SF.
-
I want to challenge the premise of this thread.
I think considering the role that Green has been asked to play (or perhaps the lackthereof), Green has done fine.
And often I get the sense that people judge Green's performance entirely on whether he reaches 14, 15, 16 or more points. That's silly, if you ask me, because Green's deal has always been that he's pretty good at a lot of things but not elite at anything in particular. He's not going to be a prolific scorer unless he has a good matchup in a particular game or a particular stretch of minutes. That's just who he is, and we have to learn to accept that. Green is NOT Paul Pierce -- i.e. a natural born scorer -- and we should not expect him to suddenly become one.
Green can score 7-8 points and still have a good game if he plays solid defense, maybe gets a block or a steal, makes some hustle plays, and generally helps keep the team stable for 18-20 minutes while Pierce is not playing.
Green can be living up to REASONABLE expectations even if he's only averaging 10-12 points per game in 20-25 minutes.
Despite all of the gnashing of teeth about Green's contract, the bottom line is that he's a better SF backup than the vast majority of teams in the league have at their disposal. Show me a list of all of these great role players who are better than Jeff Green playing for the minimum or bi-annual. Most of the highly productive, athletic players on cheap contracts are rookies.
Green's ability to give quality minutes is important for this team moving forward considering that Pierce is too old to spend all of his minutes defending LeBron or Melo and still have energy to carry a large load on offense. That's why Danny traded for Green in the first place.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
Not only that, but Matt Barnes performance this season is an outlier.
In previous years he was a plus rebounding, minus defender, and okay shooting SF.
I was think more of Martell Webster, Ronnie Brewer and Marquis Daniels, personally. PJ Tucker and Josh Howard (yes -- i know he's injured) would have made some sense as well.
Cs also could have drafted Jeff Taylor, Draymond Green or Jae Crowder at 22.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
Not only that, but Matt Barnes performance this season is an outlier.
In previous years he was a plus rebounding, minus defender, and okay shooting SF.
I was think more of Martell Webster, Ronnie Brewer and Marquis Daniels, personally. PJ Tucker and Josh Howard (yes -- i know he's injured) would have made some sense as well.
Cs also could have drafted Jeff Taylor, Draymond Green or Jae Crowder at 22.
-
I think it would be worth knowing more about the characteristic of the 'on' vs 'off' games before I drew any conclusions here.
For instance, in good vs bad games, which position was he playing mostly in? SF or PF? Who else was on the floor with him? Who was the PG? Was Pierce also on the floor?
If you look through the various 5-man lineups that Green has played in, there is a huge variance in performance and not all those differences are due to Green:
http://www.82games.com/1213/12BOS8.HTM#5man
Look closely at that list. Right off the bat, his highest-minute lineup (with Barbosa, Lee, Sully & KG) is flat. A Net Rating of 0. The definition of overall mediocrity. .500 ball. Some good play. Some bad.
But if you swap out just Barbosa and replace him with Rondo or Terry, then suddenly it becomes one of two lineups that have been awesome: Net Ratings of +56 and +38, respectively!!!!! (Points per 100 possessions)
Obviously those are not large sample size, but they are big enough to illustrate the point that there are big ramifications to small changes in the lineup. And combined, the two mentioned lineups with Rondo or Terry at PG total to 73 minutes. Still not huge, but a decent sample (a few hundred combined offensive and defensive possessions).
I would bet that when Leandro is running the offense at PG, his tendency is to just drive the hoop. Maybe the occasional pass, but he is first and foremost a scorer and not an offensive coordinator. Terry and Rondo are more likely to try to actually run plays that use their teammates.
Basically, I think that as Doc can finally settle in on which lineups work best and when to use them, the efficiency and consistency of all the players, not just Green, will improve.
And finally, we should not forget that exactly one year ago today, Jeff was lying in a hospital bed with tubes and monitors attached, a bandage covering the big line of stitches in his chest.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
Not only that, but Matt Barnes performance this season is an outlier.
In previous years he was a plus rebounding, minus defender, and okay shooting SF.
I was think more of Martell Webster, Ronnie Brewer and Marquis Daniels, personally. PJ Tucker and Josh Howard (yes -- i know he's injured) would have made some sense as well.
Cs also could have drafted Jeff Taylor, Draymond Green or Jae Crowder at 22.
Hindsight is 20/20 w/ the draft. I would have preferred Jeff Taylor over Fab Melo @ 22, but I don't think he'd be better than Jeff Green. He's not nearly as big as Jeff Green, which does matter. Dray Green and Crowder have been okay but not great.
The other guys you mentioned are unremarkable and substantially less valuable players, in my mind, than Jeff Green. Not guys I'd want the Celtics to rely on for significant minutes.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
Not only that, but Matt Barnes performance this season is an outlier.
In previous years he was a plus rebounding, minus defender, and okay shooting SF.
I was think more of Martell Webster, Ronnie Brewer and Marquis Daniels, personally. PJ Tucker and Josh Howard (yes -- i know he's injured) would have made some sense as well.
Cs also could have drafted Jeff Taylor, Draymond Green or Jae Crowder at 22.
Hindsight is 20/20 w/ the draft. I would have preferred Jeff Taylor over Fab Melo @ 22, but I don't think he'd be better than Jeff. He's not nearly as big as Jeff, which does matter. Dray Green and Crowder have been okay but not great.
The other guys you mentioned are unremarkable and substantially less valuable players, in my mind, than Jeff Green. Not guys I'd want the Celtics to rely on for significant minutes.
Jeff Green is an unremarkable player. And we'll be paying him $10mil... in 2016.
Both Brewer and Webster would have been nice fits behind Pierce. Substantially less valuable? It certainly doesn't appear that way.
Whetever -- I rest my case. No need to keep picking on Green, or his contract. What's done is done, unfortunately.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
Not only that, but Matt Barnes performance this season is an outlier.
In previous years he was a plus rebounding, minus defender, and okay shooting SF.
I was think more of Martell Webster, Ronnie Brewer and Marquis Daniels, personally. PJ Tucker and Josh Howard (yes -- i know he's injured) would have made some sense as well.
Cs also could have drafted Jeff Taylor, Draymond Green or Jae Crowder at 22.
Hindsight is 20/20 w/ the draft. I would have preferred Jeff Taylor over Fab Melo @ 22, but I don't think he'd be better than Jeff. He's not nearly as big as Jeff, which does matter. Dray Green and Crowder have been okay but not great.
The other guys you mentioned are unremarkable and substantially less valuable players, in my mind, than Jeff Green. Not guys I'd want the Celtics to rely on for significant minutes.
Jeff Green is an unremarkable player. And we'll be paying him $10mil... in 2016.
Both Brewer and Webster would have been nice fits behind Pierce. Substantially less valuable? It certainly doesn't appear that way.
Webster can't play defense and size-wise he's more of a SG. He's a 3rd string bench shooter in an ideal situation.
Ronnie Brewer is a solid defender but not a super high IQ player and he's not a reliable shooter at all. I wouldn't mind Ronnie Brewer, but he's not capable of carrying a significant load on offense the way Green can at times. Brewer is just not a threat to score at all except in transition. He also doesn't create mismatches the way Green does (on either end), unless he's playing at SG.
Neither of the players you mentioned can really play PF, either, which Jeff can do for limited minutes in certain situations. He gives you that option.
The money we pay Jeff means little to me because it's not money we could have spent on anybody else this past off-season, and in a year or two Pierce and Garnett will be gone and we won't have much money tied up in anybody of significance, and we won't be attracting any big name free agents to spend hypothetical cap space on anyway.
-
The reality is there were better role players available for the bi-annual or vet min.
"Available" doesn't mean that they're coming here. Matt Barnes was formerly on the Lakers, he can join the Clippers without even changing his parking space. Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.
Not only that, but Matt Barnes performance this season is an outlier.
In previous years he was a plus rebounding, minus defender, and okay shooting SF.
I was think more of Martell Webster, Ronnie Brewer and Marquis Daniels, personally. PJ Tucker and Josh Howard (yes -- i know he's injured) would have made some sense as well.
Cs also could have drafted Jeff Taylor, Draymond Green or Jae Crowder at 22.
Hindsight is 20/20 w/ the draft. I would have preferred Jeff Taylor over Fab Melo @ 22, but I don't think he'd be better than Jeff. He's not nearly as big as Jeff, which does matter. Dray Green and Crowder have been okay but not great.
The other guys you mentioned are unremarkable and substantially less valuable players, in my mind, than Jeff Green. Not guys I'd want the Celtics to rely on for significant minutes.
Jeff Green is an unremarkable player. And we'll be paying him $10mil... in 2016.
Both Brewer and Webster would have been nice fits behind Pierce. Substantially less valuable? It certainly doesn't appear that way.
Webster can't play defense and size-wise he's more of a SG. He's a 3rd string bench shooter in an ideal situation.
Ronnie Brewer is a solid defender but not a super high IQ player and he's not a reliable shooter at all. I wouldn't mind Ronnie Brewer, but he's not capable of carrying a significant load on offense the way Green can at times. Brewer is just not a threat to score at all except in transition. He also doesn't create mismatches the way Green does (on either end), unless he's playing at SG.
Neither of the players you mentioned can really play PF, either, which Jeff can do for limited minutes in certain situations. He gives you that option.
The money we pay Jeff means little to me because it's not money we could have spent on anybody else this past off-season, and in a year or two Pierce and Garnett will be gone and we won't have much money tied up in anybody of significance, and we won't be attracting any big name free agents to spend hypothetical cap space on anyway.
have a good weekend.
-
I want to challenge the premise of this thread.
I think considering the role that Green has been asked to play (or perhaps the lackthereof), Green has done fine.
And often I get the sense that people judge Green's performance entirely on whether he reaches 14, 15, 16 or more points. That's silly, if you ask me, because Green's deal has always been that he's pretty good at a lot of things but not elite at anything in particular. He's not going to be a prolific scorer unless he has a good matchup in a particular game or a particular stretch of minutes. That's just who he is, and we have to learn to accept that. Green is NOT Paul Pierce -- i.e. a natural born scorer -- and we should not expect him to suddenly become one.
Green can score 7-8 points and still have a good game if he plays solid defense, maybe gets a block or a steal, makes some hustle plays, and generally helps keep the team stable for 18-20 minutes while Pierce is not playing.
Green can be living up to REASONABLE expectations even if he's only averaging 10-12 points per game in 20-25 minutes.
What part of the criteria I used -- 10 points on a meager 40% shooting -- was unfair, when judging Green's offensive output?
Look at the games cited in this thread as bad games:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
Which of those games are you particularly impressed by? He didn't shoot over 33% in a single one of those contests. No matter how you slice it, that's poor scoring output.
-
I want to challenge the premise of this thread.
I think considering the role that Green has been asked to play (or perhaps the lackthereof), Green has done fine.
And often I get the sense that people judge Green's performance entirely on whether he reaches 14, 15, 16 or more points. That's silly, if you ask me, because Green's deal has always been that he's pretty good at a lot of things but not elite at anything in particular. He's not going to be a prolific scorer unless he has a good matchup in a particular game or a particular stretch of minutes. That's just who he is, and we have to learn to accept that. Green is NOT Paul Pierce -- i.e. a natural born scorer -- and we should not expect him to suddenly become one.
Green can score 7-8 points and still have a good game if he plays solid defense, maybe gets a block or a steal, makes some hustle plays, and generally helps keep the team stable for 18-20 minutes while Pierce is not playing.
Green can be living up to REASONABLE expectations even if he's only averaging 10-12 points per game in 20-25 minutes.
What part of the criteria I used -- 10 points on a meager 40% shooting -- was unfair, when judging Green's offensive output?
Look at the games cited in this thread as bad games:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
Which of those games are you particularly impressed by? He didn't shoot over 33% in a single one of those contests. No matter how you slice it, that's poor scoring output.
The poor shooting performances I can agree are just that, poor -- when he's taken a lot of shots, that is.
What I'm saying is that I think sometimes people think Green had a bad game, or isn't "playing well lately" if he isn't scoring 15-20 points every night. I just think that's silly.
If you were expecting Green to be a 6'9'' Jamal Crawford I don't know what to tell you. That's just not him.
I'm not arguing that Green hasn't had bad games this season. Obviously he has. But every player has bad games. For bench players, it's even more difficult to maintain consistency because they have a smaller role and so a few shots falling or not can be the difference between a good or a bad night. That's especially true for Green because he hasn't been given a consistent role to play on this team for much of the season. Only the really great bench scorers put up big numbers night in and night out. And those guys are usually a featured part of their team's offense.
It seems to me that Green is gradually improved over the course of the season and lately, even when he doesn't score a bunch, or misses a fair amount of shots, he still makes an overall positive impact and certainly doesn't hurt the team.
Overall, Jeff is averaging close to double digit points in less than 30 minutes a night, and his shooting percentages aren't great, but they aren't awful, either. And they're trending upward. I just think this notion that there are all these much better backup SFs out there who can give you 20-30 quality minutes every night and not be a liability is silly. I don't buy it.
Jeff Green is a solid player. Nothing more, nothing less. He has games where he's really good (like on Wednesday), and he has other games where he's a non-factor. Yes, he's overpaid. But that doesn't have anything to do with his on-court value.
-
I want to challenge the premise of this thread.
I think considering the role that Green has been asked to play (or perhaps the lackthereof), Green has done fine.
And often I get the sense that people judge Green's performance entirely on whether he reaches 14, 15, 16 or more points. That's silly, if you ask me, because Green's deal has always been that he's pretty good at a lot of things but not elite at anything in particular. He's not going to be a prolific scorer unless he has a good matchup in a particular game or a particular stretch of minutes. That's just who he is, and we have to learn to accept that. Green is NOT Paul Pierce -- i.e. a natural born scorer -- and we should not expect him to suddenly become one.
Green can score 7-8 points and still have a good game if he plays solid defense, maybe gets a block or a steal, makes some hustle plays, and generally helps keep the team stable for 18-20 minutes while Pierce is not playing.
Green can be living up to REASONABLE expectations even if he's only averaging 10-12 points per game in 20-25 minutes.
What part of the criteria I used -- 10 points on a meager 40% shooting -- was unfair, when judging Green's offensive output?
Look at the games cited in this thread as bad games:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
Which of those games are you particularly impressed by? He didn't shoot over 33% in a single one of those contests. No matter how you slice it, that's poor scoring output.
That's def awful scoring numbers. Green's problem is he doesn't do enough of the other things or little things to impact the game in other areas.
-
What part of the criteria I used -- 10 points on a meager 40% shooting -- was unfair, when judging Green's offensive output?
. . .
Which of those games are you particularly impressed by? He didn't shoot over 33% in a single one of those contests. No matter how you slice it, that's poor scoring output.
I guess what it comes down to is that Jeff Green doesn't have to "particularly impress" me for me to feel okay about his production, given the role he's been asked to play on the team.
The Celtics absolutely needed a competent SF playing behind Paul Pierce. The Mickael Pietrus's and Sasha Pavlovic's of the world were not going to cut it if the team wanted to have a chance to deal with teams with big, athletic, fast, scoring wings like LeBron, Melo, Durant, Gay, etc. Green is much better than the majority of the options the Celtics had given their cap situation.
So yeah, I'm fine with 10 pts in 25 minutes on 42 / 33 / 80 shooting, considering he also has the ability to occasionally give us a big performance that can swing a game when Pierce is off.
-
Not a tough question. He hasn't had enough playing time. Will likely take a full season. He missed a lot of time. He may never achieve the level many feel he's capable of.
-
Not a tough question. He hasn't had enough playing time. Will likely take a full season. He missed a lot of time. He may never achieve the level many feel he's capable of.
2010: 14.7 points / 36 minutes
2011 (overall): 14.8 points / 36 minutes
2011 (OKC): 14.8 points / 36 minutes
2011 (BOS): 14.9 points / 36 minutes
2013: 15.0 points / 36 minutes
Strangely enough (in a thread about Green's inconsistency), Green has been remarkably consistent in terms of his per-minute scoring the last three seasons. I'm not sure that more minutes is suddenly going to make him into a better scorer.
-
I want to challenge the premise of this thread.
I think considering the role that Green has been asked to play (or perhaps the lackthereof), Green has done fine.
And often I get the sense that people judge Green's performance entirely on whether he reaches 14, 15, 16 or more points. That's silly, if you ask me, because Green's deal has always been that he's pretty good at a lot of things but not elite at anything in particular. He's not going to be a prolific scorer unless he has a good matchup in a particular game or a particular stretch of minutes. That's just who he is, and we have to learn to accept that. Green is NOT Paul Pierce -- i.e. a natural born scorer -- and we should not expect him to suddenly become one.
Green can score 7-8 points and still have a good game if he plays solid defense, maybe gets a block or a steal, makes some hustle plays, and generally helps keep the team stable for 18-20 minutes while Pierce is not playing.
Green can be living up to REASONABLE expectations even if he's only averaging 10-12 points per game in 20-25 minutes.
What part of the criteria I used -- 10 points on a meager 40% shooting -- was unfair, when judging Green's offensive output?
Look at the games cited in this thread as bad games:
12/18: 3 points on 17% shooting
12/19: 3 points on 25% shooting
12/27: 8 points on 33% shooting
12/29: 6 points on 18% shooting
12/30: 16 points on 29% shooting (outlier)
1/4: 2 points on 25% shooting
1/5: 3 points on 25% shooting
Which of those games are you particularly impressed by? He didn't shoot over 33% in a single one of those contests. No matter how you slice it, that's poor scoring output.
That's def awful scoring numbers. Green's problem is he doesn't do enough of the other things or little things to impact the game in other areas.
Question - how would Jason Terry, Courtney Lee, Brandon Bass, Jared Sullinger, Rajon Rondo or Paul Pierce look if we grabbed their 7 worst shooting games of the season and post them up here? My bet is not much better, in some cases worse (especially Lee).
Green lately has played very solid defense, he's rebounded reasonably well, and he's a good kid ho doesn't create dramas. I have no problem with his play, and I think he's been steady improving lately.
-
Question - how would Jason Terry, Courtney Lee, Brandon Bass, Jared Sullinger, Rajon Rondo or Paul Pierce look if we grabbed their 7 worst shooting games of the season and post them up here? My bet is not much better, in some cases worse (especially Lee).
Did you read the OP? These aren't cherry-picked games. Rather, they're 50% of what Green has been doing lately, accounting for 2 out of every 4 games.
If Paul Pierce was shooting under 33% over half the time, people rightly would be calling him inconsistent (and worse).
-
Good question.
I haven't seen many of the games, unfortunately...is he at least bringing it defensively? I saw good things here in the game thread for the NY game as far as his defense vs Carmelo.
I believe the consistency will come.
As long as he can trip up, slow down, etc - the Melos and LeBrons of the world I'm happy.
The consistency will come.
-
If Jeff has a good game tonight, will that count as a streak of good games?
-
If Jeff has a good game tonight, will that count as a streak of good games?
It will indeed, and I'll be rooting for him. I'd like nothing more than to see him rattle of a string of 8 to 10 double digit games in a row.
-
it's just not in his nature. it's like waiting for greg stiemsma waiting to turn into hakeem olajuwon, or myself waiting to get an nba call up - it's just not going to happen because that person in incapable of doing it.
he is not a good passer. never has been. he is not a good rebounder. never has been. check out this page: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenje02.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenje02.html)
he's putting up the exact same numbers he has his whole career. he's just not capable of becoming the player you think he can be.
if you look at his game logs throughout his whole career, he will only ever put up about 16 points per a game BUT he will do it in about 35 minutes of game time. he's getting 22 minutes a game - he's giving you all he has (he just doesn't have that much).
here are his game logs: http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3209/year/2010/jeff-green (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3209/year/2010/jeff-green)
do the math. he can definitely put together a bunch of bad games. that's not even a question. throughout his career he will rarely put together 3 good games in a row - and if you think he does, i will ask you how many minutes he played to pad his stats, and ask you to divide the number of minutes so as to get what that output is every 22 minutes.
the thing is that jeff green needs to be passed the ball by another player while he is two feet from the hoop so he can score, OR while he drives right (which is really one of his only moves) the other player needs to foul him, so that he can get to the line for some easy free throws. if he drives right and doesnt get fouled, he will miss more often than not.
and just by the by, his other moves are standing in the corner waiting for someone to pass him the ball so he can shoot the three, and driving left and (like he often does when driving) clumsily barging into anyone there and tossing up a prayer. he rarely works outside of this.
he's never been a good player. his position adjusted winscore throught his whole career has been pretty much the same. he's more or less the worst small forward in the league, but like all clueless gm's do, the public thinks that if he can score 16 points in 35 minutes, that means he's a good player... without realising the game of basketball is so much bigger than that one stat.
check out his position adjusted winscore per 48: http://www.thenbageek.com/players/13-jeff-green (http://www.thenbageek.com/players/13-jeff-green)
it's pretty much the same his whole career. to be starter material you need to be at least .09 per 48 minutes, and he is soooooooooooo far off that, and always has been. he looks like a basketball player - he's tall, long and athletic... but he can't play very well.
-
Not even Terry or Ginobli in their primes ever had consistent scoring outputs
This isn't true at all. I'm curious what this argument is based upon.
In 2008, Ginobili averaged 19.5 points on 46% shooting and a 40% 3PT%.
In 2009, Terry averaged 19.6 points on 46% shooting and a 37% 3PT%.
Both Ginobili and Terry were very consistent players. That doesn't mean they scored 15 or 20 points every night -- no player does -- but they played very well consistently.
Agree they were consistent, but I mean to say even the best bench players of this era still had 5 point or 8 point games some nights. Green just needs more minutes to show the consistency
-
it's just not in his nature. it's like waiting for greg stiemsma waiting to turn into hakeem olajuwon, or myself waiting to get an nba call up - it's just not going to happen because that person in incapable of doing it.
he is not a good passer. never has been. he is not a good rebounder. never has been. check out this page: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenje02.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenje02.html)
he's putting up the exact same numbers he has his whole career. he's just not capable of becoming the player you think he can be.
if you look at his game logs throughout his whole career, he will only ever put up about 16 points per a game BUT he will do it in about 35 minutes of game time. he's getting 22 minutes a game - he's giving you all he has (he just doesn't have that much).
here are his game logs: http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3209/year/2010/jeff-green (http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3209/year/2010/jeff-green)
do the math. he can definitely put together a bunch of bad games. that's not even a question. throughout his career he will rarely put together 3 good games in a row - and if you think he does, i will ask you how many minutes he played to pad his stats, and ask you to divide the number of minutes so as to get what that output is every 22 minutes.
the thing is that jeff green needs to be passed the ball by another player while he is two feet from the hoop so he can score, OR while he drives right (which is really one of his only moves) the other player needs to foul him, so that he can get to the line for some easy free throws. if he drives right and doesnt get fouled, he will miss more often than not.
and just by the by, his other moves are standing in the corner waiting for someone to pass him the ball so he can shoot the three, and driving left and (like he often does when driving) clumsily barging into anyone there and tossing up a prayer. he rarely works outside of this.
he's never been a good player. his position adjusted winscore throught his whole career has been pretty much the same. he's more or less the worst small forward in the league, but like all clueless gm's do, the public thinks that if he can score 16 points in 35 minutes, that means he's a good player... without realising the game of basketball is so much bigger than that one stat.
check out his position adjusted winscore per 48: http://www.thenbageek.com/players/13-jeff-green (http://www.thenbageek.com/players/13-jeff-green)
it's pretty much the same his whole career. to be starter material you need to be at least .09 per 48 minutes, and he is soooooooooooo far off that, and always has been. he looks like a basketball player - he's tall, long and athletic... but he can't play very well.
great post.
-
I'm not sure that more minutes is suddenly going to make him into a better scorer.
Likely not.
More consistent though? That seems much more likely.
-
It's just bizarre. Offensively, Green looks valuable 50% of the time, and borderline terrible the other 50% of the time. He doesn't really go through slumps, or through hot streaks. Rather, he is schizophrenic in two-game blocks.
Arguably, this is a more valuable pattern than if he were consistently performing at the mediocre average between these two extremes, never having a really good or really bad game.
-
We'll chalk this thread up to a reverse jinx (after the fact, Bill Simmons style, since Green seems to be on his way to extending his "good offensive game" streak to three.
-
Attacking the rim, knocking down his jump shots. Holding that ball up high ala Worthy and bringing it down on people's heads. Being active on D.
This is the Jeff Green I love to see.
-
re: jeff's #'s, he's not going to put up a ton of points (despite the minutes) because he's never been the #1 scoring option. in OKC, he was the 3rd or 4th option. since he's been here, he's (at best) the 3rd option. part of that is his nature (he tries to take the open shot, move the ball, etc.), but part of it is simply him not taking that many shots. now, if he does keep up this "being aggressive" mentality, then i think his numbers will go up. for me, i'll look to whether he's playing active on D, and attacking when there are openings on offense. he has all the physical tools to be great (and he certainly was in college), but given his teammates, the (thus far) limited planned plays for him, and his nature to not force bad shots, i wouldn't expect him to ever have great scoring numbers.
-
We'll chalk this thread up to a reverse jinx (after the fact, Bill Simmons style, since Green seems to be on his way to extending his "good offensive game" streak to three.
indeed
-
We'll chalk this thread up to a reverse jinx (after the fact, Bill Simmons style, since Green seems to be on his way to extending his "good offensive game" streak to three.
9 pts, 2 boards in 18 minutes.... weeeeeee!
at least he was a +something for a change.
-
We'll chalk this thread up to a reverse jinx (after the fact, Bill Simmons style, since Green seems to be on his way to extending his "good offensive game" streak to three.
9 pts, 2 boards in 18 minutes.... weeeeeee!
at least he was a +something for a change.
Great first half for Green (9 points, 4-for-6 shooting), poor second half (0 points, 0-for-3 shooting).
This one didn't meet my arbitrary criteria for a "good" game, but it wasn't a bad one, either. Green was a big part of building the early lead tonight.
-
We'll chalk this thread up to a reverse jinx (after the fact, Bill Simmons style, since Green seems to be on his way to extending his "good offensive game" streak to three.
9 pts, 2 boards in 18 minutes.... weeeeeee!
at least he was a +something for a change.
Great first half for Green (9 points, 4-for-6 shooting), poor second half (0 points, 0-for-3 shooting).
This one didn't meet my arbitrary criteria for a "good" game, but it wasn't a bad one, either. Green was a big part of building the early lead tonight.
This is where the criteria don't work.
Green only played 4 minutes in the second half. The idea that he didn't get minutes because he didn't earn them doesn't make sense. The reality is just that others played well (especially Pierce in the 3rd) and Green just wasn't inserted much in the second half.
Similarly, Sully scored all his 14 points in the first half. His quiet second half didn't mean he had a mediocre game. He, like Green, had a great game.
As I said earlier, this method of measuring 'good game' versus 'bad game' just isn't very useful.
-
We'll chalk this thread up to a reverse jinx (after the fact, Bill Simmons style, since Green seems to be on his way to extending his "good offensive game" streak to three.
9 pts, 2 boards in 18 minutes.... weeeeeee!
at least he was a +something for a change.
Great first half for Green (9 points, 4-for-6 shooting), poor second half (0 points, 0-for-3 shooting).
This one didn't meet my arbitrary criteria for a "good" game, but it wasn't a bad one, either. Green was a big part of building the early lead tonight.
rosey-ish glasses. but baby steps, i guess.
Green still went through stretches with weird glue in his shoes, and then super active 2-3 minutes stretches. don't really understand the guy, at all.
-
He had that neato dunk too
-
1 point does not make or break a game. It's arbitrary.
-
Sooo... against Houston he will stink...tonight?
I no likey it amigo :'(
maybe he breaks it tonight.... im gonna be cautiously optimistic
yay... lets be ;D
Go C's
it worked :)
-
Thank you, Roy,
Sincerely,
Jeff Green
-
1 point does not make or break a game. It's arbitrary.
in many cases 1 point does actually make or break -- aka, decide -- a game. in the context of this thread.... i have no idea what you're talking about.
-
jeff green is doing very well. he has many double digit points off the bench. id rather have him off then bench than most of the other nba bench players. he has a good no nonsense attitude unlike blatche and artest and matt barnes
-
Sooo... against Houston he will stink...tonight?
I no likey it amigo :'(
maybe he breaks it tonight.... im gonna be cautiously optimistic
yay... lets be ;D
Go C's
it worked :)
yup if u add D
thats all
over 10 was the mark
woo hoo
I even ask in chat how he was doing i came late tonight...
got to love those stats from our guy
keep it going
lets continue winning Cs
-
1 point does not make or break a game. It's arbitrary.
in many cases 1 point does actually make or break -- aka, decide -- a game. in the context of this thread.... i have no idea what you're talking about.
In the context of this thread, what I said makes total sense.
My point is scoring 9 points vs 10 doesn't mean Green had a bad game. 10 points is ultimately an arbitrary number.
Anyways,
Via Forsberg today, Jeff Green's greatly improved individual defense. In points allowed per play Jeff Green is 9th in the whole NBA.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4701204/green-seeks-next-level-defense
I would have expected good number from the eye test but that's awesome.
As I've said before, there's more than scoring here we need. I would like help defense improvement but that'll come. Jeff could be a very good shot blocker from the help side.
-
He dunks when he's feeling good. That's the only thing I can think of. Lingering self doubt after the heart operation?
-
He dunks when he's feeling good. That's the only thing I can think of. Lingering self doubt after the heart operation?
Eh, I think it has more to do with getting a lane to the basket. Its not just a matter of deciding whether he is going to dunk or not. He needs to have an open lane to get up there.
-
He dunks when he's feeling good. That's the only thing I can think of. Lingering self doubt after the heart operation?
Eh, I think it has more to do with getting a lane to the basket. Its not just a matter of deciding whether he is going to dunk or not. He needs to have an open lane to get up there.
Yeah. If anything some of these dunks are just crazy, making something out of nothing.
The dunk vs the Suns was a good example. He really had no angle he just made that happen. I'm a huge fan of how he holds the ball up and extends it.
-
Very nice.
Some awesome drives tonight so far. Dude is SO graceful for his size.
-
Four games in a row without a dud. Clearly, this thread inspired Green.
-
Four games in a row without a dud. Clearly, this thread inspired Green.
trying to jinx him are ya? ;)
-
He was good again tonight.