Author Topic: Hollinger Celtics Preview  (Read 11728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #45 on: October 10, 2012, 04:48:47 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6971
  • Tommy Points: 916
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.

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #46 on: October 10, 2012, 04:54:36 PM »

Offline MJohnnyboy

  • Jared Sullinger
  • Posts: 348
  • Tommy Points: 27
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.

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #47 on: October 10, 2012, 04:57:40 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38146
  • Tommy Points: 1906
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: [http://tinyurl.com/le7qem2]Link

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2012, 05:11:31 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Global Moderator
  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26065
  • Tommy Points: 981
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.

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2012, 05:13:38 PM »

Online pearljammer10

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10136
  • Tommy Points: 610
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?

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2012, 05:21:40 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3152
  • Tommy Points: 580
Over on the TrueHoops blog, Henry Abbott points out a possible flaw 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.

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #51 on: October 10, 2012, 05:36:33 PM »

Online LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9305
  • Tommy Points: 700
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.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #52 on: October 10, 2012, 05:42:41 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6971
  • Tommy Points: 916
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.


Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #53 on: October 10, 2012, 06:32:58 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38146
  • Tommy Points: 1906
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: [http://tinyurl.com/le7qem2]Link

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #54 on: October 10, 2012, 06:39:54 PM »

Offline ianboyextreme

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 978
  • Tommy Points: 81
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?

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2012, 07:31:52 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38146
  • Tommy Points: 1906
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: [http://tinyurl.com/le7qem2]Link

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2012, 07:45:17 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3152
  • Tommy Points: 580
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.

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2012, 09:22:39 PM »

Online moiso

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Tommy Points: 120
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.

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #58 on: October 11, 2012, 02:23:20 AM »

Offline snively

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5380
  • Tommy Points: 383
Curious as to why Hollinger thinks we'll be a little worse defensively.  KG aging?  The loss of Stiemsma & Pietrus?

Pick 2 Team: Rockets (McHale)
PG M. Chalmers ($4 mil) SG J. Harden ($5.8 mil) SF W. Chandler ($5.9) PF Nene ($13) C S. Hawes ($6.5) 6th man: Ginobli ($14.1) 7th man: Marv Williams ($8.3) Enforcers: F. Ezeli ($1), C. Hayes ($5.5) Bench Marksman: A. Morrow ($4) Young Gun: R. Jackson ($1.2) Greybeard: P. Prigioni ($.5) Towel-Waver: Mike Scott ($.5)

Re: Hollinger Celtics Preview
« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2012, 03:13:53 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2331
  • Tommy Points: 216
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.)


 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog