The Jeff Green thread

[BballTim]

not to mention he's avging 22.5 for his 11 starts, which would put him at 8th in the league.



and I think he and Rondo will create lots of magic. Dude will get wide open lanes to the rim.

nope, Rondo is the reason the guy never got the ball...ROndo was standing around warching the world go by dribbling the seconds of the clock.

Doc and More ROndo will kill the team.

  Green took more shots per minute playing with Rondo than he has playing without Rondo. It's not true that Rondo never got him the ball. People who were saying that were blaming Rondo for Green's poor start to the season because it didn't occur to them that his being rusty and recovering from surgery might be the cause.

first off, BballTim, you know I completely disagree with that 'fact'. In 20 minutes of playing time, he'd get 8 shots. We all know now that Green needs at lease 12.

Like I said, there was one game, I think against the Hawks, where I checked the box score and he had 10 points off 3/10 shooting and I hung my head. 7 shots later, he had 27 points or something.

I'm not using per36 for those stats because his per36 stats would say hes not going to perform as well as he has now in his actual play time. Stats and Real life are 2 diff things

  You're not using per36 stats because you don't understand what they represent. People think they mean "if a player was on the court for 36 minutes every game they'd average x" but that's not the case. It's an easily understandable way to discuss per minute stats.

  Say PP plays 36 minutes a game and averages 19 ppg and Chris Copeland, playing for the Knicks, plays 13 min/game and averages 7 ppg. Paul's per36 is 19 ppg and Copeland's per36 is 20 ppg. Is Copeland a better scorer than PP? Unlikely. If Copeland tripled his minutes and spent more time on the court with the starters playing against other starters would he triple his scoring average? Probably not. Per36 numbers don't predict what a player would do if he played 36 minutes a game, they just measure what he does when he plays on a per minute basis and normalizes the number for 36 minutes.

  And why do they normalize the number to per36? Because it's easier to visualize. What if I told you, for instance, when Green's playing with Rondo he averages .36 shots per minute. Is that a lot? Is that a little? What if he averaged .34 shots per minute without Rondo? Is that much of a difference? You'd have to multiply those numbers out to more understandable  totals to make any determinations. That's what per36 does, it isn't any type of projection at all. It's all real life.

  Those numbers (.36 and .34 shots/minute) are (roughly) 12.9 and 12.1 shots per 36. Do we have a much better idea of whether 13 shots per 36 minutes is a little or a lot than .36 shots per minute? Probably. But whether you talk about per minute or per36 minute totals, it's still a *fact* that Green shot the ball more often playing with Rondo than he has when Rondo hasn't been on the court with him.

Second off, I think Rondo just didn't trust Jeff and I'm hoping now that doc seems to trust him a lil more, then Rondo will do the same.

  Again, this is silliness. We've seen Rondo make plenty of passes to players like Bradley, Steamer, Scal, Baby and Sheed. Why would he trust all of them but not Green? Why would Green shoot more often with Rondo playing than with Rondo on the bench if Rondo didn't trust him? This is just a claim made by people who blamed Green's poor start this year on Rondo because they never considered that taking a year off or coming back from surgery might be the culprit.

you just proved my point and continued to use per36. you want me to believe he got more touches with Rondo because it's at 12.8. But you went ahead and said just because a person's on the floor for 36 minutes doesn't mean it will happen. Well ta-da.

you're talking about stats. I'm talking about THE ACTUAL GAME.

 I'm talking about THE ACTUAL GAME. I'm talking about what Green did in the 483 MINUTES HE'S PLAYED WITH RONDO THIS YEAR and comparing it to the 1115 MINUTES HE'S PLAYED WITHOUT RONDO *this season*. Per36 doesn't imply 36 minutes per game in any way, shape or form it's about what a player does on average in 36 minutes of play whether that 36 minute happens in one game or over the course of a month. If you don't understand the math involved or why per36 isn't predictive that's fine.

and if you think Rondo didn't trust some of the 'new guys', I don't know what to tell you. we've had several debates on this board about who Rondo is talking about when he says guys are in the locker room laughing and joking, etc. now, that's not fact, that's not stats, that's my own interpretation. They were having problems in the locker room. It's 9 new guys.

  I don't recall Rondo saying that but even if he did that's not evidence that he refused to pass it to them during games. One would assume that if Rondo refused to pass the ball to everyone but KG and PP for half a season Doc would put a stop to it, but the fact is it never happened.

I wasn't trying to make Rondo seem petty, I'm just saying if you're playing with KG and PP with whom you've played years with, you're probably gonna be more apt to pass it to them rather than a Jeff Green or a Courtney Lee or what have you.

I'm not sure how these aren't perfectly logical deductions. But alright.

  I would hope our point guard would have the sense to pass the ball to KG and PP more often than he does to Courtney Lee, they're significantly better offensive players than he is. The same way Rondo passed the ball to Ray (not exactly his bosom buddy) much more often than he passed the ball to Perk (possibly his best friend). This isn't youth basketball where the goal is to make sure everyone on the team gets the same amount of shots.

is it predictive or isn't it? because you just said it wasn't.
anywho.
we have two different viewpoints. i've said that and i stand by what i said.
i'm not about to waste my time with you, especially if we can't agree to disagree.

  It's just as predictive as points per game or rebounds per game. Draw your own conclusions.

[Boris Badenov]

have we been watching the same Jeff Green play recently? I mean, even since January?
I'd like to think he's turned a corner. He's had some duds, as everyone does, but to say he's still inconsistent, or not aggressive, or what have you. That confuses me.

OK. You think Green has "turned a corner" and become more "aggressive." I assume by that you mean that he's shooting more or taking a bigger role in the offense. And you're confused about why people are focusing on things like shots per minute.

So here's a question: if Green went from playing 20 minutes before the All-Star break to 40 after, and he scored exactly twice as many points per game, would you call that "turning a corner" and/or becoming more "aggressive"?

I'm not confused about why we're talking about shots per minute, but about why people are still saying he's inconsistent and un (or is it non?) aggressive.

Since January, I feel like he's been playing better. More aggressive in taking it to the rim. More consistent in his individual game plan each night.

To your question, perhaps you could. But it's not all about the box score, which is what I'm saying. In watching him play, he's turned a corner. He's not as timid, he's more decisive, seems to have a little more hustle, etc.

Let me offer some advice. If you're just offering vague statements about how he's "turned a corner," "not timid," "more decisive" and has "more hustle" without anything to support those claims, you're not going to convince too many skeptics that Green's play has improved.

Personally, if I were you I would focus on plus/minus. Before January 1st Green was a -3.9 points per 48 minutes, in 30 games. After then he is a +3.3 per 48 minutes.

If you throw out the games KG has missed, which is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, he is up to +5.9 per 48.

This isn't a slam dunk, because plus/minus has well-known problems, but it is information.

[kgainez]

have we been watching the same Jeff Green play recently? I mean, even since January?
I'd like to think he's turned a corner. He's had some duds, as everyone does, but to say he's still inconsistent, or not aggressive, or what have you. That confuses me.

OK. You think Green has "turned a corner" and become more "aggressive." I assume by that you mean that he's shooting more or taking a bigger role in the offense. And you're confused about why people are focusing on things like shots per minute.

So here's a question: if Green went from playing 20 minutes before the All-Star break to 40 after, and he scored exactly twice as many points per game, would you call that "turning a corner" and/or becoming more "aggressive"?

I'm not confused about why we're talking about shots per minute, but about why people are still saying he's inconsistent and un (or is it non?) aggressive.

Since January, I feel like he's been playing better. More aggressive in taking it to the rim. More consistent in his individual game plan each night.

To your question, perhaps you could. But it's not all about the box score, which is what I'm saying. In watching him play, he's turned a corner. He's not as timid, he's more decisive, seems to have a little more hustle, etc.

Let me offer some advice. If you're just offering vague statements about how he's "turned a corner," "not timid," "more decisive" and has "more hustle" without anything to support those claims, you're not going to convince too many skeptics that Green's play has improved.

Personally, if I were you I would focus on plus/minus. Before January 1st Green was a -3.9 points per 48 minutes, in 30 games. After then he is a +3.3 per 48 minutes.

If you throw out the games KG has missed, which is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, he is up to +5.9 per 48.

This isn't a slam dunk, because plus/minus has well-known problems, but it is information.

you're telling me how to formulate an opinion? because i've been more than forthright that these are my opinions. In addition, it's pretty obvious in almost every statistical category, in which various news outlets and bloggers have written, Green has improved. I've also contributed several times to this topic of discussion and have provided various stats.

forgive me for not taking the time to battle numbers this time. I much prefer to watch the games, though.

[LarBrd33]

Funny... for all the talk about Jeff Green being "wildly inconsistent"... this season he's actually been pretty darn consistent, if you ask me.  He's continued to shoot a solid percentage and put up points... with the main fluctuation in his production coming from his wildly inconsistent role/minutes.  When he gets more shot opportunities, he makes more points.

His per 36 minute averages have remained pretty steady with his production from every season.  Guy has been as solid and "consistent" as any player on this team aside from maybe Paul Pierce (whose shooting has been inconsistent, but production is always top notch). 

Green's production post all-star has been incredible:  18 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 blocks and 1 steal on 51%/43%/80%  34mpg

[indeedproceed]

Green's production post all-star has been incredible:  18 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 blocks and 1 steal on 51%/43%/80%  34mpg

That's pretty awesome.

[Boris Badenov]

have we been watching the same Jeff Green play recently? I mean, even since January?
I'd like to think he's turned a corner. He's had some duds, as everyone does, but to say he's still inconsistent, or not aggressive, or what have you. That confuses me.

OK. You think Green has "turned a corner" and become more "aggressive." I assume by that you mean that he's shooting more or taking a bigger role in the offense. And you're confused about why people are focusing on things like shots per minute.

So here's a question: if Green went from playing 20 minutes before the All-Star break to 40 after, and he scored exactly twice as many points per game, would you call that "turning a corner" and/or becoming more "aggressive"?

I'm not confused about why we're talking about shots per minute, but about why people are still saying he's inconsistent and un (or is it non?) aggressive.

Since January, I feel like he's been playing better. More aggressive in taking it to the rim. More consistent in his individual game plan each night.

To your question, perhaps you could. But it's not all about the box score, which is what I'm saying. In watching him play, he's turned a corner. He's not as timid, he's more decisive, seems to have a little more hustle, etc.

Let me offer some advice. If you're just offering vague statements about how he's "turned a corner," "not timid," "more decisive" and has "more hustle" without anything to support those claims, you're not going to convince too many skeptics that Green's play has improved.

Personally, if I were you I would focus on plus/minus. Before January 1st Green was a -3.9 points per 48 minutes, in 30 games. After then he is a +3.3 per 48 minutes.

If you throw out the games KG has missed, which is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, he is up to +5.9 per 48.

This isn't a slam dunk, because plus/minus has well-known problems, but it is information.

you're telling me how to formulate an opinion? because i've been more than forthright that these are my opinions. In addition, it's pretty obvious in almost every statistical category, in which various news outlets and bloggers have written, Green has improved. I've also contributed several times to this topic of discussion and have provided various stats.

forgive me for not taking the time to battle numbers this time. I much prefer to watch the games, though.

Well no, I wasn't giving you advice about how to formulate an opinion.

I was giving you advice about how to articulate and justify an opinion to others.

It was well-intentioned. But never mind.

[nickagneta]

I think a simple statistics class(high school or college) could go a long way to helping some of the arguments that have come up in this thread. The lack of understanding of statistics that has occurred in this thread is mind blowing.

[LarBrd33]

I think a simple statistics class(high school or college) could go a long way to helping some of the arguments that have come up in this thread. The lack of understanding of statistics that has occurred in this thread is mind blowing.

I don't have the patience to read all 33 pages of the thread.  Can you summarize/elaborate?

FYI, on the basic question of whether or not Jeff Green will be a top 5 SF in 2 years, my opinion hasn't changed on Green since he played in Seattle.

He's always been a solid player who could put up 20+ (he consistently dropped 20+ when Durant sat out).  Great athleticism.  Not a terrible shooter.  Solid offensive guy. I've always seen him as a guy who could be the 1st or 2nd best scorer on a bad team... drop 18-20 a night.  Fringe all-star... a Danny Granger type.  But someone who probably will never actually make an all-star game.   I've been saying more or less the same thing for a couple years now.  People thought I was crazy saying this when Green was dropping 5 points a night... but I admittedly watched a lot more of Green prior to his arrival in Boston... so I don't blame anyone who has been slow to come around.   

As far as him being a top 5 SF... that's doubtful.  As amazing as Green has been over the past month, he's still being outperformed by Bron, Durant, Ilyasova, Pierce, Melo, Gerald Henderson, Paul George, Thad Young, Josh Smith, J.R. Smith... and just ahead of Kawhi Leonard, Tyreke Evans, Tobias Harris, Rudy Gay and Luol Deng.  Some of which aren't pure SF's, but Green has been playing a lot of PF too... so who knows.  He's already 26... I can't see him improving much.  I honestly haven't seen his recent production as "improvement"... I just see it as Boston increasing his minutes and role.  He's always been this good.

[kgainez]

I think a simple statistics class(high school or college) could go a long way to helping some of the arguments that have come up in this thread. The lack of understanding of statistics that has occurred in this thread is mind blowing.

I don't have the patience to read all 33 pages of the thread.  Can you summarize/elaborate?

FYI, on the basic question of whether or not Jeff Green will be a top 5 SF in 2 years, my opinion hasn't changed on Green since he played in Seattle.

He's always been a solid player who could put up 20+ (he consistently dropped 20+ when Durant sat out).  Great athleticism.  Not a terrible shooter.  Solid offensive guy. I've always seen him as a guy who could be the 1st or 2nd best scorer on a bad team... drop 18-20 a night.  Fringe all-star... a Danny Granger type.  But someone who probably will never actually make an all-star game.   I've been saying more or less the same thing for a couple years now.  People thought I was crazy saying this when Green was dropping 5 points a night... but I admittedly watched a lot more of Green prior to his arrival in Boston... so I don't blame anyone who has been slow to come around.   

As far as him being a top 5 SF... that's doubtful.  As amazing as Green has been over the past month, he's still being outperformed by Bron, Durant, Ilyasova, Pierce, Melo, Gerald Henderson, Paul George, Thad Young, Josh Smith, J.R. Smith... and just ahead of Kawhi Leonard, Tyreke Evans, Tobias Harris, Rudy Gay and Luol Deng.  Some of which aren't pure SF's, but Green has been playing a lot of PF too... so who knows.  He's already 26... I can't see him improving much.  I honestly haven't seen his recent production as "improvement"... I just see it as Boston increasing his minutes and role.  He's always been this good.

I think the statistics class reference may have been towards myself, as I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement. Fortunately, I got an A in college stats course, so there's that.

Otherwise. I agree with you and I think that top 10 isn't out of Jeff's reach. I think we do have to take into account that this is technically Jeff's prime, so I think he could improve. Seeing him wet up that mid-range jumper is nice. He just has great shot selection.

[indeedproceed]

I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.

What are you against?

[CelticG1]

We will always be spoiled with Paul Pierce.

Top 5 in three pointers top 10 free throws made top 20 career points and a fantastic rebounder and passer at his position.

If Green is compared to that it is absolutely daunting. What he's given this season mainly the second half is just about as much as we can when you look at his numbers. Hes seems to be pretty locked in defensively earlier in his career than Pierce was which would be a bonus. Although I do think Pierces d was pretty underrated pre 2008

[kgainez]

I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.

What are you against?

in this circumstance, there's an attempt to make a case about fga per game with and without a person, when the per minute difference is a difference of a couple of fractions...per 36 it's a difference of .8.

I also don't see how, in the argument, it's not a predictive kind of thing, and I'm being told it's not. You're telling me at the averaged per minute rate, with statistics from 3 months ago, Rondo would have given the ball to green .8 more than what he's getting now. Or that per minute, he was touching the ball .2 more.

I wouldn't mind taking the per36 from that time period, to the per36 til now which is 12.4 vs 12.9. But even still...I just don't like it. I guess it's a personal preference in this particular argument.

I think if we are arguing JG on Rondo assists, I think it's a much bigger set of data, like where was Jeff taking his shots then compared to now? I'd love to know, since Jeff was on the bench much, how many of the +.8 shots were attributed to JET or someone else rather than Rondo.

And again, I feel as if we're just coming from a statistical point of view, we are doing ourself a disservice. I am not the only person who felt like Jeff Green would be wide open and he wouldn't get the pass. Does Rondo miss things? Sure. Do I think it was a trust issue? Probably. Was some of it attributed to Jeff Green? Absolutely. And to Doc? Yep.

I think to use that one piece to argue against what my opinion was, is kind of weak. Do I expected a fully drawn up report? Heck no. I'm just saying...Per36...for that?

For example, in the 43 games that Rondo played, Jeff Green was assisted by Rondo 28 times...in 43 games. Compared to 102 to Paul Pierce. I just think it's half an argument.

[Monkhouse]

While we can't expect Jeff Green to be the exact replacement for Pierce, I see very good things from Jeff Green. Sometimes I feel that he doesn't even get enough foul calls, I've seen alot of plays where he's been battered and bruised on the drive, and calls are missed. Maybe that's just me.

Even if KG and Pierce retire I see a very bright future for us. We can always try to sign some free agent big, or go for Josh Smith. Jeff at SF and Josh at PF, with Rondo as our PG, Bradley SG, a nice Center, and backup Shavlik/Williams/Lee would be pretty deadly. I think Bass and Terry will be the first ones to go if anything.

[CelticConcourse]

Green's production post all-star has been incredible:  18 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 1.3 blocks and 1 steal on 51%/43%/80%  34mpg

That's pretty awesome.

If maintained, those could notch an All-Star spot, potentially. (probably not, but it's close)

However, those will never be his season numbers (actually, maybe..) because Green's early-season numbers are terrible relative to his late-season numbers.

It's been a trend his whole career and I don't expect him to start next year off well. He'll work his way through the season, and by this time next year he'll be playing amazing again.

Just my opinion. (?)

[BballTim]

I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.

What are you against?

in this circumstance, there's an attempt to make a case about fga per game with and without a person, when the per minute difference is a difference of a couple of fractions...per 36 it's a difference of .8.

I also don't see how, in the argument, it's not a predictive kind of thing, and I'm being told it's not. You're telling me at the averaged per minute rate, with statistics from 3 months ago, Rondo would have given the ball to green .8 more than what he's getting now. Or that per minute, he was touching the ball .2 more.

  There's no *would have*. The word you're looking for is "did". I'm not saying "Rondo would have passed to Green" I'm saying "Rondo did pass to Green when they played together. Rondo and Green *did* play together for almost 500 minutes and Green shot the ball more frequently during those minutes than he shoots the ball without Rondo on the court.

For example, in the 43 games that Rondo played, Jeff Green was assisted by Rondo 28 times...in 43 games. Compared to 102 to Paul Pierce. I just think it's half an argument.

  On the surface it looks like Rondo passes the ball much more often to PP than he does to Green. But there are a few factors you aren't considering. For starters Rondo played under 500 minutes with Green and almost 1200 minutes with Pierce.

  Aside: *This* is why I'm talking about per minute stats, because most of the difference between the 28 and 102 is the huge difference in minutes the two players are on the court with Rondo. The difference in assists is 102-28, if you adjusted for minutes it would be closer to 102-68. Still a big difference, but a much smaller difference than you seem to think.

  A few other adjustments should be made. First of all PP hit a higher percentage of his shots playing with Rondo than Green (who shot poorly earlier this season) did. If Rondo passes to Green and he misses his shot then Rondo doesn't get an assist, so it will probably take Rondo more passes to Green than to PP to get the same number of assists. You also have to take into account that Pierce takes more shots than Green to begin with so you'd expect Rondo to have somewhat more passes to PP than Green.

  If you adjusted Green's 28 assists for the differencein minutes, fg% and the fact that PP takes more shots than Green whether Rondo's in the game or not you'd get a number close to 95 compared to 102 for Pierce, so the real difference is fairly insignificant. In fact the difference would be small enough that you'd never notice it by watching the games.