next »

[Roy H.]

Tell me this doesn't have the potential to make Jeff Green one of the better post-up players in the league.

I've been disappointed by Green's results in the post.  When he first came over from OKC, it seemed like he had some decent ability to score down low.  However, his results there have sucked.  27.5% shooting?  Come on.

'Not sure where you are getting the 27.5% number.  I guess it corresponds to his shooting from 'in close'?

Check out Jeff Green's offensive stats at mysynergysports.com.  Under post-ups, he's at 27.5%.

Blame our spacing, not Green!

Of course.  None of Green's failures are ever his fault.

I don't care how bad the spacing is:  27.5% is completely unacceptable.

[wdleehi]

Let me get this right




Jeff Green can be a 20 point scorer on a team without elite (or good) offensive weapons.



Sounds sort of like Harvey Grant.  Able to put numbers up with bad teams.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grantha01.html


or Dana Barros?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barroda01.html

[Who]

Let me get this right


Jeff Green can be a 20 point scorer on a team without elite (or good) offensive weapons.


Sounds sort of like Harvey Grant.  Able to put numbers up with bad teams.

Yeah, that is how I look at Jeff Green. He could be a 18-20ppg threat on a crappy team (bottom 5 type team). A 14-17ppg on a good team (low seed playoff team). But would be most comfortable as a 12-14ppg threat on a great team (title contender).

[TripleOT]

The only good thing about Green in two more years is that he'll be closer to being an expiring contract. I'll take every single player on the OP's list over Green right now, and 80% of them in two years. 

 

[mmmmm]

Tell me this doesn't have the potential to make Jeff Green one of the better post-up players in the league.

I've been disappointed by Green's results in the post.  When he first came over from OKC, it seemed like he had some decent ability to score down low.  However, his results there have sucked.  27.5% shooting?  Come on.

'Not sure where you are getting the 27.5% number.  I guess it corresponds to his shooting from 'in close'?

Check out Jeff Green's offensive stats at mysynergysports.com.  Under post-ups, he's at 27.5%.

Blame our spacing, not Green!

Of course.  None of Green's failures are ever his fault.

I don't care how bad the spacing is:  27.5% is completely unacceptable.

That seems a bit unnecessarily dismissive, Roy.

I don't necessarily buy into the idea that Green is going to be a 'top 5' SF in 2 years ... I don't make predictions.

But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Green's performance has fluctuated wildly depending on the role he's been put in and how he is utilized.

Also, there IS a pretty dramatic problem with our team's offensive spacing, shot distribution and resulting overall efficiency.

The numbers I posted show a pretty dramatic swing when you just shift out just the point guard in his main lineup, keeping the foursome of Lee+Green+Sully+KG otherwise stable.  With RR or JT, it is an awesome lineup.  With LB, it is mediocre.   There is the skitzophrenia that people complain about with Green.  Is that his 'fault'?

I'd rather not waste time worrying about failings and faults.  All I know is that in order for the Celtics to have success, we want our players deployed in ways that lead to success.   Clearly, whether its a failing in him or not, Green has a lot more success in some situations / roles / lineups than others.   Hopefully Doc will try to deploy him more in successful lineups more often and we'll all be happy.

[Fan from VT]

PER is imperfect. It essentially ignores defense, and does not account that a solid impact over 30 minutes is better than the same impact over 10 minutes. However, it can show a pretty good idea of where a player is relative to their peers, and if a player's PER is lower, there's usually a very good reason, such as: inefficient scoring (low percentage, low drawing free throws, ineffective at 3s) or an ability to be on the court without picking up assists, rebounds, etc.

With that in mind, here are players listed as SF with better PERs than Green RIGHT NOW. So, who on that list will decrease below Green's current level OR who will Green pass to get to Top 5??  BTW, Greens max PER is 13.99 (year 2); a mythical perfectly average production player is 15.00.

Also, people will argue about whether certain players are truly SFs, trying to eliminate competition based on a technicality. Here are some SGs/PFs not on the list with better PERs than Green, so I think this method of arguing is a wash. (like asking "who's the best pure PG" then explaining why the best PGs aren't pure): Ginobili, JR Smith, Joe Johnson, Dudley, Gerald Henderson, Hayward, Carter, Derozen, Iguodala, Korver, Sefolosha.  PFs: Villanueva, Derrick Williams, Darrell Arthur, Daye, Cunningham.

RK   PLAYER                     PER
1   LeBron James, MIA   30.3
2   Kevin Durant, OKC   29.15
3   Carmelo Anthony, NY   25.29
4   Paul Pierce, BOS   19.09
5   Kenneth Faried, DEN   19.02
6   Andrei Kirilenko, MIN   18.63
7   Nicolas Batum, POR   17.74
8   Matt Barnes, LAC   17.69
9   Thaddeus Young, PHI   17.51
10   Paul George, IND   17.44
RK   PLAYER   PER
11   Josh Smith, ATL   17.11
12   Jordan Hamilton, DEN   16.91
13   Earl Clark, LAL   16.74
14   Danilo Gallinari, DEN   16.69
15   Ersan Ilyasova, MIL   16.53
16   DeMarre Carroll, UTAH   16.45
17   Shawn Marion, DAL   16.21
18   Chris Copeland, NY   16.11
19   Mike Dunleavy, MIL   15.95
20   Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, CHA   15.73
RK   PLAYER   PER
21   Luol Deng, CHI   15.22
22   Corey Brewer, DEN   15.17
23   Rudy Gay, MEM   14.64
24   Jimmy Butler, CHI   14.63
25   Chandler Parsons, HOU   14.54
26   Kawhi Leonard, SA   14.35
27   Metta World Peace, LAL   14.19
28   Dorell Wright, PHI   14.12
29   Al-Farouq Aminu, NO   14.03
30   Tobias Harris, MIL   13.88
RK   PLAYER   PER
31   Gerald Wallace, BKN   13.72
32   Evan Turner, PHI   13.38
33   Tayshaun Prince, DET   13.31
34   Martell Webster, WSH   13.23
35   Carlos Delfino, HOU   13.15
36   John Salmons, SAC   12.47
37   Mike Miller, MIA   12.3
38   Moe Harkless, ORL   12.27
39   Omri Casspi, CLE   12.21
40   Trevor Ariza, WSH   12.15
RK   PLAYER   PER
41   Francisco Garcia, SAC   12.04

JEFF GREEN 11.93

42   Caron Butler, LAC   11.75
43   C.J. Miles, CLE   11.54
44   Harrison Barnes, GS   11.53
45   Jae Crowder, DAL   11.44
46   Steve Novak, NY   11.21
47   Alonzo Gee, CLE   11.01
48   Kyle Singler, DET   10.52
49   Ronnie Brewer, NY   10.47
50   Quincy Pondexter, MEM   10.38



So, in 2 years, who does he pass without anyone passing him (younger guys/current highschool or college guys)??

Everybody except for James, Durant, Melo and possibly George/Batum.

Can you show me his PER in his second/third years in the league?

Best ever PER was 13.99.

Mainly I wanted to point out just how many tall, fairly athletic guys there are who put up EXACTLY what Green does. Green only seems different because he's on the C's, and any of those 20+ others would have exactly the same support/excuses if they were on the C's.

[Roy H.]

Tell me this doesn't have the potential to make Jeff Green one of the better post-up players in the league.

I've been disappointed by Green's results in the post.  When he first came over from OKC, it seemed like he had some decent ability to score down low.  However, his results there have sucked.  27.5% shooting?  Come on.

'Not sure where you are getting the 27.5% number.  I guess it corresponds to his shooting from 'in close'?

Check out Jeff Green's offensive stats at mysynergysports.com.  Under post-ups, he's at 27.5%.

Blame our spacing, not Green!

Of course.  None of Green's failures are ever his fault.

I don't care how bad the spacing is:  27.5% is completely unacceptable.

That seems a bit unnecessarily dismissive, Roy.

I don't necessarily buy into the idea that Green is going to be a 'top 5' SF in 2 years ... I don't make predictions.

But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Green's performance has fluctuated wildly depending on the role he's been put in and how he is utilized.

Also, there IS a pretty dramatic problem with our team's offensive spacing, shot distribution and resulting overall efficiency.

The numbers I posted show a pretty dramatic swing when you just shift out just the point guard in his main lineup, keeping the foursome of Lee+Green+Sully+KG otherwise stable.  With RR or JT, it is an awesome lineup.  With LB, it is mediocre.   There is the skitzophrenia that people complain about with Green.  Is that his 'fault'?

I'd rather not waste time worrying about failings and faults.  All I know is that in order for the Celtics to have success, we want our players deployed in ways that lead to success.   Clearly, whether its a failing in him or not, Green has a lot more success in some situations / roles / lineups than others.   Hopefully Doc will try to deploy him more in successful lineups more often and we'll all be happy.

After reading through dozens and dozens of posts making excuses for Green's failure, I've got no problem with being dismissive of yet one more excuse.

[CelticConcourse]

PER is imperfect. It essentially ignores defense, and does not account that a solid impact over 30 minutes is better than the same impact over 10 minutes. However, it can show a pretty good idea of where a player is relative to their peers, and if a player's PER is lower, there's usually a very good reason, such as: inefficient scoring (low percentage, low drawing free throws, ineffective at 3s) or an ability to be on the court without picking up assists, rebounds, etc.

With that in mind, here are players listed as SF with better PERs than Green RIGHT NOW. So, who on that list will decrease below Green's current level OR who will Green pass to get to Top 5??  BTW, Greens max PER is 13.99 (year 2); a mythical perfectly average production player is 15.00.

Also, people will argue about whether certain players are truly SFs, trying to eliminate competition based on a technicality. Here are some SGs/PFs not on the list with better PERs than Green, so I think this method of arguing is a wash. (like asking "who's the best pure PG" then explaining why the best PGs aren't pure): Ginobili, JR Smith, Joe Johnson, Dudley, Gerald Henderson, Hayward, Carter, Derozen, Iguodala, Korver, Sefolosha.  PFs: Villanueva, Derrick Williams, Darrell Arthur, Daye, Cunningham.

RK   PLAYER                     PER
1   LeBron James, MIA   30.3
2   Kevin Durant, OKC   29.15
3   Carmelo Anthony, NY   25.29
4   Paul Pierce, BOS   19.09
5   Kenneth Faried, DEN   19.02
6   Andrei Kirilenko, MIN   18.63
7   Nicolas Batum, POR   17.74
8   Matt Barnes, LAC   17.69
9   Thaddeus Young, PHI   17.51
10   Paul George, IND   17.44
RK   PLAYER   PER
11   Josh Smith, ATL   17.11
12   Jordan Hamilton, DEN   16.91
13   Earl Clark, LAL   16.74
14   Danilo Gallinari, DEN   16.69
15   Ersan Ilyasova, MIL   16.53
16   DeMarre Carroll, UTAH   16.45
17   Shawn Marion, DAL   16.21
18   Chris Copeland, NY   16.11
19   Mike Dunleavy, MIL   15.95
20   Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, CHA   15.73
RK   PLAYER   PER
21   Luol Deng, CHI   15.22
22   Corey Brewer, DEN   15.17
23   Rudy Gay, MEM   14.64
24   Jimmy Butler, CHI   14.63
25   Chandler Parsons, HOU   14.54
26   Kawhi Leonard, SA   14.35
27   Metta World Peace, LAL   14.19
28   Dorell Wright, PHI   14.12
29   Al-Farouq Aminu, NO   14.03
30   Tobias Harris, MIL   13.88
RK   PLAYER   PER
31   Gerald Wallace, BKN   13.72
32   Evan Turner, PHI   13.38
33   Tayshaun Prince, DET   13.31
34   Martell Webster, WSH   13.23
35   Carlos Delfino, HOU   13.15
36   John Salmons, SAC   12.47
37   Mike Miller, MIA   12.3
38   Moe Harkless, ORL   12.27
39   Omri Casspi, CLE   12.21
40   Trevor Ariza, WSH   12.15
RK   PLAYER   PER
41   Francisco Garcia, SAC   12.04

JEFF GREEN 11.93

42   Caron Butler, LAC   11.75
43   C.J. Miles, CLE   11.54
44   Harrison Barnes, GS   11.53
45   Jae Crowder, DAL   11.44
46   Steve Novak, NY   11.21
47   Alonzo Gee, CLE   11.01
48   Kyle Singler, DET   10.52
49   Ronnie Brewer, NY   10.47
50   Quincy Pondexter, MEM   10.38



So, in 2 years, who does he pass without anyone passing him (younger guys/current highschool or college guys)??

Everybody except for James, Durant, Melo and possibly George/Batum.

Can you show me his PER in his second/third years in the league?

Best ever PER was 13.99.

Mainly I wanted to point out just how many tall, fairly athletic guys there are who put up EXACTLY what Green does. Green only seems different because he's on the C's, and any of those 20+ others would have exactly the same support/excuses if they were on the C's.

If his 16.5/7 season only got him a 13.99, I'll say PER is a flawed system! Chris Copeland at 18th? You've gotta be kidding me!

[Fan from VT]

If his 16.5/7 season only got him a 13.99, I'll say PER is a flawed system! Chris Copeland at 18th? You've gotta be kidding me!

As has been discussed ad nauseum, Green's 2nd season is essentially a quintessential "Average Al Harrington" season. He played a TON of minutes on a BAD team. That season looks good if you go by the standard of just counting total points, total assists, total rebounds per game and totally ignoring his massive minutes, which combined with average to ok shooting show that he was a below average rebounder and simply average shooter who got numbers only because he was the 2nd option on a bad team and forced into heavy minutes. If he'd been drafted to a playoff team, he'd have had a similar year to this one and no one would be confused as to what kind of player he is. Frankly, a good player in that situation should be grabbing boards and scoring more in those kinds of minutes.


Random thoughts:
-had a negative +/- for that bad team
-played PF>SF at a 3:1 ratio and was only marginally better at SF for those saying he'd be a completely different player at SF.

[IndeedProceed]

If his 16.5/7 season only got him a 13.99, I'll say PER is a flawed system! Chris Copeland at 18th? You've gotta be kidding me!

The reason why his PER number is low is because his minutes played was so high. His actual per-minute production was below average for a starter, especially with regards to rebounds.

On top of that, he couldn't defend 4s to save his life.

So even with the quickness advantage against 4s, he was still letting in WAYY more production that he was putting out.

As a 3, he's been woefully inconsistent.

Basically, there isn't any numberical evidence to support Green entering the elite halls of starting 3s.

[CelticConcourse]

If his 16.5/7 season only got him a 13.99, I'll say PER is a flawed system! Chris Copeland at 18th? You've gotta be kidding me!

The reason why his PER number is low is because his minutes played was so high. His actual per-minute production was below average for a starter, especially with regards to rebounds.

On top of that, he couldn't defend 4s to save his life.

So even with the quickness advantage against 4s, he was still letting in WAYY more production that he was putting out.

As a 3, he's been woefully inconsistent.

Basically, there isn't any numberical evidence to support Green entering the elite halls of starting 3s.

He'll never be a good 4.

He can be a consistent 3 if he gets consistent play time, aka not playing behind a Durant/Pierce. The thing y'all were saying was that he's too consistent and hasn't improved since year 2! Give him his play time and he'll pass those per minute stats!

[CelticConcourse]

If his 16.5/7 season only got him a 13.99, I'll say PER is a flawed system! Chris Copeland at 18th? You've gotta be kidding me!

As has been discussed ad nauseum, Green's 2nd season is essentially a quintessential "Average Al Harrington" season. He played a TON of minutes on a BAD team. That season looks good if you go by the standard of just counting total points, total assists, total rebounds per game and totally ignoring his massive minutes, which combined with average to ok shooting show that he was a below average rebounder and simply average shooter who got numbers only because he was the 2nd option on a bad team and forced into heavy minutes. If he'd been drafted to a playoff team, he'd have had a similar year to this one and no one would be confused as to what kind of player he is. Frankly, a good player in that situation should be grabbing boards and scoring more in those kinds of minutes.


Random thoughts:
-had a negative +/- for that bad team
-played PF>SF at a 3:1 ratio and was only marginally better at SF for those saying he'd be a completely different player at SF.

For the fifth time this thread.............. That Thunder team was a legit contender and had the fourth seed in the west with Green being a solid starter scoring 16+ points with consistency. That was years ago, he can get twenty any day now if played right.

[CelticConcourse]

To all: please read previous pages before making same points over and over.

Sorry if I'm annoying... I just seem to see Jeff in a different way than y'all...  We're all Celtic fans at the end, right? But seriously... 20/6/4 is easy for this kid, he can be a Melo.

[mmmmm]

Of course.  None of Green's failures are ever his fault.

I don't care how bad the spacing is:  27.5% is completely unacceptable.

That seems a bit unnecessarily dismissive, Roy.

I don't necessarily buy into the idea that Green is going to be a 'top 5' SF in 2 years ... I don't make predictions.

But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Green's performance has fluctuated wildly depending on the role he's been put in and how he is utilized.

Also, there IS a pretty dramatic problem with our team's offensive spacing, shot distribution and resulting overall efficiency.

The numbers I posted show a pretty dramatic swing when you just shift out just the point guard in his main lineup, keeping the foursome of Lee+Green+Sully+KG otherwise stable.  With RR or JT, it is an awesome lineup.  With LB, it is mediocre.   There is the skitzophrenia that people complain about with Green.  Is that his 'fault'?

I'd rather not waste time worrying about failings and faults.  All I know is that in order for the Celtics to have success, we want our players deployed in ways that lead to success.   Clearly, whether its a failing in him or not, Green has a lot more success in some situations / roles / lineups than others.   Hopefully Doc will try to deploy him more in successful lineups more often and we'll all be happy.

After reading through dozens and dozens of posts making excuses for Green's failure, I've got no problem with being dismissive of yet one more excuse.

Whatever.  'Seems like some are kinda angry and unnecessarily confrontational on this topic, though.

Who's making excuses?  I'm just trying to figure out reasons to explain what we've seen with Green.

I'm sorry, but overly simplified, 'he is who he is' doesn't really explain anything.  Nor do caustic/veiled character aspersions ('too passive', 'soft', etc.).

And of course, as you know very well, if you don't like reading these sort of threads - no one forces you, Roy.

[mmmmm]

If his 16.5/7 season only got him a 13.99, I'll say PER is a flawed system! Chris Copeland at 18th? You've gotta be kidding me!

The reason why his PER number is low is because his minutes played was so high. His actual per-minute production was below average for a starter, especially with regards to rebounds.

On top of that, he couldn't defend 4s to save his life.

So even with the quickness advantage against 4s, he was still letting in WAYY more production that he was putting out.

As a 3, he's been woefully inconsistent.

Basically, there isn't any numberical evidence to support Green entering the elite halls of starting 3s.

He is right, though.  PER is a painfully flawed statistic - especially useless for his sort of comparison, imho, between different players on different teams, in different systems, with different roles.