Author Topic: The Jeff Green thread  (Read 127385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #465 on: April 04, 2013, 12:15:40 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30933
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
Was only able to catch the 4th quarter last night (thanks tax season) but really liked what I saw out of Green last night.  Loved the aggressiveness he was playing with.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #466 on: April 04, 2013, 12:17:26 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
I'm not trying to mischaracterize your response, but for me at least, it seems like you say stats don't matter because you disagree with them, used an ancedote as a counter example (big no-no, at least from a logical standpoint), and then defended that stance by saying 'stats and real life are different things', which is counterintuitive; stats are unarguably a measure of 'real life', without actual real life instances, the stats couldn't exist, by definition. Thats just what stats are.

That's not to say that statistics are definitive argument within themselves, just that saying, 'those are wrong because I disagree with them, and I agree with this thing which I cannot support with meaningful numbers' isn't really a constructive counter.

I think what he was saying is not that stats are irrelevant, but that they don't necesarilly tell the full story.

For example what I've seen from Jeff Green so far (even in his 20+ point games) is he tends to score in streaks.  He'll score 13 in 5 minutes, then he'll not score for two quarters, then he'll score another 5 points in the last 8 minutes of the fourth.  With the exception of his 40 point that seems to be the trend.

I think this is what he meant when he said that Jeff needs minutes to be really effective.  If you play him 15-20 minutes a game then the result is going to be random.  You might get the "15 points in 20 minutes" Jeff, or you might get the "5 points in 20 minutes" Jeff.  However, if you play him 35 minutes every night you're most likely going to get anywhere from 10-25 points from him every night (and > 18 points more often than not).

This is why looking at his scoring per minutes (in the games where he played less minutes) might not really tell the full story.

Look at guys like Pierce or KG and they tend to spread their scoring more evently, so if you gave either of those guys 20 minutes or 40 minutes their production per-minute would probably not vary much because their level of aggressiveness is generally pretty consistent.


I think the point was a little different actually. You're talking about being streaky, which would make his scoring in small doses very unpredictable. But it wouldn't necessarily change the average number of points per minute. If Green plays 20 minutes per game and scores 5 one night and 20 another, he's averaging 12.5. If he gets 10 one night and 15 the next, he still averages 12.5. The variability is lower but the average is the same. And even if the variability goes down when minutes go up, the average might not change (or could go down).

I think the argument is (or should be) that Green's per-36 numbers are better when he plays more minutes.

Right now the data bear that out. Green averages 21 points per 36 minutes as a starter in 11 games this year. Off the bench, he averages 15 points per 36 minutes. One interpretation is that Green actually becomes a better player when you give him more minutes.

I personally disagree with that interpretation for two reasons. First, when Green starts it's because another starter is out, so his role in the offense will naturally increase. If JG is on the court with KG, he will take fewer shots than when he's out there with Bass or Wilcox - and rightly so. And second, Doc might leave Green (or any player) out there more often when he's hot - in which case the nights on which he gets more minutes will of course be the ones on which he's most effective.

But in neither case does giving Green more minutes *cause* him to score more, per minute. To interpret the numbers that way would confuse correlation with causality.

Possibly, but he's also clearly been playing better as the year goes on--and only really starting as of late.  He also plays more minutes when he has a good match up. 

Still, just watching him, he seems to feel like he has to carry more of the load when he's starting, and that seems to be a good thing for him.

I agree. He might be getting more minutes because he's playing better. and we're still looking at a small number of games.

I'm as happy about his performance as anyone, believe me. I'm just trying to weigh in on these arguments that Rondo was holding him back, or that he would have been playing this way all along if we'd given him more minutes, etc.


Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #467 on: April 04, 2013, 12:19:17 PM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
I just want to step back and take the time to appreciate what Jeff Green has been giving to us. He seems to really be back in NBA shape and recovering prefectly fine from his surgery and really stepping up and taking over a role especially with the injuries flying around.

Over the last ten games, (since his 43 point outburst), Green's has been averaging:

22 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.6 blocks, 1 steal, while shooting 55% from the field and 53% from the three point line...

He is playing great efficient ball right now just in time for the playoffs role around. And I'd like to give him a friendly digital pat on the back because of it.

I agree. And in his last 10 games he's avg 14.5 FGA, and 16.2 from his last 5...so I want to know how Doc plans to make sure everyone gets the amount of shots they need to be productive, because I def think Jeff needs more than 10 or 12 a night.
Jeff isn't an aggressive offensive player though, and its pretty late in the season to try and force feed him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4703910/green-and-the-unintentional-takeover#more

Discusses his offense in detail with Jeff/Doc. Doc seems to be pushing him as being more aggressive, which makes sense to me. Coaches have been asking for an aggressive to Green's game forever.

I'm not a 100% sure what your argument is. Are you saying because he isn't aggressive, he shouldn't get 10+ shots or what?

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #468 on: April 04, 2013, 12:23:07 PM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Tommy Points: 1304
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
I for one think he will be top 5 in the next two years.

When Paul calls it quits and he's taking most of the shots, as long as he's playing in this pace (the last 10 games, his numbers suggest he is top 10) he will be.

And for $9 million too, great contract.
2019 CStrong Historical Draft 2000s OKC Thunder.
PG: Jrue Holiday / Isaiah Thomas / Larry Hughes
SG: Paul George / Aaron McKie / Bradley Beal
SF: Paul Pierce / Tayshaun Prince / Brian Scalabrine
PF: LaMarcus Aldridge / Shareef Abdur-Raheem / Ben Simmons
C: Jermaine O'neal / Ben Wallace

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #469 on: April 04, 2013, 12:23:26 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
I just want to step back and take the time to appreciate what Jeff Green has been giving to us. He seems to really be back in NBA shape and recovering prefectly fine from his surgery and really stepping up and taking over a role especially with the injuries flying around.

Over the last ten games, (since his 43 point outburst), Green's has been averaging:

22 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.6 blocks, 1 steal, while shooting 55% from the field and 53% from the three point line...

He is playing great efficient ball right now just in time for the playoffs role around. And I'd like to give him a friendly digital pat on the back because of it.

I agree. And in his last 10 games he's avg 14.5 FGA, and 16.2 from his last 5...so I want to know how Doc plans to make sure everyone gets the amount of shots they need to be productive, because I def think Jeff needs more than 10 or 12 a night.
Jeff isn't an aggressive offensive player though, and its pretty late in the season to try and force feed him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4703910/green-and-the-unintentional-takeover#more

Discusses his offense in detail with Jeff/Doc. Doc seems to be pushing him as being more aggressive, which makes sense to me. Coaches have been asking for an aggressive to Green's game forever.

I'm not a 100% sure what your argument is. Are you saying because he isn't aggressive, he shouldn't get 10+ shots or what?
I'm saying Green takes a shot every 2.5 minutes and has a usage rate around 22. He's not an aggresive player when it comes to his own offense most nights.

So if he's playing 36-40 minutes he'll get 12-15 shots up, but he's not going to force the issue with aggressive offensive play most nights. C's can't change that approach in the 7 games left.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #470 on: April 04, 2013, 12:23:31 PM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
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. And maybe it's a question of definition but for me, I want to see Jeff Green consistently and aggressively take it to the hoop every night. All his shots are not going to fall, but if he's putting for that effort I really can't be mad.

Idk. I just see people throwing out those terms and saying we're getting too high on the guy, but I'm not just discussing his starter play (though I think it's great)...but is 16 off the bench awful? God no.

I would just to know at what point do I get to fan girl for Jeff and not get any back lash? lol


Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #471 on: April 04, 2013, 12:26:15 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
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

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.

I'm not trying to mischaracterize your response, but for me at least, it seems like you say stats don't matter because you disagree with them, used an ancedote as a counter example (big no-no, at least from a logical standpoint), and then defended that stance by saying 'stats and real life are different things', which is counterintuitive; stats are unarguably a measure of 'real life', without actual real life instances, the stats couldn't exist, by definition. Thats just what stats are.

That's not to say that statistics are definitive argument within themselves, just that saying, 'those are wrong because I disagree with them, and I agree with this thing which I cannot support with meaningful numbers' isn't really a constructive counter.

my argument is why are you using stats to predict what's already happening. You can't tell me that because in 20-25 minutes of play, with 8 or so shots, he got more shots with Rondo, rather than the play now where he's playing 35+ minutes and getting double those shots now.

in the meantime, his shots have gradually increased as people have fed him the ball more. you're asking me to 'pretend' like he and Rondo have played for 35 minutes rather than see that he's gotten more shots now.

for ME, that doesn't make sense, especially when the difference is less than 1.0.  That's just my thinking. You all are free to take it or leave it.

  The problem is what you're talking about isn't really happening. When you talk about his minutes going from 20-25 and his shots doubling you're talking about his shots (100% increase) rising faster than his minutes (40%-75% increase). The opposite is true.

  Also, again, there's nothing predictive about per36 numbers. It's just a way of making things easier to compare. This season Green and Rondo have been on the court for 483 minutes and Green's taken about 173 shots in that time. Green's played 1115 minutes without Rondo and he's taken about 375 shots in that time.

  To find out whether he averages more shots per minute with Rondo or without Rondo you'd divide the total number of shots by the total number of minutes for each case. Again, that gives you .36 shots/min with Rondo and .34 shots/minute without Rondo. He's playing more minutes since the injuries started so he's getting more shots per game. But he's still shooting less often when Rondo's not in the game.

  And you're right, the difference is less than 1 shot per36, so it's not much of a difference. But people are claiming that Rondo ignored Green and never passed the ball to Green. That isn't really the case, it's people blaming Rondo for Green's bad start to the season because they didn't see any other reason for the slow start.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #472 on: April 04, 2013, 12:31:17 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
I just want to step back and take the time to appreciate what Jeff Green has been giving to us. He seems to really be back in NBA shape and recovering prefectly fine from his surgery and really stepping up and taking over a role especially with the injuries flying around.

Over the last ten games, (since his 43 point outburst), Green's has been averaging:

22 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.6 blocks, 1 steal, while shooting 55% from the field and 53% from the three point line...

He is playing great efficient ball right now just in time for the playoffs role around. And I'd like to give him a friendly digital pat on the back because of it.

I agree. And in his last 10 games he's avg 14.5 FGA, and 16.2 from his last 5...so I want to know how Doc plans to make sure everyone gets the amount of shots they need to be productive, because I def think Jeff needs more than 10 or 12 a night.
Jeff isn't an aggressive offensive player though, and its pretty late in the season to try and force feed him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4703910/green-and-the-unintentional-takeover#more

Discusses his offense in detail with Jeff/Doc. Doc seems to be pushing him as being more aggressive, which makes sense to me. Coaches have been asking for an aggressive to Green's game forever.

I'm not a 100% sure what your argument is. Are you saying because he isn't aggressive, he shouldn't get 10+ shots or what?

He's saying he isn't naturally aggressive on offense, and that Doc hasn't been holding him back to stymieing his aggression, but has been trying to cultivate it.

BE AGGRESSIVE, B-E AGGRESSIVE, B-E-A-G-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E, Be Aggressive.


"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #473 on: April 04, 2013, 12:32:20 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
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"?

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #474 on: April 04, 2013, 12:39:02 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
I love the dicussion here, but I don't think "cultivating a player to be aggressive" will ever work. He's going to play like always has, and that can get you between 12-22ppg, maybe more if he's the dominant player.

Him scoring 22ppg over the past 10 is pretty absurd, seeing as he has nights where he doesn't even shoot. His FG% is pretty amazing (55%?) for a SF, because compare that to Pierce's career numbers. Green has potential, and I think we can get it out of him.

Should we play him in the starting lineup with Pierce AND KG? I think there's not enough shots to go around with that lineup. I think Green should be the first man off the bench, when KG goes out at the 6.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #475 on: April 04, 2013, 12:42:28 PM »

Offline Evantime34

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11942
  • Tommy Points: 764
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
I love the dicussion here, but I don't think "cultivating a player to be aggressive" will ever work. He's going to play like always has, and that can get you between 12-22ppg, maybe more if he's the dominant player.

Him scoring 22ppg over the past 10 is pretty absurd, seeing as he has nights where he doesn't even shoot. His FG% is pretty amazing (55%?) for a SF, because compare that to Pierce's career numbers. Green has potential, and I think we can get it out of him.

Should we play him in the starting lineup with Pierce AND KG? I think there's not enough shots to go around with that lineup. I think Green should be the first man off the bench, when KG goes out at the 6.
Apparently Doc disagrees with you and he will start with Pierce and KG for the rest of the season.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #476 on: April 04, 2013, 12:45:49 PM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
I just want to step back and take the time to appreciate what Jeff Green has been giving to us. He seems to really be back in NBA shape and recovering prefectly fine from his surgery and really stepping up and taking over a role especially with the injuries flying around.

Over the last ten games, (since his 43 point outburst), Green's has been averaging:

22 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.6 blocks, 1 steal, while shooting 55% from the field and 53% from the three point line...

He is playing great efficient ball right now just in time for the playoffs role around. And I'd like to give him a friendly digital pat on the back because of it.

I agree. And in his last 10 games he's avg 14.5 FGA, and 16.2 from his last 5...so I want to know how Doc plans to make sure everyone gets the amount of shots they need to be productive, because I def think Jeff needs more than 10 or 12 a night.
Jeff isn't an aggressive offensive player though, and its pretty late in the season to try and force feed him.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4703910/green-and-the-unintentional-takeover#more

Discusses his offense in detail with Jeff/Doc. Doc seems to be pushing him as being more aggressive, which makes sense to me. Coaches have been asking for an aggressive to Green's game forever.

I'm not a 100% sure what your argument is. Are you saying because he isn't aggressive, he shouldn't get 10+ shots or what?

He's saying he isn't naturally aggressive on offense, and that Doc hasn't been holding him back to stymieing his aggression, but has been trying to cultivate it.

BE AGGRESSIVE, B-E AGGRESSIVE, B-E-A-G-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E, Be Aggressive.

Thank you for the cheer. Wasn't necessary though.
I didn't get the argument because my question was how does Doc plan to get him between 10-15 shots a game, especially if he starts with KG and PP.
I don't think aggression is the problem. Jeff just doesn't want to be the #1 guy. Doesn't mean he can't be aggressive. What I've seen from him is what I would categorize as aggressive. So that threw me, and thus, I asked for clarification.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #477 on: April 04, 2013, 12:51:59 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
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.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #478 on: April 04, 2013, 12:52:21 PM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
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.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #479 on: April 04, 2013, 12:54:42 PM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
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.


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.