What i am wondering is why do people want to unload Green when is is being paid market value for his skills and position?
He is a top 15 small forward. I would take him at 9 million over Hayward or Parsons at 15-16 million any day.
And i certainly don't want to downgrade to the next tier of small forwards like Wilson Chandler, Matt Barns, Thabo Shefolosa, Nick Young etc.
Green was the 22nd ranked small forward in PER last season.
Here's that list....
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/sf
Tyreke Evans, Rudy Gay, and Michael Beasley are ranked (6), (7), and (9) respectively. Parsons and Batum are (13) and (14). I understand what PER is supposed to be but admittedly don't know anything about the formula, and didn't watch a significant amount of the games of any of the players I listed. That said, looking at that list after the top 5, the PER rankings might not be the best trump card in winning an argument.
Well, Jeff Green's utter mediocrity extends to other 'catch all' advanced stats. His WS/48 has only ever been above replacement 1 time in his 6 year career, and that was with OKC.
He's 134th overall in "Simple" ratings from 82 games. And that's only among players who played at least 40% of their team's minutes at any given position (so starters or guys who got significant rotational minutes). There were only 168 players who qualified.
Opposing SF's routinely out performed him on an individual basis (http://www.82games.com/1314/13BOS13.HTM#bypos)
And the team played worse with him on the floor:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13BOS13.HTM#onoff
One of these in a vacuum is not really [dang]ing. Together they paint a pretty bad picture of Jeff Green as a player in 13-14. Below average not at or above average, below.
Who was on the floor with Green most of the time? Scroll up on the very same page, IP.
http://www.82games.com/1314/13BOS13.HTM#5manLook at that very first lineup -- the one that was a gargantuan 372 minutes (3 times as large as any other 5-man unit Green was in last year):
Bradley-Crawford-Green-Bass-Sullinger Off: .97, Def 1.03
Seriously. Tell me you think that Green is the problem with that lineup. With a straight face.
Now, his 2nd most-used lineup (124 minutes) starts to look better at PG, but maybe not so good elsewhere:
Rondo-Bayless-Green-Bass-Humphries Off .96, Def 1.13
Again - are you telling me that GREEN is the problem with that lineup as well?
Ok, finally, let's move on to his THIRD most-used lineup (106 minutes):
Bradley-Crawford-Green-Bass-Humphries Off 1.11, Def 1.15
Okay, small sample, but that one at least scored some points.
So basically, right off the top, some 600 of Green's minutes -- and those lineups were primarily against STARTERS -- were spent with a chronically undersized front court. The vast majority of those minutes had no real starting-quality point guard. And the ones with (recovering) Rondo had one of the weakest defenders at SG I've ever seen in Bayless.
But all we can surmise from that is ... that Green is the problem?
In each of those lineups:
a) At which of the 5 positions were we more likely to have a matchup advantage on offense in most game?
b) At which of the 5 positions were we more likely to have a matchup advantage on defense in most games?
c) At which of the 5 positions were we more likely to have commanded a double-team by an opposing defense?
d) At which of the 5 positions were we more likely to have a length advantage over the typical opposing team?