I was wrong about Jeff Green

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green

    In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green : Pete, To look at the most even playing field, I prefer the metric "player efficiency rating" (PER). It is not with out faults, but my opinion it is the best metric to review for fairly rating a player. W Chandler and T PRince are ranked as SF and are ranked #13 with a per of 15.27 M Williams is ranked as a SF and his rank is #27 at 13.20 per Gallo is a PF ranked #32 at 16.04 per Blatche is a PF ranked #38 at 15.43 per Jeff Green is ranked as a PF and is at #55 with a per of 13.10 Would Greens rank be better as a SF? Maybe. Can he defend the quicker 3's? Not sure. Is he worth $6M? From what I have seen, no. 
    Posted by rkarp[/QUOTE]

    aren't these rating based mostly on what he did in OKC where it seems he was miscast?   Already in Boston he is scoring substantially more on a per minute basis even though he is just starting to get integrated into the Celtic team offence and defense.        WHat does his per look like if you just take the last 10 day or so?  (a small but arguably most relevant sample) where he has averaaged more than a point per 2 minutes, one turnover per 40 min!   fg% over 500  and 3's at .444.   if the so called '"player efficiency rating" doesn't value those numbers highly there is something askew in the algorithm.

    and by the way, I'm not real familiar with the usefulness of per in determinating a players value.... so I looked up the per for Paul pierce in 2007-8 celtics championship year.        Paul's 19.9 per placed him as th 36th most valuable player in the NBA,,, Is that about where you would place him?   hmmm      

     Thinking my memory was failing and he must have had a bad regular season ...     I checked the post season per for pierce... I knew he was chosen as the finals MVP so you would think his per would be right up there...       I guess my memory isn't so good    Pierce's  post season per 18.1  
    He was the 23rd most valuable player in the 2008 playoffs!!!!   Damn maybe Danny can get some of his money back...   Pierce obviously wasn't worth it.  
    And I could have sworn the celtics won that year but the lakers big 3, Kobe 4th highest per, Gasol 12 th highest per and Odem 16th highest PER  were so much better than the celtic mvp that the Lakers must have won!


    Then I came across this little tidbit about the PER formula for rating players 
    "Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

    In other words this rating is just misnamed..   It shouldn't be the player efficiency rating ....  it should be called the BCI   Ball chucker index.   

    so find a better metric before you undervalue an obviously talented player like Green.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from teh-n00b. Show teh-n00b's posts

    Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green

    In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green:
    [QUOTE]I agree with the above both and $5.9MM is a steal.  I think Danny knows what OKC offered and Green rejected and I think we will do ok.  I think a lot of it has to do with what we do with Baby and how we see the frontcourt in the future.  I have always thought that Baby could only be your starting power forward or center with a tall athletic four or three or a Dwight Howard type at center, but now with Green, I think his size at the three and Baby at the four may work out.  If we were able to sign those two guys to reasonable contracts, we could make a serious move for Dwight Howard in 2012.  Regardless, I think Baby and Green would make a soild front court for year to come.  I could not see us not signing Baby and Green going into next year.  I say both Baby and Green are worth about $8-9MM over four years.    
    Posted by ShepherdCall[/QUOTE]

    very good point, something I've been thinking for a while. we've been stuck with undersized small forwards like daniels, or shooting guards masquerading as small forwards (wafer), for so long that I've forgotten what it's like to have a three with some real length. even pierce is only 6'6, though he plays taller.

    green is a full 6-9 with a huge wingspan. his game complements baby perfectly, as they cover for each other's weaknesses. I think we should lock them both up long-term

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green

    In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green : aren't these rating based mostly on what he did in OKC where it seems he was miscast?   Already in Boston he is scoring substantially more on a per minute basis even though he is just starting to get integrated into the Celtic team offence and defense.        WHat does his per look like if you just take the last 10 day or so?  (a small but arguably most relevant sample) where he has averaaged more than a point per 2 minutes, one turnover per 40 min!   fg% over 500  and 3's at .444.   if the so called '"player efficiency rating" doesn't value those numbers highly there is something askew in the algorithm. and by the way, I'm not real familiar with the usefulness of per in determinating a players value.... so I looked up the per for Paul pierce in 2007-8 celtics championship year.        Paul's 19.9 per placed him as th 36th most valuable player in the NBA,,, Is that about where you would place him?   hmmm        Thinking my memory was failing and he must have had a bad regular season ...     I checked the post season per for pierce... I knew he was chosen as the finals MVP so you would think his per would be right up there...       I guess my memory isn't so good    Pierce's  post season per 18.1   He was the 23rd most valuable player in the 2008 playoffs!!!!   Damn maybe Danny can get some of his money back...   Pierce obviously wasn't worth it.   And I could have sworn the celtics won that year but the lakers big 3, Kobe 4th highest per, Gasol 12 th highest per and Odem 16th highest PER  were so much better than the celtic mvp that the Lakers must have won! Then I came across this little tidbit about the PER formula for rating players  "Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots." In other words this rating is just misnamed..   It shouldn't be the player efficiency rating ....  it should be called the BCI   Ball chucker index.    so find a better metric before you undervalue an obviously talented player like Green.
    Posted by videoburns[/QUOTE]
    Sideburns,
    Per rates a players efficiency, not how valuable they are. PP in 07-08 total rating was low because his offensive rebounding was pretty much non existant, and his turnover ratio was quite high.
    In the playoffs you referenced, again, PP's offensive rebounding hurt him quite a bit, as it was .08, which was even lower than Eddie House. PP was #25 in rebounding for all SF's. PER also factors into the equation assists. In the playoff series referenced PP was #16 for all SF's.
    And yes, Greens stats do include his games in green. If you want to find fault, rather than looking at the metrics, you should look at the rebounding totals, where Jeff Green is the 74th ranked PF in rebounding efficiency.
    Not sure what you mean by "miscast" in OKC?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green

    In this case I'm ignoring metrics and judging by what my eyes tell me.  Green has talent, he can shoot and has some nice moves.  He seems to be an ok defender and he is not an accomplished rebounder.  A chiseled 6'9" guy who is that athletic almost has to average 4-5 rebounds by default. 

    I realize that he isn't being asked to be a rebounder and defensive stopper.  It seems to me his best attributes are his scoring and running the floor with his mobility, while this team could certainly use a dose of rebounding and defensive tenacity.  He is a nice player, but I stick to my opinion that he is a contributor on a legit playoff contender and if he's a top 2-3 core player you're just not that good of a team. 

    Just my opinion after watching him play for a little bit. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green

    In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green:
    [QUOTE]In this case I'm ignoring metrics and judging by what my eyes tell me.  Green has talent, he can shoot and has some nice moves.  He seems to be an ok defender and he is not an accomplished rebounder.  A chiseled 6'9" guy who is that athletic almost has to average 4-5 rebounds by default.  I realize that he isn't being asked to be a rebounder and defensive stopper.  It seems to me his best attributes are his scoring and running the floor with his mobility, while this team could certainly use a dose of rebounding and defensive tenacity.  He is a nice player, but I stick to my opinion that he is a contributor on a legit playoff contender and if he's a top 2-3 core player you're just not that good of a team.  Just my opinion after watching him play for a little bit. 
    Posted by CablesWyndBairn[/QUOTE]
    Cable,
    We are saying the same thing. If the team comes back next year intact, I like Green as the 6th or 7th man. If the team disbands, I am not in favor of Green as the starting PF or SF if the team has championship aspirations. Greens contract is too cumbersome too rebuild around IMO
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green

    Rkarp

    I think that if Green is part of rebuilding plan it'd better be at reasonable dollars because they will need to use those expiring contracts to get guys that are franchise cornerstones.  I think we definitely agree that on a team with this much veteran talent he is a nice player to have.  Where Ainge goes from here, I don't know.  Perhaps Green fills the short term need for a SF/PF type that this team has been lacking.  We got that at the expense of Perk's toughness, which some people say was overrated.  Once the big three are out of here, I hope the C's aren't saddled with an overpriced Jeff Green.  Jeff Green at reasonable dollars?  Great.  Otherwise, no thanks.   
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green

    In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I was wrong about Jeff Green : very good point, something I've been thinking for a while. we've been stuck with undersized small forwards like daniels, or shooting guards masquerading as small forwards (wafer), for so long that I've forgotten what it's like to have a three with some real length. even pierce is only 6'6, though he plays taller. green is a full 6-9 with a huge wingspan. his game complements baby perfectly, as they cover for each other's weaknesses. I think we should lock them both up long-term
    Posted by teh-n00b[/QUOTE]

    I like both Green and Davis.  I hope there is money to have both of them back PLUS dollars to add significant talent via FA so there is no long term rebuilding process.  Once the Allen, Garnett and Pierce contracts are off the books, if this team is relying on Green and BBD, I'll quote Scooby Doo and say "rut ro", because that isn't gonna get it done.  They are both pieces of the puzzle but they aren't franchise-type guys. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share