Sullinger Theory

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from R9R. Show R9R's posts

    Sullinger Theory

    What do you make of a player who ...

    • Increases his team's score:

    Celtics With Jared Sullinger: +45 (427 minutes)

    Celtics Without him: -114 (485 minutes)

    • Increases his team's true shooting percentage:

    53.9% shooting on the court

    49.8% shooting off the court

    • Lowers his team's turnover percentage:

    15.8 percent turnover rate on the court

    18.8% turnover rate off the court

    • Increases his team's assists percentage:

    15.4% assist rate on the court

    13.3% assist rate off the court 

    • Has monster double-doubles (3)

    vs. POR: 26pts & 8reb

    @SAN: 19pts & 17reb

    vs. MEM: 23pts & 12reb

    @MIL: 21pts & 14reb

     

    BUT,  the Celtics are 0-5 in games when Jared has more than 15 points

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from R9R. Show R9R's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to Fierce34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sullinger is not the problem.

    When Avery Bradley is shooting like Ray Allen, the Celts usually win.

    But if AB is shooting like he did last night, the Celts usually lose.

     

    Sully, Green, and AB make the Celts a very good team if they're shots are falling.

    But we all know Avery Bradley is no scorer.

    Celts need a Jabari Parker to complete the rebuild.

    If not then it might take at least 3 years before the Celts become a playoff team again. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Sully can become that scorer. His low post game will continue to improve as he develops. He has the hands, smarts and passing skills to eventually initiate a strong amount of the offense from that low post.

     

    Of course Parker is great. That's not what this conversation is about. Its about how good statistically Sully is to this team, but why that contribution is not translating into Wins.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bird-to-DJ. Show Bird-to-DJ's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    R9R - Intersting stats... One answer I think fits is small sample size...  In the four monster double-doubles you list (so 4 of the 5 games he has 15pts), three of them are against Western Conference playoff teams.  He also had another 15+ pt game aginst Memphis.  We did beat Atlanta when he scored 15.  But it is interesting that we are 1-5 when he scores 15+ even though the stats suggest we are much better with himon the floor...  I'd guess small sample size and the quality of the teams that he'd had those games against...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BiggerThanMyBrady. Show BiggerThanMyBrady's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    Big Sullinger fan. He's the second best player on the roster after Rondo. One thing I like about him is the way he uses his body. He knows that he weighs 260 and it's hard to push a guy like that around. He flat out knows how to rebound. I liked the way he played against Hibbert a couple weeks ago. I remember Sully getting the ball down low, driving towards the baseline, and used a quick baby hook before Hibbert could get set for two. You can see why people rave over his BBIQ. If he can add that outside shot (KG's special 18 footer to 3 point range) and become a stretch four the sky's the limit.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from teejaytee70. Show teejaytee70's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to Fierce34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sullinger is not the problem.

    When Avery Bradley is shooting like Ray Allen, the Celts usually win.

    But if AB is shooting like he did last night, the Celts usually lose.

     

    Sully, Green, and AB make the Celts a very good team if they're shots are falling.

    But we all know Avery Bradley is no scorer.

    Celts need a Jabari Parker to complete the rebuild.

    If not then it might take at least 3 years before the Celts become a playoff team again. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  Statistics are very subjective.  Instead of focusing on what Sullinger did in those 5 games, focus on what the rest of the team did.  Blaming Sullinger is a very Chris33 thing to do.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from aciemvp. Show aciemvp's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to teejaytee70's comment:

     

    Right.  Statistics are very subjective.  Instead of focusing on what Sullinger did in those 5 games, focus on what the rest of the team did.  Blaming Sullinger is a very Chris33 thing to do.



    i remember when davis was here and the celts were 33-8 with davis playing lion's share of #5 minutes when both jabreel and shaqueel o'neal broken down, all we heard about davis' advanced stats being horrible.  but most who knew anything knew that davis' help defense was what was holding the team together and getting pierce, kg and ray big breaks on the defensive end by plugging holes on switch-backs, etc.  and that was when doc would actually go on record and say he liked what davis was doing for us.

    but then with bass and now with sullinger we should ignore the stats?  i'm not saying i don't like sullinger.  i do.  but how can stats be so damning in one instance and then claims stats are "subjective" for sullinger when they were used to club davis like a baby seal?  and furthermore, stat analysis was outright abolished when bass came to town and turned out LESSER stats (per 36 mins played and advanced) than davis produced?

    how do all these fancy stats work like this- apply to some players, not at all to others (bass), and with discretion to yet others (sullinger)...........  ?  i think we have some hypocrites in the fold, that's all i can come up with. 


    BTW, the correct answer is that STATS ARE SUBJECTIVE.....  just not for everyone.. lol

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from teejaytee70. Show teejaytee70's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to aciemvp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to teejaytee70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Right.  Statistics are very subjective.  Instead of focusing on what Sullinger did in those 5 games, focus on what the rest of the team did.  Blaming Sullinger is a very Chris33 thing to do.

    [/QUOTE]

    i remember when davis was here and the celts were 33-8 with davis playing lion's share of #5 minutes when both jabreel and shaqueel o'neal broken down, all we heard about davis' advanced stats being horrible.  but most who knew anything knew that davis' help defense was what was holding the team together and getting pierce, kg and ray big breaks on the defensive end by plugging holes on switch-backs, etc.  and that was when doc would actually go on record and say he liked what davis was doing for us.

    but then with bass and now with sullinger we should ignore the stats?  i'm not saying i don't like sullinger.  i do.  but how can stats be so damning in one instance and then claims stats are "subjective" for sullinger when they were used to club davis like a baby seal?  and furthermore, stat analysis was outright abolished when bass came to town and turned out LESSER stats (per 36 mins played and advanced) than davis produced?

    how do all these fancy stats work like this- apply to some players, not at all to others (bass), and with discretion to yet others (sullinger)...........  ?  i think we have some hypocrites in the fold, that's all i can come up with. 


    BTW, the correct answer is that STATS ARE SUBJECTIVE by the way.....  just not for everyone.. lol

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If the Celtics lose on days when it rains, it is not necessarily a statistical correlation.  It could be a coincidence.  Show me the advanced statistical analysis you performed to determine that if Sullinger scores in double figures that leads to a Celtics loss.  Maybe it proves that Sullinger is even more valuable to this team than we think.  Maybe it means that Sullinger had tip ins and put backs from offensive rebounds and that the reason we lost was not Sullinger scoring in double figures, but that the rest of the team was not shooting well that night.  People like you look at stats and see Sullinger had 20 points and the Celtics lost, so therefore it means that Sullinger is responsible for the loss.  It's more complex than that.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    Sullinger, Green, Crawford, Oly....................

    Pair them with Rondo and it's not bad....

    We need a legit scorer, like Evan Turner.

    With Rondo, Turner, Green, Sully and Oly and  a bench of Crawford, Fav and maybe Saric...that's not a bad team in the bad East!

    MIA may break up

    CHI may be done

    IND?  Still good

    We could be good next year with some smart moves, and some smarter deletions!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    Avery Bradley is a point guard sized player who can defend point guards but can't create offense.

    Jordan Crawford is a shooting guard sized player who can create offense but can't guard quick point guards.

    In short, no Rondo is the problem, not Sully.

    This team would be very competitive with a healthy Rondo.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Avery Bradley is a point guard sized player who can defend point guards but can't create offense.

    Jordan Crawford is a shooting guard sized player who can create offense but can't guard quick point guards.

    In short, no Rondo is the problem, not Sully.

    This team would be very competitive with a healthy Rondo.

    [/QUOTE]

    I choose to disagree a little.  If you bin Sully at 5, they need production out of the 4 slot.  That is a vacant slot right now and Olynyk is facing growing pains.  If he becomes a strong player, I can see how the Celts will have a solid nucleus when Rondo comes back.

    Still need a better 2 with AB as backup.  2&4.  These are the positions that Danny needs to fill.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to Fierce34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prakash's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I choose to disagree a little.  If you bin Sully at 5, they need production out of the 4 slot.  That is a vacant slot right now and Olynyk is facing growing pains.  If he becomes a strong player, I can see how the Celts will have a solid nucleus when Rondo comes back.

    Still need a better 2 with AB as backup.  2&4.  These are the positions that Danny needs to fill.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sully is not a 5.

     

    The Celts need a guy like Embiid to complement Sully in the frontcourt.

     

    Embiid will be defense while Sully will be offense.

    [/QUOTE]

    That is prototypical thinking.  And I can see where you are coming from.  But Sully is largely playing 5 right now.  All indicators are that he is figuring out who he is going to be at 5.

    If Sully can fill the gap at 5, I would rather look for a quality 4 but 2 is higher priority.  4 will be an easier task.  Maybe Olynyk can grow into that role.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prakash. Show prakash's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to Fierce34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prakash's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    That is prototypical thinking.  And I can see where you are coming from.  But Sully is largely playing 5 right now.  All indicators are that he is figuring out who he is going to be at 5.

    If Sully can fill the gap at 5, I would rather look for a quality 4 but 2 is higher priority.  4 will be an easier task.  Maybe Olynyk can grow into that role.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Let's just put it this way, I think Oly has All-Star potential.

     

    So Oly and Sully will be our 4 and 5 for many years to come.

     

    If the Celts get Jabari Parker then Jeff Green moves to SG.

     

    Rondo at PG and the Celts will be back in the hunt.

     

    My Celtics Dream Team

    PG - Rondo

    SG - Uncle Jeff

    SF - Jabari Parker

    PF - Oly

    PF - Sully

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not like Jeff at 2.  With Sully, Olynyk and Rondo, you have a quick read and react team.  Jeff is just too ponderous.  He will be just too stagnant at that position.  He is not a quick decision maker and he has very suspect ball handling.

    At this point Jabari Parker is a very long shot to me.  So I think that the Celts will target a 2 with their first pick and a front court prospect with the second pick.  Bass and Lee and maybe Crawford should get traded.  The 3 position will be manned by Green and Wallace.  I think that the Celts will get into serious playoff hunt next year and will start putting their youngsters through the playoff fire.  I will not be surprised if Green gets traded if a decent opportuniy shows up.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from romneywins. Show romneywins's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    Sullinger, Fav, and KO are good prospects to rotate and cover the 4 and 5 spots.  Sullinger is clearly the best but the outside shooting of Fav and KO could be very important to him in the future, say 18 months from now.  They area clealy our future at this point in time, but much could and will change in the next 10 months.  Sullinger and Fav are ahead of KO, but KO has great upside and it will take time to develop.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to romneywins' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sullinger, Fav, and KO are good prospects to rotate and cover the 4 and 5 spots.  Sullinger is clearly the best but the outside shooting of Fav and KO could be very important to him in the future, say 18 months from now.  They area clealy our future at this point in time, but much could and will change in the next 10 months.  Sullinger and Fav are ahead of KO, but KO has great upside and it will take time to develop.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree with this^

    Sully starts at PF, Fav starts at center, with Oly filling in the gaps at both positions.  Both rookies will thrive with Rondo at point.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to Fierce34's comment:

     

     

    There are only 2 ways Fav will become a starting Center this season.

    1. He improves his defense.

    2. You become coach of the Boston Celtics.

     



    Fav already has more starts at center than any other Celtic.  The only big with more "starts" than Fav is Bass at power forward.

    Considering Stevens rotating line up it's not surprising there have been no consistency in minutes for anyone.  

    Your actual basketball knowledge could fit through the head of a pin.  If I need a lesson in bad grammar, reading comprehension issues and how not to formulate any original ideas, I'll come to you.  Thanks!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from aciemvp. Show aciemvp's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to teejaytee70's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     

    If the Celtics lose on days when it rains, it is not necessarily a statistical correlation.  It could be a coincidence.  Show me the advanced statistical analysis you performed to determine that if Sullinger scores in double figures that leads to a Celtics loss.  Maybe it proves that Sullinger is even more valuable to this team than we think.  Maybe it means that Sullinger had tip ins and put backs from offensive rebounds and that the reason we lost was not Sullinger scoring in double figures, but that the rest of the team was not shooting well that night.  People like you look at stats and see Sullinger had 20 points and the Celtics lost, so therefore it means that Sullinger is responsible for the loss.  It's more complex than that.

    [/QUOTE]


    i made no such claims that if sullinger scores double digits the celts lose

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from aciemvp. Show aciemvp's posts

    Re: Sullinger Theory

    In response to hedleylamarr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sullinger, Green, Crawford, Oly....................

    Pair them with Rondo and it's not bad....

    We need a legit scorer, like Evan Turner.

    With Rondo, Turner, Green, Sully and Oly and  a bench of Crawford, Fav and maybe Saric...that's not a bad team in the bad East!

    MIA may break up

    CHI may be done

    IND?  Still good

    We could be good next year with some smart moves, and some smarter deletions!

    [/QUOTE]

    doesn't turner's range end right after the foul line?

     

Share