Jeff Green's Trajectory

[wutang112878]

If you were to extrapolate that out to per-game numbers, that would be 101.6 points scored and 111.1 points allowed. Only two teams since 2005 have had that bad of a differential: the '06 Blazers (-9.5) and the '12 Bobcats (-13.5).
 
Obviously, there are two reasons why we'd expect the differential to be better than that next season:

 
One more factor I would add to your list is strategy/pace.  Last year the Celts were middle of the pack in terms of pace, and were not a running team.  These 101/111 numbers suggest the games turned into a track meet when one of these guys was off the court.  I am sure their entire strategy and practice time was geared toward the 80% of the minutes, so the question becomes how much would preparing for a track meet help the spread?  And how much better would the remaining players, mainly Rondo and Green, look at this faster pace?  Say they score and save an extra bucket a game, the project wins would go from ~18 to ~27

 

[slamminsammya]

One more factor I would add to your list is strategy/pace.  Last year the Celts were middle of the pack in terms of pace, and were not a running team.  These 101/111 numbers suggest the games turned into a track meet when one of these guys was off the court.  I am sure their entire strategy and practice time was geared toward the 80% of the minutes, so the question becomes how much would preparing for a track meet help the spread?  And how much better would the remaining players, mainly Rondo and Green, look at this faster pace?  Say they score and save an extra bucket a game, the project wins would go from ~18 to ~27

Wutang, those are normalized for pace by making the numbers per 100 possessions. 

 

[wutang112878]

 

[slamminsammya]

To clarify, taking the nbawowy numbers and extrapolating (without adjusting for pace) the Celtics would have averaged:
 
92.7 Points scored
101.4 Points allowed
(No pace adjustment)
 
On a per-possession basis, their efficiency with both Pierce and KG off the floor was:
 
101 PP100
110 PA100
 
Sibpin, were your extrapolations also from NBAwowy? I am seeing different results on there.
 
Anyways, the upshot is that they were very, very bad when KG and Pierce were both off. And it wasn't exactly a small sample, either. Here is, to me, the interesting part. Jeff Green played 700 minutes last season without either KG or Pierce on. In those 700 minutes, they had the following efficiency numbers:
 
99.6 PP100
111.4 PA100
 
In other words, they were basically the same or worse with Green on and the two stars off. I find these the most interesting since they probably best reflect the type of team we will be seeing next year, which is a really, really bad one.

 

[wutang112878]

On a per-possession basis, their efficiency with both Pierce and KG off the floor was:
 
101 PP100
110 PA100
 
Jeff Green played 700 minutes last season without either KG or Pierce on. In those 700 minutes, they had the following efficiency numbers:
 
99.6 PP100
111.4 PA100

 
This is very interesting, these numbers indicate that even though Green individually put up some good offensive numbers last year, he did not make the team any better offensively.  I wouldnt expect him to make a difference defensively, but this suggests that even at his best his ceiling is probably a teams 3rd best offensive player.

 

[slamminsammya]

Yea, the numbers bear this out if we look just at Jeff Green on/off, without considering the impacts of Pierce and KG. On the one hand, after Rondo suffered his ACL injury on January 25, Green put up fantastic individual numbers.  Scoring index (SI) essentially takes the concept of True Shooting percentage (shooting percentage factoring in the impact of threes and free throws) and then adjusts for usage under the assumption that more usage translates to lower efficiency. This Usage/Efficiency tradeoff is pretty strong, so it adjusts for the mistake many advanced stat people make of overrating high efficiency/low usage players, especially rebounding big men whose only shots are putbacks and whatnot. Anywho, Green's SI after January 25 was fantastic, at .44 . To put this in perspective, average is 0, negative is bad and positive is good. Over the course of the season, Pierce put up a .42, Tyson Chandler was a .41 (his massive TS% is at the cost of pretty low usage), Durant and Lebron put up historically good SI's of 1.06 each (more about SI here). Green also put up a 1.15 Points per possession, which is also fantastic. He upped both his usage and his efficiency, and did so all while keeping his turnover rate above average.
 
On the other hand, his on/off numbers post Rondo were not good. The offense was 103 Points/100 with Green, and 107 Points/100 with him off (700 minutes of court time without Green, after Rondo's injury). The defense was the same efficiency with Green on or off, as well. Edit: It seems that Pierce and KG were both far more efficient with Green off the floor, with an especially dramatic effect for Pierce. I wish I knew how to enter a table into this forum, and maybe I will later.

 

[Devizier]

The problem is that there were few enough minutes that the Celtics played without Pierce and Garnett, and fewer still of those included Green on the court. When you start parsing out into little pieces of the season (like when Rondo was playing or not), you're really starting to get into miniscule samples. A shot made or missed here or there would make a dramatic difference in the numbers.

 

[slamminsammya]

The problem is that there were few enough minutes that the Celtics played without Pierce and Garnett, and fewer still of those included Green on the court. When you start parsing out into little pieces of the season (like when Rondo was playing or not), you're really starting to get into miniscule samples. A shot made or missed here or there would make a dramatic difference in the numbers.

Jeff Green played 2252 minutes last season. Of those, 700 were played with Garnett and Pierce both off the floor, or about 1/3 of his entire season. Rondo played in 38 games last season. After the Rondo injury, Pierce played around 1500 minutes, of which 600 were with Jeff Green off the floor, which is about a quarter of his entire season (2500 minutes). I wouldn't call those samples miniscule by any means.

 

[Brickowski]

If you are trying to dissect Green's numbers you have to throw out the first half of last year.  Look at the second half numbers, when he was playing so much better.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

If you are trying to dissect Green's numbers you have to throw out the first half of last year.  Look at the second half numbers, when he was playing so much better.

 
And then from those games, we should throw out games in which he shot under 45% from the floor, just because.

 

[Brickowski]

And then from those games, we should throw out games in which he shot under 45% from the floor, just because.

Oh please, give the kid a break.  He was coming back from major heart surgery.  That's why you discount the first half.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

Well, he has played nearly 400 games in his career and I'm not sure that using the most favorable tenth of that sample is the best indicator of things to come just because it's the most recent.  He was a beast in March and April last year and I'm excited to watch him this year, but I doubt he'll continue to shoot 45% from behind the arc.

 

[Brickowski]

Well, he has played nearly 400 games in his career and I'm not sure that using the most favorable tenth of that sample is the best indicator of things to come just because it's the most recent.

Why isn't it?  Would you rather use the numbers from 3 years ago when he had just been traded and before his surgery?

 

[DannyDarwinism]

What does "before his surgery" have to do with it?  Are you implying his condition affected his play?  Because everything I've heard is that the aortic aneurysm, while very serious, would not have impacted his play at all.
 
But to your overall point, I'd rather use all the numbers that are available to me instead of a sliver of the overall data.  During the sample period you're looking at, he took 95 three pointers and made 42 of them, which puts him at 43.5%, which would make him one of the best shooters in the league.  But if he instead misses just 5 of those, he's back down to his season average of 38.5%.  And if he misses 9, he's back down to his career average of 34.5%.  If I'm trying to evaluate how good of a three point shooter he is, I'll go with the 1000 shot sample over the 95 shot sample every time.

 

[Brickowski]

What does "before his surgery" have to do with it?  Are you implying his condition affected his play?  

Yes.  Did it not affect his endurance?
 
Even if it didn't, let's wait and see if Green's upward trajectory continues. Are you giving up on the guy after he's just played a great 35-40 games and was their leading scorer in the playoffs?  Is that it?

 

[slamminsammya]

Green's stats that I looked at were from after Rondo's injury. So what is your point? He was good individually but still his net impact on the team, at least in terms of on/off numbers, was negligible or even negative.

 

[Brickowski]

Green's stats that I looked at were from after Rondo's injury. So what is your point? He was good individually but still his net impact on the team, at least in terms of on/off numbers, was negligible or even negative.

If that's the case, what's the point in trading him if the goal is to tank?  In any event, let's see how he does as a starter playing 38-40 minutes and getting 15-20 shots a game.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

Yes.  Did it not affect his endurance?
 
Even if it didn't, let's wait and see if Green's upward trajectory continues. Are you giving up on the guy after he's just played a great 35-40 games and was their leading scorer in the playoffs?  Is that it?

Yes, that's it. I'm giving up on him. Exactly. Good job. Good effort.

 

[Devizier]

838 of their total 4259 minutes (19.7%)
 
Just noticed this. Did the Celtics play 27 overtime periods?

 

[wutang112878]

Yes.  Did it not affect his endurance?

 
If you are going to make this assertion do your homework and back it up with data.
 
Last year Green was a better 2pt and 3pt shooter playing 40+ minutes than when he was playing 30-39   But in 2010/11 he was basically the same in 40+ vs 30-39, and in 09/10 he was actually better shooter playing 40+ than 30-39
 
Based on this, no it didnt affect Green's endurance

 

[amarshal2]

 
If you are going to make this assertion do your homework and back it up with data.
 
Last year Green was a better 2pt and 3pt shooter playing 40+ minutes than when he was playing 30-39   But in 2010/11 he was basically the same in 40+ vs 30-39, and in 09/10 he was actually better shooter playing 40+ than 30-39
 
Based on this, no it didnt affect Green's endurance

That is some seriously spotty logic.

Green has said numerous times that he gets fatigued post surgery and is still learning to play through.

The on/off numbers for Green excluding PP/KG are interesting for next year. The samples aren't small to the point they should be ignored, but I'm not sure they're predictive. Too many unknowns. Still doesn't look good for JG. Of course if the goal is to evaluate JG, then it should just be his on/off independent of PP/KG. No reason to shrink the sample and introduce other factors, etc.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Naturally, Green was going to put up better numbers as a 1/2 option on Boston last season post-Rondo as opposed to being a 3/4 option behind Durant/Westbrook/Harden in OKC and being a poor fit in Boston with the ball constantly in Rondo and Pierce's hands.  Having said that, you'd prefer the ball be in Durant, Westbrook, or Pierce's hands than Jeff Green.......that isn't diminishing his ability it's just that he's not nearly as good an offensive player as those others (although closer to Pierce at his advanced age). Green putting up more FGA, with more assists, and more TO's only means that his usage was higher......the real problem with Green being a 1/2 isn't his efficiency nearly as much as it is that when Green is one of the two best players on your team it's highly likely that 3 through 9 really suck which is evident in those +/- numbers.

 

[wutang112878]

That is some seriously spotty logic.

Green has said numerous times that he gets fatigued post surgery and is still learning to play through.

 

 
 
I dont think the playing through issue lasted more than a few months.  The last 3 months of the season Green averaged ~32-34 min a game, he shot ~49-51% and ~41-53% from 3, scoring ~15-17 a game, I dont think his ceiling is higher than that.  If we look at playing 40+ minutes or the month when he played the most minutes, Green was very good last year.  But if the entire first 3 months Green was learning to play through, then we are left with just 3 months of the season or 26 games, so we are projecting whats to come based on roughly 9% of his career and the then we have to wonder if Green simply had a few very hot months. 

 

[Brickowski]

I dont think the playing through issue lasted more than a few months.  The last 3 months of the season Green averaged ~32-34 min a game, he shot ~49-51% and ~41-53% from 3, scoring ~15-17 a game, I dont think his ceiling is higher than that.  If we look at playing 40+ minutes or the month when he played the most minutes, Green was very good last year.  But if the entire first 3 months Green was learning to play through, then we are left with just 3 months of the season or 26 games, so we are projecting whats to come based on roughly 9% of his career and the then we have to wonder if Green simply had a few very hot months. 

That's just one of about two dozen major question marks surrounding this team. Green has the skills.  Whether or not he can sustain his second half performance is purely mental IMHO.

 

[knucklecup]

This discussion is awesome first and foremost. Kudos.

With that said, why are we concluding Green's worth moving forward based on how successful the team played with stiffs like Jordan Crawford playing at the same time?

I guess I just don't see what can be concluded by scoring less points than your opponent scored when you're one fifth of the reason for that point differential.

 

[Devizier]

Let's look at the argument in another light:
 
How many players have had their production take a big leap forward in their mid-late twenties? What were the circumstances, and what were the early indicators of that progression?
 
The only example I can come up with is Chauncey Billups, who didn't blow up until his age 25 season in Minnesota.

 

[slamminsammya]

This discussion is awesome first and foremost. Kudos.

With that said, why are we concluding Green's worth moving forward based on how successful the team played with stiffs like Jordan Crawford playing at the same time?

I guess I just don't see what can be concluded by scoring less points than your opponent scored when you're one fifth of the reason for that point differential.

 
The idea is not that they played poorly with Green on the floor. The argument is a relative one: They were just as bad with Green as they were without him, suggesting that perhaps his superb individual performance was not in fact helping the team for some other reason(s). I think part of this had to do with the fact that Green was often played at the four last season, which is simply a bad coaching decision in my opinion. Green is a below-average rebounder for a small forward, and its even worse as a power forward. His rebounding rate for much of his career, including last season, is right around 8% or 9%. The league average for a small forward is 10%.
 
In my view, being forced to play on potentially terrible teams for a few years will hurt rather than help Green's value. I think Ainge should look to deal him as soon as he can.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

The idea is not that they played poorly with Green on the floor. The argument is a relative one: They were just as bad with Green as they were without him, suggesting that perhaps his superb individual performance was not in fact helping the team for some other reason(s). I think part of this had to do with the fact that Green was often played at the four last season, which is simply a bad coaching decision in my opinion. Green is a below-average rebounder for a small forward, and its even worse as a power forward. His rebounding rate for much of his career, including last season, is right around 8% or 9%. The league average for a small forward is 10%.
 
In my view, being forced to play on potentially terrible teams for a few years will hurt rather than help Green's value. I think Ainge should look to deal him as soon as he can.

 
Green played 27% of the Celtics minutes at SF and 28% at PF. He was much, much more productive offensively as a PF, putting up a 20.6 PER vs. only 9.4 at the 3. Defensively, not surprisingly, he's better at the 3. 

 

[Montana Fan]

As a distant observer and long time fan I think Stevens will wring every bit of value out of Green and the rest of the team he's given.  Anyone who thinks Stevens is going to roll over is crazy.  I understand that it's a superstar league but I think the Celts are going to go the Indiana route of building a deep and solid team versus tanking for a 20% chance at the #1 pick.  It's going to take time to get it where they want to be but I will be shocked if the Celts don't win 30 games + next season.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if Green is one of the hottest trade chips on the market come mid-season.
 
I think you all will like this interview. 
 
A sample.

18. He’s not goal-oriented; he’s process-oriented: “My goal is to win the next game one possession at a time. That’s it. I don’t have any other goals. I’ve never been a goal guy. I didn’t have a goal at Butler. Our goals were always to get better every day and win the next game one possession at a time, and that was it. And so that’s what we’ll try to do.”

 
http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/boston/basketball/celtics/2013/07/25/18-things-we-learned-from-the-brad-stevens-podcast/

 

[Devizier]

I imagine there's been more than a few players who showed significant growth in their mid twenties. Green is 26, not 36.

 
Well, I'm all ears. I'll name another: Ben Wallace. He's pretty different from Green, however.

 

[sibpin]

The data I posted earlier were points for and points against on/off court using nbawowy. They were not adjusted for pace. The per-game numbers were just dividing by minutes.

Looks like the nbawowy stats include postseason. (81 regular season games + 6 playoff games) x 48 minutes + 17 overtimes = 4261 minutes. I did not account for that when I did my calculations.

That means most of my per-game stats are messed up and the numbers are smaller than I originally posted. For example, without Pierce and Garnett you're looking at 94.6 points scored per game and 103.5 points allowed per game.

 

[wutang112878]

I think part of this had to do with the fact that Green was often played at the four last season, which is simply a bad coaching decision in my opinion. Green is a below-average rebounder for a small forward, and its even worse as a power forward. His rebounding rate for much of his career, including last season, is right around 8% or 9%. The league average for a small forward is 10%.

 
This is a lose-lose for a coach, but your point highlights part of the problem because regardless of where Green plays he isnt a good rebounder.  If the 82 games data is correct, in terms of categorizing the minutes into positions correctly, last year Green is much better at the 4 than the 3.  To add to Grins numbers, at the 3 his PER was 9.4 and the opponents 3 was a 9.8, so Green wasnt making much of a difference.  Whereas at the 4 his PER was 20.6 whereas the opponents was 15.7 so he was a difference maker individually, and because at the 4 he is stretching the court more than at the 3 [because most 4s dont take 3s] he is adding some more floor spacing value there as well. 
 
 
We would have to really crunch the numbers to figure out if the few extra possessions we lose because Green is a worse rebounder at the 4 vs the 3, are an acceptable trade off because he is actually a difference maker at the 4 and isnt at the 3.  Considering we are talking about maybe 3-4 extra possessions lost at the 4, and maybe an extra 2-3 point advantage at the 4 over the 3, its probably about a wash.  Ergo, not really a clear good choice for a coach

 

[wutang112878]

That means most of my per-game stats are messed up and the numbers are smaller than I originally posted. For example, without Pierce and Garnett you're looking at 94.6 points scored per game and 103.5 points allowed per game.

 
Run through the pythag, thats an ~18 win team.  While I think the offensive projection there is pretty close, that defensive number seems high.  Last season the only team projected to be an 18 win team based on their Ortg & Drtg were the Bobcats, after that the Magic (22), and the Suns (23) were the only teams projected to win less than 27    Overall those numbers are shocking and I dont think they are wildly off, I just cant envision them being that bad.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Interesting looking at Green on different units. He had two combos that were amazing.
1 was with Sullinger: Scored 1.044 PPP, allowed 0.986 PPP.
2 was with Pierce:  Scored 1.063, allowed 1.024
 
Edit- looking at 82 games Green was on the two best 5 man units to get significant time (more than 75min)
Bradley-Lee-Pierce-Green-Bass was the fourth most used unit, and put up a +56 in 101 minutes
Terry-Lee-Green-Sullinger-Garnett was fifth highest used and put up +39 in 95.2 minutes.

 

[oumbi]

Cellar door, may I ask where you get your info from? i would like to look at some combinations from last year. Thanks in advance.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Cellar door, may I ask where you get your info from? i would like to look at some combinations from last year. Thanks in advance.

5 man rotations are from 82games.com it will only show the top 20 or so for a player or team by minutes played, and you could use NBAwowy for others.

 

[knucklecup]

5 man rotations are from 82games.com it will only show the top 20 or so for a player or team by minutes played, and you could use NBAwowy for others.

Awesome stuff.

Though, even these numbers are deceptive in nature and subjective when evaluating an individual player.

I'm not sure why Green being out scored by the opposition in a line up that featured bad players is surprising.

In my opinion, you have to build an NBA team based on what type of a player that person could be on a Championship contender.

For a short period of time, Green was considered a hot commodity but that quickly died out following his lucrative contract, widely ridiculed by the scribes.

The question that needs to be asked is what type of a player can Green become?

Is he a fourth best player on a Championship team or a third piece ala Ray Allen?

Same thing happened with Taj Gibson with the Bulls. He's a solid player but he's only a starting caliber player on a team that will compete for a Championship if he's surrounded by Lebron James or Chris Paul/Dwight Howard or some absurdly talented combo... You just can't pay these guys that type of dough and get away with it while being held to a salary cap.

I think Rondo is a starting PG on a Championship caliber team and Green could be the starting SF if Dwight Howard and others were acquired but that isn't feasible, meaning that he'll likely never come close to winning a title with the Celtics or while playing for the roughly $10 million he's currently playing for.

 

[Devizier]

The five-man unit stuff can be quite useful when looking at big picture trends (let's say >500 minutes). But when you're looking at 50-100 minute splits, it's easy to be deceived.
 
For example, the #4 most common unit for the Celtics was:
 
Bradley-Lee-Pierce-Green-Bass
 
This unit was apparently the most effective on the team (1.28 oRTG, 0.96 dRTG). Those are absurdly good numbers. They were also accumulated in 101 minutes over the course of the season.

 

[wutang112878]

I'm not sure why Green being out scored by the opposition in a line up that featured bad players is surprising.

In my opinion, you have to build an NBA team based on what type of a player that person could be on a Championship contender.

For a short period of time, Green was considered a hot commodity but that quickly died out following his lucrative contract, widely ridiculed by the scribes.

The question that needs to be asked is what type of a player can Green become?

Is he a fourth best player on a Championship team or a third piece ala Ray Allen?

 
I think these are linked a bit.  Its not shocking that Green isnt a difference maker with subpar talent around him, but that speaks to his ceiling. 
 
When it was PP & awful crew in 06/07 he was still a difference maker offensively.  With PP their Ortg was 108.2 and a defensive rating of 108.6 but without it was 99.7 / 106.5    Then look at Rays last 2 years in Seattle before he came here, story was similar to PPs, the team was average with him on the court but very much below average with him off the court. 
 
With Green even in his best year last year, we were average with him on and off the court.  IMO, if a guy is at his very best and he still isnt showing he can really impact your team, regardless of the talent around him, he cant be your 3rd best player on a title team either.
 
 

Same thing happened with Taj Gibson with the Bulls. He's a solid player but he's only a starting caliber player on a team that will compete for a Championship if he's surrounded by Lebron James or Chris Paul/Dwight Howard or some absurdly talented combo... You just can't pay these guys that type of dough and get away with it while being held to a salary cap.

I think Rondo is a starting PG on a Championship caliber team and Green could be the starting SF if Dwight Howard and others were acquired but that isn't feasible, meaning that he'll likely never come close to winning a title with the Celtics or while playing for the roughly $10 million he's currently playing for.

 
This is what I hate about the NBA CBA, and it really ruins its own product.  They kind of had to sign Taj to that because the cost of losing him in free agency, in terms of talent lost, was greater than the value of the contract.  On the surface it looks like his contract doesnt eliminate your team from contending but it kind of actually does....
 
The new effectively hard cap is $72M, you can go over it but its just not sustainable.  So you have to build a team with that max budget, and you need 3 top guys, if they are all max guys you have $51M tied up there and ~$20M for your remaining 9 players which isnt much considering you need to pay 2 starters as well.  You probably need at least 2 max guys, because its so rare to contend with just 1, but lets say you find a 'bargain' like the Taj deal making $10M, now you have $44M tied up in your top 3 guys and ~$28M to spend on your remaining 9 players.  But Taj as your 3rd best player isnt happening, unless like you siad he has absurd talent around him.  So now even if you got 2 max guys that deserve the money, you are in NBA purgatory because you are going to have runs in the playoffs but really need some breaks to win the whole thing.  Taj's ceiling is probably the 4th best player on a title team, but in this cap scenario there is no way you can pay your 4th best player $10M.  That just sucks for the game, you sign one guy to a deal that doesnt add value for your team and even though the contract doesnt completely suck suddenly in your remaining 9 players you need to find some guys that are very significantly underpaid.  Like Rondo was on his rookie deal in his 2nd - 4th year in the league.  The system really isnt conducive to many teams truly contending, and it doesnt give intelligent fans much hope

 

[ALiveH]

Green was a different player in about the last 30-35 games of the year plus 6 playoff games, so I'd be interested in seeing his on/off court plus-minus during that subset of the season.

 

[cardiacs]

You guys are underselling Green. He'll do 25/10 this year. 
I saw him in OKC and he's very impressive. I'm stoked to see him with a good supporting cast. 

 

[TroyOLeary]

Green was a different player in about the last 30-35 games of the year plus 6 playoff games, so I'd be interested in seeing his on/off court plus-minus during that subset of the season.

 
 
His net points per possession were actually worse in the last 35 games than they were for the whole season: 
 
Last 35
Season
 
That doesn't include the playoffs, but those numbers don't help him.  He had the worst +/- on the team with a -47 through six games (Pierce was second worst at -35).

 

[cardiacs]

You're excited to see Green with a good supporting cast? Did he get traded?

 
Good point. 
He'll do those numbers when he is the clear best scoring option, aka this coming season. 

 

[wutang112878]

You guys are underselling Green. He'll do 25/10 this year. 
I saw him in OKC and he's very impressive. I'm stoked to see him with a good supporting cast. 

 
Help me understand how we are underselling him. 
 
I think your projections are very optimistic.  He has never averaged more than 17ppg for a season, averaged more than 20ppg for one exactly one month (Feb of 08/09).  And at his career best 10.4% TRB% even if he was out there for the whole game there wouldnt be enough missed shots to have 10 magically land into his hands

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

You guys are underselling Green. He'll do 25/10 this year. 
I saw him in OKC and he's very impressive. I'm stoked to see him with a good supporting cast. 

 
Last year he had the 3rd worst total rebound rate among PFs, and was one of the worst 15 3's among guys who played 20+ minutes last year. He basically rebounds at a slightly worse rate than Manu Ginobili. It's pretty unrealistic to expect him to average 10 boards a game. 25 points a game seems like a stretch, too. James Harden averaged 25.7 last year. Green had a solid second half, but at no point did he hint at Harden like scoring ability.
 
edit: just beaten to it.

 

[wutang112878]

 
Last year he had the 3rd worst total rebound rate among PFs, and was one of the worst 15 3's among guys who played 20+ minutes last year.

 
Where do you go to filter your stats and rankings?  You always have these awesome nuggets and I want them too!

 

[DannyDarwinism]

For some more context, no one in the league averaged 25/10 last year.  Five guys averaged over 25/game and eight guys were over 10 boards/game.  Lebron put up 26.8/8, Melo 28.7/6.9, Durant 28.1/7.9 and  Aldridge 21.1/9.1.  David Lee was the only guy who averaged more than 18 points and 10 rebounds.  There's just no way Jeff Green puts up 25/10 this year.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Where do you go to filter your stats and rankings?  You always have these awesome nuggets and I want them too!

 
I use HoopData when it's up-to-date, which is sort of rare unfortunately. Otherwise, it's mostly the NBA.com/stats page which is really cool and has a lot of capabilities that I have no idea how to harness.

 

[deanx0]

For some more context, no one in the league averaged 25/10 last year.  Five guys averaged over 25/game and eight guys were over 10 boards/game.  Lebron put up 26.8/8, Melo 28.7/6.9, Durant 28.1/7.9 and  Aldridge 21.1/9.1.  David Lee was the only guy who averaged more than 18 points and 10 rebounds.  There's just no way Jeff Green puts up 25/10 this year.

 
I thought the 25 was minutes played and the 10 was shots attempted.

 

[wutang112878]

Otherwise, it's mostly the NBA.com/stats page which is really cool and has a lot of capabilities that I have no idea how to harness.

 
The NBA stats page is awesome, I never thought NBA would have something that progressive.