23 replies to this topic

[Koufax]

ReamGM quotes Jackie McMullan as saying that Mr. Green gets more green if he rebound.  Danny is quoted as saying:  "I don't think Jeff has ever focused on rebounding in his life, from what I can tell."

Green's response when asked about it?  "Money comes, and money goes. I just want to win games. I could care less how much money is riding on a rebound. It's contrary to who I am. You do that and you're thinking about the wrong things. It's just not my mindset."

 

According to RealGM, Green is pulling in just 7.9 percent of all available rebounds while he’s on the court.

[radsoxfan]

No idea how his mindset is affecting his rebounding....

 

But the results speak or themselves.  His 7.9 rate is his lowest of his career, but he has never been a good rebounder.  From watching, it seems to be a combination of 2 things: 

 

1. Not maneuvering well while the ball is in the air.  Never seems to be blocking out, or moving to the spot the ball has the best chance of ending up (the anti-Kevin Love)

2. Poor reaction time.  Even when the ball comes close to him, he is a bit slow to react to it (Brandon Bass disease)

 

He certainly has the size and athleticism to be a better rebounder.  But with this large of a sample size, hard to find a good reason to hope he will improve a lot.  It's probably the biggest thing holding his value back as a player.

[knucklecup]

He begins running the floor oftentimes before the ball is even in our possession.  I wouldn't necessarily mind this but without many reliable rebounders on this team, it would be nice for him to put more of a focus on securing the ball on the defensive end before transitioning.

 

Regardless, he's playing good basketball right now and as we're all aware, I'm not a believer that 7.9% being a career low truly means anything.  Why are we penalizing him for balls he literally has a 0% chance of getting?

[radsoxfan]

He begins running the floor oftentimes before the ball is even in our possession.  I wouldn't necessarily mind this but without many reliable rebounders on this team, it would be nice for him to put more of a focus on securing the ball on the defensive end before transitioning.

 

Regardless, he's playing good basketball right now and as we're all aware, I'm not a believer that 7.9% being a career low truly means anything.  Why are we penalizing him for balls he literally has a 0% chance of getting?

 

There are plenty of balls that all players have literally zero percent chance of getting. The 7.9% number is working on an even playing field with everyone else, and sucks. I don't buy that Green is being told to take himself out of the rebounding play by Doc and the coaching staff consistently and his numbers are artificially low.  The Celtics know they need as much rebounding help as possible.

 

I wouldn't say it means he is actually worse this year than his career range of 8-10%. The "career low" discussion isn't really that important. It's close enough to his past numbers that its likely within the expected spread for his talent level.  It's just another data point saying he continues to be a poor rebounder.

Edited by radsoxfan, 16 February 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[knucklecup]

There are plenty of balls that all players have literally zero percent chance of getting. The 7.9% number is working on an even playing field with everyone else, and sucks. I don't buy that Green is being told to take himself out of the rebounding play by Doc and the coaching staff consistently and his numbers are artificially low.  The Celtics know they need as much rebounding help as possible.

 

I wouldn't say it means he is actually worse this year than his career range of 8-10%. The "career low" discussion isn't relevant.  It's just another data point saying he continues to be a poor rebounder.

 

I understand that it's an "even playing field" but what relevance does that field actually have about an individuals ability to rebound the basketball?

 

Jeff Green is near the three point line oftentimes.  Play him at center and his percentage skyrockets by default.

[radsoxfan]

I understand that it's an "even playing field" but what relevance does that field actually have about an individuals ability to rebound the basketball?

 

Jeff Green is near the three point line oftentimes.  Play him at center and his percentage skyrockets by default.

 

Because there are plenty of other SF and PF that are often on the perimeter as well.  And they rebound the ball substantially better than Jeff Green. Jeff Green ranks 71st out of 72 qualifying PF in rebound rate this year.  He would rank 50th out of 73 qualifying SF in the rebound rate. 

 

Play him at center, and his rebounding numbers I'm sure would improve in an absolute sense.  But they would be substantially worse than those at his position.  This is the definition of "below average".

[wutang112878]

I really dont understand the justification around Green's numbers sometimes.  The upside productivity isnt there to justify things like needing a flashy play to get him going, or its ok that he rebounds so poorly because of where he is positioned on the court.  This part of his game is just inexcusable.  The 'he hangs around the 3 point line' logic only makes sense on the offense end, and his defensive rebounding numbers are horrible as well.  It doesnt matter if you are playing the 3 or the 4, if you have a guy at either of those positions pulling rebounds at the rate that Green does it puts your team at a disadvantage and gives the other team more possessions.

[Blacken]

Oh, awesome. Maybe you can repeat yourself another twelve times on this topic, too.

[knucklecup]

I don't think Green is a very good rebounder however you slice it.  I'm just not going to make a big fuss about a "career low" rebounding percentage which is only a couple percentage points away from his career average.

 

It would be like a guy with a 300 career batting average hitting 295 next year and people complaining about it.

 

I also think while his rebounding has been poor and will continue to be poor, he's been a difference maker on the defensive end in a different way and made several blocks using his athleticism over the last month that I hadn't seen him do in is earlier years.

 

He's also gaining confidence, realizing he can create hit own shot, driving to the hoop, etc.  I've been consistently down on Green over the years and don't think he'll ever develop into an elite combo forward, but I don't see why he can't be a very effective one in that second tier.

 

This article is great:

 

http://espn.go.com/b...-harness-energy

[radsoxfan]

I don't think Green is a very good rebounder however you slice it.  I'm just not going to make a big fuss about a "career low" rebounding percentage which is only a couple percentage points away from his career average.

 

It would be like a guy with a 300 career batting average hitting 295 next year and people complaining about it.

 

I agree with your analogy, and don't think this year's 7.9% as a career low means anything in particular about his rebounding compared to his career numbers. It's fair to complain that he sucks at rebounding, not that he's getting worse.

 

If you want to be more accurate, it's more like a guy with a career batting average of .230 hitting .225 this year.

Edited by radsoxfan, 16 February 2013 - 02:41 PM.

[Brickowski]

Just watch him, and you can see that his technique is poor.  First you find your man and put him on your hip.  Then control an area under the basket and don't let yourself be pushed too far under it.  Then (finally) look for the ball.  It's what every coach preaches starting in the 6th grade.

 

But Green doesn't do it.  He looks for the ball first and half the time he has no idea where his man is.  That's one of the reasons why, even when his athleticism allows him to outjump everyone else and get a rebound, he sometimes gets stripped when he brings the ball down.

Edited by Brickowski, 16 February 2013 - 03:28 PM.

[PedrosRedGlove]

Oh, awesome. Maybe you can repeat yourself another twelve times on this topic, too.

I laughed out loud, and knucklecup, thanks for linking the original McMullan article, it was a tremendous piece of writing that covered so much more than simply his play this year. Everyone needs to read it before judging Jeff Green this year, his agent's initial reaction to the surgery was that there was no way Green was going to play pro ball this season. To add an anecdote, I had an emergency splenectomy in January 2008, left a 7 inch scar leading from my belly button straight up. It is incredibly hard to regain your stamina after having your abdomen cut open like that. I was able to run around and play sports fine that summer but regaining my endurance felt impossible, it was a year before I was able to even run a complete mile without abnormal discomfort. Jeff is the only one who knows how close to 100% he is right now.

As for his play this year, one thing from the article gave me a crazy idea. Even though Green has the height advantage, might it be more beneficial to this team to play Green in more of a point forward role when possible, leaving Pierce to focus more on rebounding, someone with stronger technique and desire? Or at least try to run the offense through him a bit more. He just seems to have a strong sense of being a team first/defer first type of player, he explicitly mentions how being the consummate team player at Georgetown is what got him to the pros. Just throwing shit against the wall, Green's poor rebounding is created by his lack of both skills and desire, so I'm not sure that's a problem that will be easily solved this season if ever.

The most confusing part to me is why such a level-headed, rational person can't see how valuable more rebounding would be for his team, sometimes for the 6'9" guy, team basketball means standing under the hoop and staring up at it.

[Koufax]

Here's a nice piece of writing from the McMullan piece (thanks for the link, KC):

 

Green has been advised to avoid Drewisms (aptly named after former Red Sox outfielder J.D. Drew, who stood in the batter's box and witnessed one of the most thrilling plays in baseball -- Jacoby Ellsbury stealing home -- and reacted as though he were watching someone grout his bathroom floor.
 

[BigSoxFan]

Maybe we can turn this thread into an all-encompassing Jeff Green discussion?

[mikeot]

Ainge tells WEEI comparing Green to Pierce "unfair" 

 

Correction: WBZ-FM, not WEEI.

Edited by mikeot, 19 March 2013 - 04:13 PM.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Nice play.

[ifmanis5]

Green is now a starter for real.

 

 

Scott Souza@scott_souza

#Celtics coach Doc Rivers: I think Jeff Green has earned (being a starter going forward) so yeah (we're going to stick with it).

[Blacken]

It's kind of funny that that happens when Bass is actually playing some really good basketball.

[Koufax]

Coming full circle on his rebounding, he sure wrestled the ball away from three offensive players with some authority last night.

[bball831]

I'm betting this means Pierce at the 2 and going "big" with a Bradley/Pierce/Green/Bass/KG lineup when healthy. 

[cardiacs]

I'm betting this means Pierce at the 2 and going "big" with a Bradley/Pierce/Green/Bass/KG lineup when healthy. 

 

This is fine by me. 

I wonder what happens when Rondo and Sully are healthy though. I suppose Sully comes off the bench but I think Green earned a starting position. 

Still, he needs to prove he can be a serviceable rebounder if he can replace Bass. Rondo/Bradley/Pierce/Green/KG?

[CaptainLaddie]

Boy, that's assuming a lot of things:

 

- Rondo is back in green

- Pierece is back in green

- KG doesn't retire

[Blacken]

Given the way Bass has been playing, I like that "big" lineup. It'll let them get the ball out of Bradley's hands more too, I think--I think it'd be beneficial if they almost treat Pierce as a point guard when on offense.

 

Green is going to be playing a lot of minutes with the second unit too, though.

[ALiveH]

my initial reaction is that's kinda a weird lineup in terms of positions (could argue it's a 2, two 3s and two 4s) but i've always been a fan of "you start your 5 best players" and positions are overrated.  I'd argue those are our best 5 players at this point in time.  In terms of skills on offense, it makes sense - you have 2-3 slashers, 3 ball-handlers, everyone can shoot at least to mid-range, 3 3-pt shooters & creates size matchup problems for whoever guards one of PP/JG.  The plus rebounding at the 1 & 2 can make up for subpar rebounding elsewhere so helps cover up that deficiency.

 

On D, you lose a bit of the Lee/Bradley combo terrorizing the backcourt but Lee is not playing that great since he got back anyway.  And when PP subs out late in the 1st and/or 3rd Q have the option to pair Bradley + rested Lee against the other team's backups / fatigued starters which should work well for the full-court press.  It creates an issue with getting enough run for JET/Lee unless they go small 3-guard lineup for stretches or reduce Bradley's minutes.  The only other weakness I can think of is you still might get dominated by teams with huge frontcourts or 2 excellent starting quick guards but luckily that's not an issue in the East.

Edited by ALiveH, 07 April 2013 - 03:13 PM.