How Rajon Rondo Is Helping Jeff Green

http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/3/10/5492470/how-rajon-rondo-is-helping-jeff-green


How Rajon Rondo is helping Jeff Green
By wjsy on Mar 10 2014, 4:42p 11



Steve Mitchell-US PRESSWIRE



There's some bad news for tankers: the Celtics are getting better and it's starting with the play between Rajon Rondo and Jeff Green.



CLNS Radio's Jared Weiss, Jimmy Toscano, and Evans Clinchy talked about Rondo's affect on Jeff Green's production in last night's Garden Report.  The numbers don't lie.  In February, Green averaged over 20 points per game in Rondo's first full month back.  His free throw attempts per game spiked to 6.1 as he became more of a finisher rather than a playmaker with Rondo now at the wheel.  That dynamic relationship was on display last night against the Pistons.

With an over-sized front line featuring Andre Drummond, Greg Monroe, and Josh Smith (covering Green and flirting pre-game about a Rondo reunion), Rondo and Green cut up the Pistons to a tune of 18 assists with zero turnovers (!!!) and 27 points on nearly 58% shooting respectively.  This was the healthy Rajon Rondo everyone hoped for coming off a year of rehab and the Jeff Green that everybody expected to make the leap with the departure of Paul Pierce.

At CelticsBlog, we've often talked about how Green isn't a natural #1; he may not even be a #2 or #3.  He's certainly a talented scorer, but lacks a killer instinct.  Early in the preseason last year, Scalabrine compared Green to James Worthy.  At the time, White Mamba saw similarities in their game: the quickness with which bother players attacked the rim and the feather touch they had going at full speed.  Almost two years later, the comparison couldn't be more accurate.  Just as Magic sparked Worthy's game, the same can be said about Rondo's effect on Jeff Green.

Let's take a look at some of last night's highlights:




Rondo assisted on 6 of Green's 11 makes and the first was the loudest.  Sure, the back door cut was on Josh Smith who isn't really known for his defense, but let's give credit where credit is due.  Smith knows his former roommate's game and after Sullinger picks off Jennings, all eyes are on what Rondo might do.  It's that split second of indecision that gives Green the time to charge the baseline to throw it down.





Baseline cut, part II.  It's the same action as before.  Rondo had been slicing up Detroit with pick-and-pops with Humphries through the first half, so Monroe hedges hard on the pick.  It doesn't matter.  Rondo finds Green again with a LEFTY underhand pass for the reverse lay up.




This possession is in transition and results in a miss, but it's important to note that with Rondo pushing the pace, a defender's natural instinct is to protect the paint from his penetration.  That gives Green a clean look at a corner three.





This is what Scalabrine was talking about when he called Green "James Worthy 2.0."  It doesn't seem like much but with Rondo on the floor, every defender is aware--and maybe too much so--when he has the ball.  Check out Kyle Singler eyeballing Rondo.  He bites ever so much on a pass fake to a cutting Kelly Olynyk.  Rondo whips it across to Green and now only a player with Green's agility and ability can get to the rim and finish with a finger roll.





Rondo will get the assist here with most of the work done by Green coming off a series of screen, but consider how much of this play is influenced by Rondo.  First of all as previously stated, he and Humphries were killing the Pistons with pick-and-pops.  That's why the more defensive minded Will Bynum is in the game and why Josh Smith plays Hump more physically and pushes him away.  So much attention is put on that simple action on that side of the floor.  Second, with the threat of Rondo driving the key, Monroe hangs back in the restricted area to cover Green's cut and Rondo's possible penetration.  That frees up Sullinger to hit Singler with a third screen and Green the space to can the mid-range jumper.

Since Rondo's return, Green has been a model of consistency and I think you can expect more improvement from other guys like Sullinger, Olynyk, and especially Bradley as they come back from injury to close out the season.  As Rondo comes into form himself, he is proving to be the rising tide that lifts all boats.



bob
MY NOTE:  We've all been screaming for Jeff Green to be more consistent.  Well...

Last 10 Games: 36.2mpg .416 fg% 4.2 rpg 1.2 apg 0.5 bpg 0.5 spg 2.3PFpg 18.8ppg

2013-2014:  34.1mpg .419 fg%  4.8 rpg 1.6 apg 0.6 bpg 0.7 spg 2.0PFpg 16.9ppg

I don't understand what this guy is so excited about.  Rondo's back and, for better or worse, it looks like Green is doing a little more than he was all season, but not THAT much more.  I will agree with him about Kelly and Sully, though.  I think it can only help them to play with a veteran, top-shelf floor general.



.

bobheckler wrote:
At CelticsBlog, we've often talked about how Green isn't a natural #1; he may not even be a #2 or #3. 

Are these guys for real?  Jeff Green's stats this season would make him the #2 scorer on ANY Celtics team in the last 20 years.  What a bunch of jokers.

But in the end, no matter what Jeff Green does - it isnt enough.  And I just do not get it.

He is a hard worker, he is a hustler, his help defense has been getting better, he is a nice kid, he keeps his nose clean and his mouth shut AND is averaging 19.5 over the last 20 games and 17 ppg for the season.

To paraphrase Rick Pitino from years ago - a young Paul Pierce isnt walking through that door (have you seen PP this year - guy is a shell of his former self and not even in the same conversation as Green at this point)

This is your team, this is your starting SF, and this guy is the LEAST of your problems on this team - yet still we hear the constant droning drumbeat.

I hope the Celtics trade Jeff Green in the off season and be done with it.  People out here have completely lost their ability to objectively speak about the guy.

Jeff is now not having to work as hard for his points. If anyone watched that Detroit game, Jeff was very efficient and was lighting it up.



KJ

If I use Mrkleen's figure of 19.5 PPG during the most recent 10 games, the corresponding figure for the previous 53 games was 16.4 PPG.  In reality, Jeff has produced a 19% scoring increase from the first 53 games to the most recent 10 games.  A comparison of the most recent 10 games with a figure that also includes the most recent 10 games (showing an increase of only 15%) is misleading.  I figure Jeff should get every bit of credit for his recent outburst.

In 2008, the Boston Celtics won the NBA Championship with a SF named Paul Pierce, who averaged 19.6 PPG—almost an exact match with the 19.5 PPG Jeff is averaging lately.

Sam

Jeff Green is not the problem. With Rondo he is part of the solution. End of debate.

mrkleen09 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:
At CelticsBlog, we've often talked about how Green isn't a natural #1; he may not even be a #2 or #3. 

Are these guys for real?  Jeff Green's stats this season would make him the #2 scorer on ANY Celtics team in the last 20 years.  What a bunch of jokers.

But in the end, no matter what Jeff Green does - it isnt enough.  And I just do not get it.

He is a hard worker, he is a hustler, his help defense has been getting better, he is a nice kid, he keeps his nose clean and his mouth shut AND is averaging 19.5 over the last 20 games and 17 ppg for the season.

To paraphrase Rick Pitino from years ago - a young Paul Pierce isnt walking through that door (have you seen PP this year - guy is a shell of his former self and not even in the same conversation as Green at this point)

This is your team, this is your starting SF, and this guy is the LEAST of your problems on this team - yet still we hear the constant droning drumbeat.

I hope the Celtics trade Jeff Green in the off season and be done with it.  People out here have completely lost their ability to objectively speak about the guy.

Go on an on about how much you love Jeff Green if you want, and about how prolific a scorer he's been the last few weeks but realize one thing about him that can't be denied: He's an inefficient player offensively. For the past 26 games our "go to" scorer is shooting a pathetic 38.2% (157 for 411). That ok with you? He's Rudy Gay at his worst. I'm sorry. I expect better than 38% shooting from my small forward.

Don't you??

steve3344 wrote:
Go on an on about how much you love Jeff Green if you want, and about how prolific a scorer he's been the last few weeks but realize one thing about him that can't be denied:  He's an inefficient player offensively.  For the past 26 games our "go to" scorer is shooting a pathetic 38.2% (157 for 411).  That ok with you?  He's Rudy Gay at his worst.  I'm sorry.  I expect better than 38% shooting from my small forward.  

Don't you??

Pierce was never a wildly efficient player, either. He was better at the FT line, though.

This team still can only be viewed with incomplete evidence as a result of all of the changes, injuries, and lack of a center. But Jeff isn't what's wrong with this team.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:

steve3344 wrote:
Go on an on about how much you love Jeff Green if you want, and about how prolific a scorer he's been the last few weeks but realize one thing about him that can't be denied:  He's an inefficient player offensively.  For the past 26 games our "go to" scorer is shooting a pathetic 38.2% (157 for 411).  That ok with you?  He's Rudy Gay at his worst.  I'm sorry.  I expect better than 38% shooting from my small forward.  

Don't you??

Pierce was never a wildly efficient player, either. He was better at the FT line, though.

This team still can only be viewed with incomplete evidence as a result of all of the changes, injuries, and lack of a center. But Jeff isn't what's wrong with this team.



KJ

It's not just Jeff's shooting that makes him an inefficient offensive player. His assists are low as well (1.6 per game for his career). Pierce is 3.8. And Green is a below average three point shooter.

Steve

Pretty funny you bring up Pierce as your definition of an "efficient" offensive player.

Pierce career FG% is .447 - guess what Green's is?  .447 

So Pierce averaged more assists per game, and that makes him more efficient than Green?  Well what about Pierce averaging nearly 1.5 more turnovers per game than Green?  Is throwing the ball away efficient?

Any player who is the "go to" guy on a poor team is going to suffer bad shooting seasons.  Ever a player as great as future hall of famer, Paul Pierce who actually shot 40% from the field for a full season (2003-04)

Saying Jeff Green is inefficient is one thing.  Using Paul Pierce as the counter point is laughable.

mrkleen09 wrote:Steve

Pretty funny you bring up Pierce as your definition of an "efficient" offensive player.

Pierce career FG% is .447 - guess what Green's is?  .447 

So Pierce averaged more assists per game, and that makes him more efficient than Green?  Well what about Pierce averaging nearly 1.5 more turnovers per game than Green?  Is throwing the ball away efficient?

Any player who is the "go to" guy on a poor team is going to suffer bad shooting seasons.  Ever a player as great as future hall of famer, Paul Pierce who actually shot 40% from the field for a full season (2003-04)

Saying Jeff Green is inefficient is one thing.  Using Paul Pierce as the counter point is laughable.

Green's career FG% is not .447, it's .443. Look it up. But I'm talking more about this year when the lead-scorer-on-the-team mantle has fallen on Green for the first time, with extra attention paid to him as the team's main offensive player, he can't handle it, and is shooting a career low 41.5%. Pierce wasn't nicknamed The Truth for nothing. He was always the other team's main focus, many times double-teamed and still came through often and in huge games to get the numbers he put up. If Green was defended like Pierce has been in his career, the difference would be even greater. And Pierce is a 37% career three point shooter, Green a pedestrian 34.5%. Pierce gets almost two and a half times the assists Green does, resulting in his significantly higher overall efficiency rating between the two.

And, by the way, I didn't bring up Pierce. k_j_88 did. Go back and read the thread again. I just mentioned that compared to other small forwards Green is a poor assist man and since k_j_88 mentioned Pierce is a better free throw shooter than Green, I mentioned the assist difference also. So yes, comparing Green to Pierce is laughable. But not the way you meant. There is little comparison between the two as effective players. One's a Hall of Famer, the other has never even made an All-Star team.

mrkleen09 wrote:Steve

Pretty funny you bring up Pierce as your definition of an "efficient" offensive player.

Pierce career FG% is .447 - guess what Green's is?  .447 

So Pierce averaged more assists per game, and that makes him more efficient than Green?  Well what about Pierce averaging nearly 1.5 more turnovers per game than Green?  Is throwing the ball away efficient?

Any player who is the "go to" guy on a poor team is going to suffer bad shooting seasons.  Ever a player as great as future hall of famer, Paul Pierce who actually shot 40% from the field for a full season (2003-04)

Saying Jeff Green is inefficient is one thing.  Using Paul Pierce as the counter point is laughable.

And how does Pierce average "nearly 1.5" turnovers per game more than Green? He doesn't. Pierce is 2.9 for his career is Green is 1.8. 1.1 is not "nearly 1.5." It is basically 1. AND Pierce has handled the ball way more in his career than Green, playing significant minutes at guard, while Green has not. That's a BIG difference. The more you have the ball, the more you will turn it over (see Nash and Rondo, for example).

And the difference per 36 minutes (Pierce plays more minutes than Green, FYI) is .9. Green turns it over 1.96 times per 36 minutes, Pierce 2.86. Again, .9 is not "nearly 1.5." It is POINT NINE. And we know why.

Alot of stats, do we really need them? Pick any season of Pierces career and in that one season he has hit more big shots in the last 2 minutes of a tight ballgame then Jeff Green has his entire career. This is a joke to even compare them, Green doesn't even deserve to be in the conversation.

Steve

Your inability to give Jeff Green any credit, even when he has been improving his play and stepping up his game over the last few months is pretty sad.

You want to talk about "this year" - a year when Jeff Green is being asked to carry a poor team as an example of him being inefficient, yet you conveniently glossed over my point that no matter how good the player is - when they are asked to carry the load on a terrible team, they will be less efficient.

I looked at Pierce's stats, not to compare Jeff Green to him (Nice try Cow) to see how he shot the ball during some of those piss poor years in Boston and the answer was clear.  Paul Pierce had shooting years that were equal to, in fact WORSE than Jeff Green is shooting this season.

If you want to call Jeff Green "inefficient" that is fine.....in many cases, that is true.  But by that measure nearly every player who is the go to guy on a bad team - is inefficient.  INCLUDING the great Paul Pierce in his prime on a terrible Celtics team.

We get that you and cow and a few others out here dont like Jeff Green - but when I watch him string together a very solid 20 game stretch - and you guys still refuse to give him any credit, it makes me shake my head.

mrkleen09 wrote:Steve

Your inability to give Jeff Green any credit, even when he has been improving his play and stepping up his game over the last few months is pretty sad.

You want to talk about "this year" - a year when Jeff Green is being asked to carry a poor team as an example of him being inefficient, yet you conveniently glossed over my point that no matter how good the player is - when they are asked to carry the load on a terrible team, they will be less efficient.

I looked at Pierce's stats, not to compare Jeff Green to him (Nice try Cow) to see how he shot the ball during some of those piss poor years in Boston and the answer was clear.  Paul Pierce had shooting years that were equal to, in fact WORSE than Jeff Green is shooting this season.

If you want to call Jeff Green "inefficient" that is fine.....in many cases, that is true.  But by that measure nearly every player who is the go to guy on a bad team - is inefficient.  INCLUDING the great Paul Pierce in his prime on a terrible Celtics team.

We get that you and cow and a few others out here dont like Jeff Green - but when I watch him string together a very solid 20 game stretch - and you guys still refuse to give him any credit, it makes me shake my head.

Yeah, a "very solid" 26 game stretch where he shot a scintillating 38.2% from the field and because of his lack of production in almost all other areas - rebounding, assists, steals, etc., etc., his PER is terrible.

Case in point was tonight's game - at first glance with his 27 points and almost 50% shooting (10 for 21) that looks pretty damn good, right?  But his efficiency rating was very poor because of ZERO assists, TWO rebounds, no steals, no blocks - not that I expect blocks from him - etc., and four fouls in 41 minutes.  He did nothing but hit some baskets.  Nothing else.  I'm not judging his defense (other than the basic things they keep stats on) which is actually ok but certainly not considered great.

In 1982 I developed the first statistical rating system for NBA players and gave Magic Johnson the trophy that year.  By my system, 24 is average, 30 is generally ALL-STAR level, 36 is top five or ten or so in the league.  Over 40 is all-time.  Tonight, with his 27 points, Jeff Green's rating for the game was 13.99, which is awful.  Yes, awful.  In a game he scored 27 points.

And you claim that I "bring up Pierce as your definition of an "efficient" offensive player" which I never did. Not anywhere.  But you claim that since "Pierce career FG% is .447 - guess what Green's is?  .447" (when it's actually lower) means that Green is now THE EQUAL (!) of Paul Pierce and we should all bow down and love him unconditionally.

Sorry.  Ain't gonna happen.

mrkleen09 wrote:Steve

Your inability to give Jeff Green any credit, even when he has been improving his play and stepping up his game over the last few months is pretty sad.

You want to talk about "this year" - a year when Jeff Green is being asked to carry a poor team as an example of him being inefficient, yet you conveniently glossed over my point that no matter how good the player is - when they are asked to carry the load on a terrible team, they will be less efficient.

I looked at Pierce's stats, not to compare Jeff Green to him (Nice try Cow) to see how he shot the ball during some of those piss poor years in Boston and the answer was clear.  Paul Pierce had shooting years that were equal to, in fact WORSE than Jeff Green is shooting this season.

If you want to call Jeff Green "inefficient" that is fine.....in many cases, that is true.  But by that measure nearly every player who is the go to guy on a bad team - is inefficient.  INCLUDING the great Paul Pierce in his prime on a terrible Celtics team.

We get that you and cow and a few others out here dont like Jeff Green - but when I watch him string together a very solid 20 game stretch - and you guys still refuse to give him any credit, it makes me shake my head.

how solid can this stretch be if hes shooting under 40%? I don't want to compare him to Paul Pierce, thats fruitless as there really is NO comparison....I really don't want to be a bully and compare their stats, its totally unfair....its like comparing John Havlicek to Mike Riordan or Clyde Drexler to Gerald Wilkens, we shouldn't even be discussing this.

Here are comments on his on-the-surface-it-looked-good game by Green from the two reporters whose articles are on the post game thread:

"Jeff Green‘s 27 points paced the offense, although much of his scoring came in the second half of a blowout and he added just two rebound and no assists."

And this:  "Jeff Green scored 17 of his team-high 27 points in the third quarter but his stat line was otherwise lackluster (2 rebounds, 0 assists, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 1 turnover, 4 fouls, minus-15) over 41 minutes."

And that's after a GOOD game for him.  Woe is us when he goes 3 for 16 like he did against Indiana the night before.

There is more to the game than just box score stats. Jeff is also a pretty good defender and at times can make momentum-shifting plays on that end.

And if you don't like Jeff, who do you suggest the Celtics pick up instead? He's one of the top 6-7 SFs in the league and doesn't get the recognition. Also, he only makes like $9M a year. You can't beat what he does for the price.



KJ