Sports Illustrated NBA Players Rankings

Every year ESPN ranks NBA players, 1-500, with #1 being the MVP and 500 bringing up the rear with the gear.  I wouldn't put much weight on this, or anything else ESPN says...

Last year's standing, in parenthesis:

Chris Babb - 499 (N/A)
Keith Bogans - 462 (307)
Phil Pressey - 411 (439)
Chris Johnson - 424 (N/A)
Joel Anthony - 405 (311)
Rajon Rondo - 40 (26)



Other players:

Deron Williams - 7
AK47 - 85
Sim Bhullar (the 7'5", 360# whale that has never played an NBA game) - 488


I'll post more, as I find them.  I can tell you that Jeff Green didn't make the top 100.  Neither was Bradley. When AK47 is in the top 100, and he missed a lot of last year and wasn't that great when he was healthy, and Jeff Green isn't that should tell you something. Last year, Derrick Rose was top 10, and he was coming back from a horrendous knee injury.




bob


.

Vitor Faverani - 388
James Young - 347


A rookie who has never laced up an NBA sneaker, not even in summer league, is ranked ahead of Vitor? Ouch.



bob



.

As I suggested in the Cousy thread, I couldn't care less about individual player ratings.  It's all about the team.

Sam

I wonder what is the specific criteria the authors employ in determining this kind of list.


KJ

bobheckler wrote:When AK47 is in the top 100, and he missed a lot of last year and wasn't that great when he was healthy, and Jeff Green isn't that should tell you something.

.

What should it tell us Bob, aside from the author being an idiot?

mrkleen09 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:When AK47 is in the top 100, and he missed a lot of last year and wasn't that great when he was healthy, and Jeff Green isn't that should tell you something.

.

What should it tell us Bob, aside from the author being an idiot?

He's not an idiot to do that.  For the minutes both players played last year Kirilenko outplayed Green.  For one thing Kirilenko shot 51.3% to Green's 41.2%.  With the system I created in 1982 that I've discussed a bunch of times on this board, last year Kirilenko's rating was 20.08 and Green's was 18.21.  Granted, Kirilenko only played 19.3 minutes per game and could play less next season, but over their careers the difference is even more striking in Kirilenko's favor due to his more well-rounded game.  For their CAREERS, Kirilenko's rating is 27.67 and Green's is 18.88.  That's a big difference.

Kirilenko is a career 47.4% shooter, Green is 44.1%.  Green's CAREER HIGH in assists is 2.0. Kirilenko has had NINE SEASONS better than that.  And Kirilenko is a significantly better defender than Green.

Green, however, is only 28 years old and should continue to be roughly the same (mediocre) player - actually, less than mediocre - he has been for the next several years while Kirilenko, at 33, should continue to decline a bit.  

Even still, on a per minute basis for next year, I would bet Kirilenko will have a better rating than Green if he gets decent minutes.  But it probably should be close, considering Kirilenko's age.

their rankings are based more on the past years play, with some adjustments for rookies and the off-season roster moves.

as a while they are a pretty good ranking of NBA players, though you will always find a few players off for sure (mostly rookies or young players who take a big step).

as for how they rank them:



How did we rank the players?


We asked our ESPN Forecast panel to rate each player on a 0-to-10 scale, in terms of "the overall level of play for each player for the upcoming NBA season."

Steve - your continued inability to be objective on this subject is mind numbing

There isnt one GM in the NBA, including the incompetent Billy King - who would select AK over Jeff Green in 2014. So unless this is a lifetime achievement ranking, then I stand by my comments.

As for ESPN and their history of ranking anything with any semblance of objectivity or accuracy - the record speaks for itself.

Hey, you!
Stop dissing my namesake!

AK

steve3344 wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:When AK47 is in the top 100, and he missed a lot of last year and wasn't that great when he was healthy, and Jeff Green isn't that should tell you something.

.

What should it tell us Bob, aside from the author being an idiot?

He's not an idiot to do that.  For the minutes both players played last year Kirilenko outplayed Green.  For one thing Kirilenko shot 51.3% to Green's 41.2%.  With the system I created in 1982 that I've discussed a bunch of times on this board, last year Kirilenko's rating was 20.08 and Green's was 18.21.  Granted, Kirilenko only played 19.3 minutes per game and could play less next season, but over their careers the difference is even more striking in Kirilenko's favor due to his more well-rounded game.  For their CAREERS, Kirilenko's rating is 27.67 and Green's is 18.88.  That's a big difference.

Kirilenko is a career 47.4% shooter, Green is 44.1%.  Green's CAREER HIGH in assists is 2.0. Kirilenko has had NINE SEASONS better than that.  And Kirilenko is a significantly better defender than Green.

Green, however, is only 28 years old and should continue to be roughly the same (mediocre) player - actually, less than mediocre - he has been for the next several years while Kirilenko, at 33, should continue to decline a bit.  

Even still, on a per minute basis for next year, I would bet Kirilenko will have a better rating than Green if he gets decent minutes.  But it probably should be close, considering Kirilenko's age.

That's some serious cherry-picking in favor of Kirilenko. It's difficult to believe that you make the case that Kirilenko had a better 2013-14 season than Green when you consider:

• Green played 2,805 minutes in 82 games and Kirilenko played 857 in 45 games

• Green scored 1,382 points while Kirilenko scored only 226

• Green averaged 16.9 points in 82 games while Kirilenko averaged a mere 5.0 in only 45 games

• Green's FT percentage was 79.5 and Kirilenko's was 51.3

• When you factor in the increased value of a made three-point shot (effective field goal percentage), Kirilenko's EFG percentage stayed basically the same as his regular FG percentage (51.3 FG vs 51.6 EFG) while Green's rises significantly from 41.2 to 46.9

To give the barest allowance for Kirilenko declining is mind boggling. There's a reason he makes only $3.3 million now, and it's not because he took a huge discount to play for a Russian owner. He's breaking down and unreliable, and even when he's active, he's not that productive because he can't play many minutes. If your system rates Kirilenko's 2013-14 season better than Green's because it's all about what you do on a per-minute basis, then your system needs some serious revising. Steve Nash had pretty good per-36-minute numbers last season and great career stats; would you rate him higher than Jeff Green, too?

Outside wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:When AK47 is in the top 100, and he missed a lot of last year and wasn't that great when he was healthy, and Jeff Green isn't that should tell you something.

.

What should it tell us Bob, aside from the author being an idiot?

He's not an idiot to do that.  For the minutes both players played last year Kirilenko outplayed Green.  For one thing Kirilenko shot 51.3% to Green's 41.2%.  With the system I created in 1982 that I've discussed a bunch of times on this board, last year Kirilenko's rating was 20.08 and Green's was 18.21.  Granted, Kirilenko only played 19.3 minutes per game and could play less next season, but over their careers the difference is even more striking in Kirilenko's favor due to his more well-rounded game.  For their CAREERS, Kirilenko's rating is 27.67 and Green's is 18.88.  That's a big difference.

Kirilenko is a career 47.4% shooter, Green is 44.1%.  Green's CAREER HIGH in assists is 2.0. Kirilenko has had NINE SEASONS better than that.  And Kirilenko is a significantly better defender than Green.

Green, however, is only 28 years old and should continue to be roughly the same (mediocre) player - actually, less than mediocre - he has been for the next several years while Kirilenko, at 33, should continue to decline a bit.  

Even still, on a per minute basis for next year, I would bet Kirilenko will have a better rating than Green if he gets decent minutes.  But it probably should be close, considering Kirilenko's age.

That's some serious cherry-picking in favor of Kirilenko. It's difficult to believe that you make the case that Kirilenko had a better 2013-14 season than Green when you consider:

• Green played 2,805 minutes in 82 games and Kirilenko played 857 in 45 games

• Green scored 1,382 points while Kirilenko scored only 226

• Green averaged 16.9 points in 82 games while Kirilenko averaged a mere 5.0 in only 45 games

• Green's FT percentage was 79.5 and Kirilenko's was 51.3

• When you factor in the increased value of a made three-point shot (effective field goal percentage), Kirilenko's EFG percentage stayed basically the same as his regular FG percentage (51.3 FG vs 51.6 EFG) while Green's rises significantly from 41.2 to 46.9

To give the barest allowance for Kirilenko declining is mind boggling. There's a reason he makes only $3.3 million now, and it's not because he took a huge discount to play for a Russian owner. He's breaking down and unreliable, and even when he's active, he's not that productive because he can't play many minutes. If your system rates Kirilenko's 2013-14 season better than Green's because it's all about what you do on a per-minute basis, then your system needs some serious revising. Steve Nash had pretty good per-36-minute numbers last season and great career stats; would you rate him higher than Jeff Green, too?

Of course my system is all about what you do on a per-minute basis.  How else do you compare players who play different minutes per game if you don't do it that way?  I don't like to put much credibility into players' stats who play less than 24 minutes a game (and Kirilenko played only 19+) but the comparison between the two was being discussed here.  And Nash's year last season didn't even exist, basically, so he is worthless.

As far as Kirilenko's FT shooting last year being around 50%, that was a fluke due to not playing many games and not getting a lot of minutes, and thus not getting into his normal groove.  The guy is a lifetime 75.4% FT shooter and Green is 78.3% - there's very little difference there when you take into consideration neither guy goes to the line much.  Their FT shooting is not going to alter many games negatively or positively.  Kirilenko missed 58 FT's last year, Green missed 73 of 'em.
 
And as for Green being available for (and projected to play) many more minutes than Kirilenko next year, it's actually a negative when Green plays significant minutes because he's so ineffective a player and his stats clearly show that.  Why do you think there was no market for him last season?  And at $9 million for Green and $3 million for Kirilenko, Green is not a great bargain.  Kirilenko is getting paid what he's worth (but not if he is only going to be available for 45 games again next year).  It's debatable whether Green is.  Actually, if you remember, when Kirilenko signed his last deal with NJ for that low salary, some GM's screamed there was an underhanded deal with the Russian owner for something extra (like property or something else valuable to circumvent the salary cap) since they were both from the USSR.

When Kirilenko was younger and playing for the Jazz from about 2003 to about 2008 he was known as a stat filler, even having some triple doubles on occasion.  Think we could ever see Green have a triple double?

I doubt I'd prefer Kirilenko over Green for next season on a team like the Celtics who aren't exactly loaded at the SF position and not knowing how many games you'll get out of AK-47 but for the five years before last he averaged 65 games a year.  However, I'd damn sure prefer practically any other decent SF on the Celtics next year than Green.  Jeff's stats bear that out in glaring fashion.  And Kirilenko has certainly had the more effective career of the two as far as helping his team win games with everything he does well.

steve3344 wrote:Of course my system is all about what you do on a per-minute basis.  How else do you compare players who play different minutes per game if you don't do it that way?  I don't like to put much credibility into players' stats who play less than 24 minutes a game (and Kirilenko played only 19+) but the comparison between the two was being discussed here.  And Nash's year last season didn't even exist, basically, so he is worthless.

Kirilenko's season was far closer to Nash's than it was to Green's.

Games: Green 82, AK 45, Nash 15
Minutes: Green 2,805, AK 857, Nash 313
Points: Green 1,382, AK 226, Nash 102
Rebounds: Green 380, AK 146, Nash 29
Assists: Green 138, AK 72, Nash 86

steve3344 wrote:As far as Kirilenko's FT shooting last year being around 50%, that was a fluke due to not playing many games and not getting a lot of minutes, and thus not getting into his normal groove.  The guy is a lifetime 75.4% FT shooter and Green is 78.3% - there's very little difference there when you take into consideration neither guy goes to the line much.  Their FT shooting is not going to alter many games negatively or positively.  Kirilenko missed 58 FT's last year, Green missed 73 of 'em.

You keep mixing career and season. The point I made in my prior post is that there's no way Kirilenko can be considered better than Green last season, as your rating system did. When rating last season's performance, you have to use Kirilenko's actual FT percentage, which was 51.3%, while Green's was 79.5%. Green had 4.3 FT attempts per game last season, which was 50th in the league, so he gets to the line much higher than average, actually, and his ability to convert at a high rate is a big plus.
 

steve3344 wrote:And as for Green being available for (and projected to play) many more minutes than Kirilenko next year, it's actually a negative when Green plays significant minutes because he's so ineffective a player and his stats clearly show that.

The thing is, the stats for last season don't show that. And now Green's durability is a liability and Kirilenko's unreliability is an asset? The thing is, you'd have needed 3.3 Kirilenkos last seasonfor every one Jeff Green.

steve3344 wrote:When Kirilenko was younger and playing for the Jazz from about 2003 to about 2008 he was known as a stat filler, even having some triple doubles on occasion.  Think we could ever see Green have a triple double?

So Kirilenko was a stat-filler then, but that was six years ago. He certainly wasn't a stat-filler last season, and the chances of him being one this season are slim and none.

Kirilenko's had two triple-doubles, the last one in 2007. Hardly relevant to how they should be rated for this season.

steve3344 wrote:I doubt I'd prefer Kirilenko over Green for next season on a team like the Celtics who aren't exactly loaded at the SF position and not knowing how many games you'll get out of AK-47 but for the five years before last he averaged 65 games a year.

Over the previous five seasons that they played in the NBA (Green missed 20111-12 for an aortic aneurysm, Kirilenko missed the same season to play in Russia), Green averaged 2,680 minutes per season and Kirilenko averaged 1,680, so it's clear you can depend on Green to be on the court far more than Kirilenko -- 1,000 more minutes, or 60% more minutes each season.

You keep downplaying that Green plays far more minutes, even attempting to turn it into a negative, but it's a crucial factor in Green's favor.

steve3344 wrote:However, I'd damn sure prefer practically any other decent SF on the Celtics next year than Green.  Jeff's stats bear that out in glaring fashion.  And Kirilenko has certainly had the more effective career of the two as far as helping his team win games with everything he does well.

We've been down this road before. You don't like Jeff Green. That's your prerogative, but your dislike of him has led you to skew everything against him in this case. We're not talking about career achievements or what they did ten years ago; we're talking specifically about what they did last season when your system rated Kirilenko higher than Green and where they should be ranked going into this season.

Outside - If you want to question my system, here are the PER ratings for both Kirilenko and Green the past three years:

2012: Kirilenko 17.6, Green 12.9
2013: Kirilenko 16.6, Green 15.0
2014: Green 13.1, Kirilenko 12.4

Even though their PERS were similar last year with Green having the slight edge, I attribute that to Kirilenko having an injury riddled season (every player has them now and then) and I expect he'll be much healthier this year.

Career PER for Kirilenko: 18.8
Career PER for Green: 13.1

According to PER, Kirilenko is 43.5% better than Green for his career.

According to my system, Kirilenko is 46.5% better than Green (27.67 to 18.88) for his career.

Both my system and PER make virtually the same argument. My system needs no revising.

It is unfortunate, because clearly Steve is a very smart basketball fan with a good mind for numbers and stats, but time and time again - his system has fallen down against criticism. Reminds me of John Hollinger (I am sure Sam would be happy to tell us once again what a fan he is of Mr Hollinger and his statistical background), who year after year was proven to be a failure in his rankings - yet continued to persevere.

As for specific discourse about Jeff Green, Steve has long since lost any semblance of credibility or objectivity on the subject. Not sure if this board has an "ignore" feature like so many other message boards. But Steve is the first and only person in the history of this board that has me searching for such an option. SMH.

Ah, the fallacy of rating or comparing individual players.  Fans generally choose those stats that support their argument because many relevant stats aren't readily available.  For example, where are the defensive stats in this discussion?  Fans can choose volume stats (e.g. number of minutes) if convenient, per game stats if convenient, per minute or 36 minute stats if convenient, etc., etc., etc.

Take it from a lifetime professional statistician, there are fallacies in the ways in which a preponderance of stats are used during spirited discussions.  The only stats I really care about are those that objectively point in a certain direction and have considered all the possible contexts. For example, how well were last year's Nets constructed and coached to take maximum advantage of Kirilenko's talents when he did play last season vs. how well the Celts were constructed and coached to take maximum advantage of Green's talents.

And then there's the matter of "then is not now."  I say it a lot, and I know it's ignored a lot, but it really is important; and I feel fortunate to recognize what can often slip by.  Who on this board or anywhere else can assure me that the Celtics will have basically a similar composition, a similar system, a similar rotation, a similar end-of game lineup, a similar substitution pattern, and a similar roster profile as last season?

I thought so.  No one.

So, for whatever it's worth (and I expect it'll be widely ignored), I suggest people stop looking so much at using statistics selectively as a means of reinforcing their arguments and look at them with the same kind of objectivity that statistics are designed to portray.  Better still, just watch the games.

But, whatever floats your boat as far as statistics are concerned, the main thing is to keep enjoying professional basketball.

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:It is unfortunate, because clearly Steve is a very smart basketball fan with a good mind for numbers and stats, but time and time again - his system has fallen down against criticism.  Reminds me of John Hollinger (I am sure Sam would be happy to tell us once again what a fan he is of Mr Hollinger and his statistical background), who year after year was proven to be a failure in his rankings - yet continued to persevere.

As for specific discourse about Jeff Green, Steve has long since lost any semblance of credibility or objectivity on the subject.  Not sure if this board has an "ignore" feature like so many other message boards.  But Steve is the first and only person in the history of this board that has me searching for such an option.  SMH.

When I interviewd Jack Ramsay for my research (one of the five coaches I interviewed, along with Red Auerbach, Pat Riley, Hubie Brown and Stan Albeck in '81-'82), Dr. Jack said - and I quote - "For a system based purely on stats, your system is the best one I've ever seen." And I've got that on tape.

OK, so you're right and Hall of Fame coach Jack Ramsay is wrong. I get it.

And I got similar responses from Hubie Brown and Pat Riley. And Red was fun to talk to about it because of his famous quote "statistics are for losers" so I knew he wasn't the one to compliment me on it. On the other hand, he never belittled it in our chat either. But to him it was all about the wins and nothing else mattered. So even knowing that, I chose to interview him to get his thoughts and he was terrific in his observations.

Hope you can find that ignore option.

steve3344 wrote:Outside - If you want to question my system, here are the PER ratings for both Kirilenko and Green the past three years:

2012:  Kirilenko 17.6, Green 12.9
2013:  Kirilenko 16.6, Green 15.0
2014:  Green 13.1, Kirilenko 12.4

Even though their PERS were similar last year with Green having the slight edge, I attribute that to Kirilenko having an injury riddled season (every player has them now and then) and I expect he'll be much healthier this year.

Career PER for Kirilenko:  18.8
Career PER for Green:  13.1

According to PER, Kirilenko is 43.5% better than Green for his career.

According to my system, Kirilenko is 46.5% better than Green (27.67 to 18.88) for his career.

Both my system and PER make virtually the same argument.  My system needs no revising.

Steve,

Believe me, I am all for stats. I often use them to back up my arguments.
Kirilenko is not near the player Green is, despite the PER.
Green was ranked #201 in PER this year.
I would estimate he is a better player then 100 of them ranked ahead of him.
And it's not like he is playing Steve Nash type defense.
Jeff is guarding the best wing player on the other team.

In general, there's a reason why players like Kirilenko don't get a lot of minutes.
They can be good in short stints.
Also, they might be playing against the reserves on the opponents team.

Would you say Biyombo, Lin, Farmar, Jordan Crawford, Devin Harris, Bargnani are better then Green?
I could go on and on with names.
All of them have a higher PER then Jeff.
None of them are close to the player Jeff is.

In a vacuum of the current time, Green is by far the more valuable player. Green's defense is underrated, as he can guard guys like Lebron using his length. Points wise, he'll average upper teens, and has the ability to get 30-40 points when it's flowing.

We also have to keep in mind the fact that the team last year was not constructed in an optimal manner. There was a lot of movement on the roster, injuries, and a new coaching staff.

Kirilenko had D. Williams, J. Johnson, Garnett, and Pierce (4 All-Stars) to be the ones gathering most of the attention. And his effect was still minimal.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of your system, Steve. In fact, I can greatly appreciate the time and effort that is put into quantifying the effects of any given player. But I really don't see how as of Sept 2014 AK is better than JG.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:In a vacuum of the current time, Green is by far the more valuable player. Green's defense is underrated, as he can guard guys like Lebron using his length. Points wise, he'll average upper teens, and has the ability to get 30-40 points when it's flowing.

We also have to keep in mind the fact that the team last year was not constructed in an optimal manner. There was a lot of movement on the roster, injuries, and a new coaching staff.

Kirilenko had D. Williams, J. Johnson, Garnett, and Pierce (4 All-Stars) to be the ones gathering most of the attention. And his effect was still minimal.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of your system, Steve. In fact, I can greatly appreciate the time and effort that is put into quantifying the effects of any given player. But I really don't see how as of Sept 2014 AK is better than JG.



KJ

Green "has the ability to get 30-40 points when it's flowing"?  The few times a year he does that he follows it up with a 2 for 12, 2 rebound, 0 assist game where he completely disappears.  He's the most frustrating player I've ever rooted for, and with the physical skills he has (on a par with the best SF's in the game) his inconsistency and overall lack of production is maddening.

And the Nets didn't have 4 All-Stars last season, they had one - Joe Johnson.  And of two that you mentioned, KG was a shell of his former self and Pierce averaged five points per game lower than any season he ever had other than his rookie year and was awful the first two months.  Plus, people bitched all year how DWill is nowhere near the player he was in Utah several year ago.

If Green's defense is underrated (BTW, you won't hear many GM's claiming that), Kirilenko has been considered an elite defender by virtually everyone and has averaged more than THREE TIMES the blocks per 36 minutes (2.2 to .7) than Green.  Kirilenko has more effectively guarded opposing SF's in his career, including Lebron, than Green.

This SI top 100 is predicated on Kirilenko being healthy (which the writer expects) and getting important minutes.  If he isn't healthy again this year, then he won't.  We'll see.

By the way, it's no great accomplishment that Green will average in the upper teens when he shoots 41% like he did last year.  It's actually a negative to the team.

tjmakz wrote:

steve3344 wrote:Outside - If you want to question my system, here are the PER ratings for both Kirilenko and Green the past three years:

2012:  Kirilenko 17.6, Green 12.9
2013:  Kirilenko 16.6, Green 15.0
2014:  Green 13.1, Kirilenko 12.4

Even though their PERS were similar last year with Green having the slight edge, I attribute that to Kirilenko having an injury riddled season (every player has them now and then) and I expect he'll be much healthier this year.

Career PER for Kirilenko:  18.8
Career PER for Green:  13.1

According to PER, Kirilenko is 43.5% better than Green for his career.

According to my system, Kirilenko is 46.5% better than Green (27.67 to 18.88) for his career.

Both my system and PER make virtually the same argument.  My system needs no revising.

Steve,

Believe me, I am all for stats. I often use them to back up my arguments.
Kirilenko is not near the player Green is, despite the PER.
Green was ranked #201 in PER this year.
I would estimate he is a better player then 100 of them ranked ahead of him.
And it's not like he is playing Steve Nash type defense.
Jeff is guarding the best wing player on the other team.

In general, there's a reason why players like Kirilenko don't get a lot of minutes.
They can be good in short stints.
Also, they might be playing against the reserves on the opponents team.

Would you say Biyombo, Lin, Farmar, Jordan Crawford, Devin Harris, Bargnani are better then Green?
I could go on and on with names.
All of them have a higher PER then Jeff.
None of them are close to the player Jeff is.

If players like Biyombo, Lin, Farmar, Jordan Crawford, Devin Harris, Bargnani have a higher PER than Green (I'll take your word for it), that shows how ineffective a player Green is. And PER doesn't even include defense (the ability to deny your man the ball, for example) other than figuring in rebounds, steals and blocks, and Kirilenko, who everyone knows is a better defender than Green, is STILL rated significantly higher than Jeff for his career and even in his injury-riddled year last season, was comparable.

And for the record, Green has averaged 32.7 minutes per game in his career, Kirilenko 30.2, not that great a difference. Last year Kirilenko's minutes were down due to injury and the fact that the Nets, on paper at least, looked to have a very solid starting five without him. The Celtics have to use Green more minutes because of the paucity of talent on the team at that position with Pierce being gone. And in those increased minutes, he failed miserably.

Steve,

There is more to defense than blocked shots. It's also having the length to bother the shot attempt. It's also forcing that player to pass. It's also forcing the offensive player to work harder overall. Stats don't tell you how often a shot was passed up because the attempt was determined to be too difficult.

Kirilenko is an old player. If he played the same minutes as Green did, any positive returns he could possible give would be exponentially diminished as the game went on. We saw this with Pierce in his final season as a Celtic.

As for the All-Stars thing, yeah, they didn't all make the team, but they are accomplishments that those players have made happen. You still have to respect KG's mid-range jumper, and Pierce's elbow jumper. D. Williams has his moments where he's rather dangerous, but his biggest downfall is his ego, not his stats.

I'm not saying that Green had a great year by any stretch. I felt he had a tough year, as did the rest of the team. There needs to be another legit offensive threat to take the burden off. Think about it. As talented as Lebron is, he never won a ring until he had 2 perennial All-Stars with him, as well as a team loaded with accomplished veteran players.


KJ

k_j_88 wrote:Steve,

There is more to defense than blocked shots. It's also having the length to bother the shot attempt. It's also forcing that player to pass. It's also forcing the offensive player to work harder overall. Stats don't tell you how often a shot was passed up because the attempt was determined to be too difficult.

Kirilenko is an old player. If he played the same minutes as Green did, any positive returns he could possible give would be exponentially diminished as the game went on. We saw this with Pierce in his final season as a Celtic.

As for the All-Stars thing, yeah, they didn't all make the team, but they are accomplishments that those players have made happen. You still have to respect KG's mid-range jumper, and Pierce's elbow jumper. D. Williams has his moments where he's rather dangerous, but his biggest downfall is his ego, not his stats.

I'm not saying that Green had a great year by any stretch. I felt he had a tough year, as did the rest of the team. There needs to be another legit offensive threat to take the burden off. Think about it. As talented as Lebron is, he never won a ring until he had 2 perennial All-Stars with him, as well as a team loaded with accomplished veteran players.


KJ

Of course I know there is more to defense than blocked shots.  But blocks were an obvious stat to list which Kirilenko is much better at.  The most important defensive talent of all is the ability to deny your man the ball. That was discussed with both Pat Riley and Red in my interviews when beginning my rating system.   If your man doesn't have the ball, he can't score.  And as far as the length to bother opponents' shots, Kirilenko and Green have identical listed height and weight - 6'9" and 235.  Not sure of their respective wingspans but I have always noted Kirilenko's very long arms and overall quickness defensively.  And he's always been regarded as a top notch defender.  Green hasn't.  Green is considered average at best defensively.

I believe Kirolenko has made a few all star teams and been first team NBA defensive, two feats I don't think we'll ever see Jeff Green accomplish. At his peak he was considered an elite defender, as an all around player he has credentials that Jeff Green will never achieve. For one night Jeff Green can look like an all world player, unfortunately we only see that 1 in 25 games, if that. Right now with Kirolenko on the downside of his career ofcourse Greens the better player.

steve3344 wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:Steve,

There is more to defense than blocked shots. It's also having the length to bother the shot attempt. It's also forcing that player to pass. It's also forcing the offensive player to work harder overall. Stats don't tell you how often a shot was passed up because the attempt was determined to be too difficult.

Kirilenko is an old player. If he played the same minutes as Green did, any positive returns he could possible give would be exponentially diminished as the game went on. We saw this with Pierce in his final season as a Celtic.

As for the All-Stars thing, yeah, they didn't all make the team, but they are accomplishments that those players have made happen. You still have to respect KG's mid-range jumper, and Pierce's elbow jumper. D. Williams has his moments where he's rather dangerous, but his biggest downfall is his ego, not his stats.

I'm not saying that Green had a great year by any stretch. I felt he had a tough year, as did the rest of the team. There needs to be another legit offensive threat to take the burden off. Think about it. As talented as Lebron is, he never won a ring until he had 2 perennial All-Stars with him, as well as a team loaded with accomplished veteran players.


KJ

Of course I know there is more to defense than blocked shots.  But blocks were an obvious stat to list which Kirilenko is much better at.  The most important defensive talent of all is the ability to deny your man the ball. That was discussed with both Pat Riley and Red in my interviews when beginning my rating system.   If your man doesn't have the ball, he can't score.  And as far as the length to bother opponents' shots, Kirilenko and Green have identical listed height and weight - 6'9" and 235.  Not sure of their respective wingspans but I have always noted Kirilenko's very long arms and overall quickness defensively.  And he's always been regarded as a top notch defender.  Green hasn't.  Green is considered average at best defensively.

Kirilenko - 6'9", 7'4" wingspan.
Green - 6'9", 7' 1 1/2" wingspan.

Green has a 39" vertical leap.  Kirilenko was measured with an insane, Wiggins-like 44" vertical leap, but that was in 2004.  That's a lotta basketball dog years.  He's 33 now, he was 23 when those measurements were taken.

Kirilenko has been an NBA All-Star once.
He was NBA All-Defense FIRST team once (2006).
NBA All-Defense SECOND team 2x (2004, 2005).
NBA Blocks Leader (2005)
He was also FIBA Europe Player of the Year 2x, All Euro POY 1x and Euroleague DPOY (2012)

I don't think Jeff Green's defense is as mediocre as Steve is painting it, I just think it's inconsistent, just like his offensive game.  I don't think there's any question that Kirilenko has had the better career defensively.  He doesn't take many outside shots, scoring often in transition.  As far as set half court offense goes, I think it is equally clear Jeff Green eats his lunch.

Here's Kirilenko's shot chart from last year.  I think it speaks for itself.





bob



.

Okay, this has been an interesting conversation.  I feel some of it gravitating a little too much in the direction of personal attacks.

So maybe we can wrap this up with a minimum of additional posts.  And I will be deleting anything bordering on a personal attack.

Thanks for everyone's cooperation.  Go Celtics.

Sam