He is supposed to be a 3 point shooter and the best in SA, his defense is totally overrated and benefited because he is playing for the Spurs, I´ve seen thousands of times some other Spur player slapping the ball and going to DG or he is getting the ball because he was just there, he cant even dribble the ball pass or do nothing.You're just showing me that he's inconsistent on offense, which is what I expect from a role player
Who are these role players you guys are looking at that are consistently good on offense?
The Cavs just won a le with 2 players dominating and no other player consistently showing up in any series(their best role players were Tristan Thompson and Richard Jefferson, neither was particularly consistent)..the Warriors were 1 game away from the le, and their starting "perimeter role player" had one of the worst playoff runs I've ever seen from a starter..
Nobody s his pants because is being guarded by DG, not Curry, not CP3, Lillard, not even Harden.
But my point is this league is evolving into a strong offensive game, you dont need to look much those same players were doing it right in 2014 and this collective regression is inexcusable, the only people getting passes are Tim and Manu they are 80 years old combined, and even when I dont like Porker he is ing gassed.
Cavs getting the tle is not a good example they played vs 3 ty East teams and won vs the most manufactured team since the CHeat, once they locked Curry players couldnt keep the production, they wouldnt even be getting past the Blazers if refs were not giving free meals to them to win games by 3 points.
GSW only won because Irving was out but anyway, Cavs had players doing things like that scrub Jones, JR Smith, people that you wouldnt trust a thing a collective effort, be dont have that anymore, so sad because on paper we looked stacked.
Even Lamarcus monster game wasnt enough, just a little collective effort...
I don't even know why this is popping up right now without context.
Is this some Manu pls don't go deflection thread?
Some play Simonsssssss he's not overrated, he can dunkkkkks, bench Danny thread?
I'd this a trade Danny in a heartbeat let's get Durant at all costs and risks, we ain't even losing that much or whatever thread?
I don't even get the momentum on Danny bashing right now.
Like I said, Danny's "consistency pattern," if you will, was particularly bad in that example posted. There's not one instance of him putting 2 average/above average games together in a row. Simply put, his "great 3 point percentage" in these playoffs was skewed by the two games in which he shot an otherworldly percentage.You're just showing me that he's inconsistent on offense, which is what I expect from a role player
Who are these role players you guys are looking at that are consistently good on offense?
The Cavs just won a le with 2 players dominating and no other player consistently showing up in any series(their best role players were Tristan Thompson and Richard Jefferson, neither was particularly consistent)..the Warriors were 1 game away from the le, and their starting "perimeter role player" had one of the worst playoff runs I've ever seen from a starter..
Compare his 2016 run with his 2014 run:
Look at the good/great game streaks he went on this run. where he played par/above par/significantly above par in consecutive games (I would consider his 4-12 performance in the closeout game on OKC's floor a "par" game). He did no such thing in this run, unless we be really kind and give him a "par performance" in Game 6 in which the Spurs were losing by 30.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 07-01-2016 at 11:25 AM.
And BTW, I'm not on any kind of trade Danny bandwagon (unless it nets us KD). I'm challenging the claim he had a "great" post-season offensively because his overall shooting percentage was strong, when reality is his numbers were skewed by two amazing shooting performances.
First off, if you take out those two games along with his two "worst" games (two 0/1 games), he still shot 40 percent from three for the post-season. Your contention is baseless.
He shot over 40 percent in six of the 10 games. He didn't have a single game in the post-season this year where you could go, "Wow, Danny was off". 0/1 games or whatever aren't poor-shooting games. He's not supposed to force up shots. I'm sure he could and eek out 14ppg and wreck the team's offense. But no one wants him to do that. That means he's going to only score when the other team isn't paying special attention to him. That's fine.
I'm amenable to the idea that Green isn't consistent, but these last playoffs are a terrible sample to use to demonstrate that.
- Tony Parker: -$7.4 value ($6.0 million value produced, $13.4 million contract value)
- Steph Curry ($47.4 million value), Russell Westbrook ($33.0 million value), Kyle Lowry ($26.6 million value)
He didn't put up 2 par (offensive) games in a row in which he took more than one total shot.
Compare his consistency in these playoffs to the 2014 run I posted. Or to the 2013 run.
I'm not just talking about 3 point shooting percentage, either. Danny being able to hit a couple of in-between shots every game would be a huge boost (we lost a crucial game by 1 in which Danny was 0-3 from 2 point range. Go figure).
Looking at what guys are getting this year in free agency, Danny's 10mil looks extremely reasonable...
Having had Ginobili all these years has made it easy for Spurs' fans to expect extreme versatility from the SG position-- he's a better passer than most PGs, and was an all-star level talent coming off the bench... I think this contributes to our seeing Green's faults of poor ballhandling, passing, etc... He's really much more like Bowen than Ginobili, which at a fair salary is a pretty good situation.
I definitely expect him to be back up in the 38-42% range in 3ptFG% next season.
That's a completely arbitrary metric. And he did, but you are trying to add his two-pointers to the discussion, which makes this even more arbitrary. The dude's had like seven good games front inside the arc in his whole career.
Yep. Looks like Danny is under a rookie contract. I think Pop lay off him last year, hence his sub par performance.
Show 2 games in which he shot over 40% consecutively in this year's run?
I'll wait.
We can even his Danny's par TS%, which is 571 for his career, and you won't find it.
Sorry, he was very inconsistent these playoffs offensively, detrimentally so, imo.
According to you, his second and third games are "par" games (both at or over 1ppp). Those are both credible efficiency games, but of course, you're trying to twist evidence to meet your point, so you're changing what you mean by "par" midstream.
It's not strange to not be consistently above average. In fact, it's illogical to assume as much. You're going to be above and below it to about equal degrees. That's why it's an average.We can even his Danny's par TS%, which is 571 for his career, and you won't find it.
The first thing here is that there isn't a single role-player/fourth option who should be able to swing a team's fortunes based on his consistency. Was anyone like, "OMG the Thunder can't win if Waiters doesn't step up?" No. It's not Green's job to bail out his team offensively. When he does it, great. When he's being hounding to where he doesn't get to shoot more than 1-3 times, that's fine, too. That he can even be a large part of a defensive game-plan despite not even getting consistent touches is amazing.Sorry, he was very inconsistent these playoffs offensively, detrimentally so, imo.
You keeping trying to argue a strawman. We all know Green wasn't consistently dropping double-digits on teams this year. He didn't solidfy himself as a reliable scoring option, hence why I'm in the minority that want an offensive guard or scoring four over roll-men. But what he did do was raise his TS% by almost 20 points over his regular-season performance. How you consider that to not stepping up in the playoffs is beyond me.
You're right in that I haven't come up with a criteria of what a "par offensive game" actually is from Danny, and I think any criteria would obviously be subjective, but not even using any specific criteria, just a quick comparison between his 2014 and 2016 runs shows a much more consistent and dangerous player, and one who didn't necessarily "swing the team's fortunes." He was just solidly effective (with a few outstanding games by role player standards).
And that 2014 performance is what got him that contract.
"Oh, 2014 was anomaly."
Check out his 2013 run. Similar consistency.
His regular season TS% was such a low bar, it had nowhere to go but up. I also already illustrated the flaw in only consider total averages and not looking how those averages were produced. Would you rather have a 25ppg player who gives you 25 each game? Or a 25ppg player who scores 50 this game and 0 the next? Over the long term, the former player will win your team more games.
Thinking ad homenims make you stronger.
This is just a non-sequitur. We know Green didn't play as well between May 2015 - April 2016 as he did from May 2014 to April 2015. That's obvious. What does that have to do with anything? Instead of arguing against fake assertion, why don't you address the real ones? And he totally swung the team in games in 2014. Who's trying to hide behind numbers now?You're right in that I haven't come up with a criteria of what a "par offensive game" actually is from Danny, and I think any criteria would obviously be subjective, but not even using any specific criteria, just a quick comparison between his 2014 and 2016 runs shows a much more consistent and dangerous player, and one who didn't necessarily "swing the team's fortunes." He was just solidly effective (with a few outstanding games by role player standards).
A bit, but not really. His regular-season performance in 2014-2015 did it more. Dude was putting up top-40 production that season. Had the Spurs missed the playoffs that season, Green would be making $15-17 Million somewhere else now. If anything, having four poor-shooting games in 2015 got him that contract.And that 2014 performance is what got him that contract.
For a second option? The former. For a fourth option? The latter. You shouldn't lose a series because your fourth option can't get you 15 a night. But you'll win almost any game when your fourth option drops 30 on the other team. Again, you're just proving why this thread's premise was stupid. You rate Green extremely highly -- more than most of his supporters do. You expect more of him that you are warranted to.His regular season TS% was such a low bar, it had nowhere to go but up. I also already illustrated the flaw in only consider total averages and not looking how those averages were produced. Would you rather have a 25ppg player who gives you 25 each game? Or a 25ppg player who scores 50 this game and 0 the next? Over the long term, the former player will win your team more games.
What I thought you implied with "swing the team's fortunes" was you think I want Danny playing like a fringe superstar offensively. He was nowhere near that level in 2014, obviously, but was still solidly consistent in a manner expected of good role players. That's all I ask from him. Nothing Danny did in 2013 and 2014 was anomalous relative to his talent.
I don't want 15 per night. I simply want 2013/14 Danny and regular season 2015 Danny. You have your Danny fanboy glasses on too tight if you think he was playing at or near that level these playoffs. And again, I don't care about his overall numbers. He propped up his numbers with 2 great performances.
Do I think he was the primary reason we lost the series? No. But I don't think he was up to par, either. And a par Danny gets us through that round.
This is the same damned strawman repeated over and over again. Since when do people have to constantly repeat their best playoff performance of their careers to keep from being 'detrimentally inconsistent'? You need to come up with a standard and stick to it. From what I see, Green had two exception shooting games, four adequate ones, one meh game and three incomplete games. That's fine. VERY fine for a guy who's supposed to be behind so many people.
This was once again shown to be false. If you take out the two best and two worst (which is standard data management), then he still shot 42 percent from deep. Even if you leave the two worst in there, he shot 40 percent from deep. There's just no way you can keep justifying this line of reasoning.I don't want 15 per night. I simply want 2013/14 Danny and regular season 2015 Danny. You have your Danny fanboy glasses on too tight if you think he was playing at or near that level these playoffs. And again, I don't care about his overall numbers. He propped up his numbers with 2 great performances.
And that shows how highly you rate him. Why aren't you saying that about Mills or Diaw?Do I think he was the primary reason we lost the series? No. But I don't think he was up to par, either. And a par Danny gets us through that round.
Last edited by Chinook; 07-01-2016 at 04:13 PM.
The only way I'd be okay with the Spurs trading Green is if they get Durant.
Danny is so unbelievably valuable for the money in the current market it really should be impossible to complain.
Because after Danny repeating his 2013 playoff run with another good run validated him, and it was expected he perform near that level from then on. Those games never came in-a-row, which is the point I'm trying to make to you that you keep ignoring. Anyhow, comparing Danny to similar players like JJ Re (.558TS% [playoffs]) and Kyle Korver (.578%), I think a par shooting performance for a player of this type would be around .550. Again, Danny didn't put two games together in-a-row in which he shot that number. Let's compare his consistency to Kyle Korver's this season, which is a good comparison since both players played the same amount of playoff games.
Kyle:
Danny:
I threw out Danny's game in which he only took 1 shot. Kyle also had a game in which he took only one shot, but he missed the attempt. As you can see, Kyle was much more consistent and even had a streak where he shot north of .800TS in 4 out of 5 games. Danny didn't come close to that type of consistency. And for overall consistency that doesn't consider streaks, Kyle met or exceeded "par" in 6 out of 9 games (dismissing his 1 shot attempt game), while Danny met or exceeded par in 4 out 9 games.
Key phrase. "From deep." I'm considering his overall shooting percentage. In his prior runs, he was much better finishing in-between. He shot 0 PERCENT from 10-16 feet this season in the playoffs. In 2014, he shot over 50% (and in both cases, he took a similar amount shots).
I would say Danny had a slightly below average run, which would define it as "detrimental" in my book (I think average Danny wins us the series). But he was only a small part of the equation. Our bench was the primary culprit, as I've stated numerous times on here. Duncan breaking down at the wrong time was also a key factor.
Agree with all points.Because after Danny repeating his 2013 playoff run with another good run validated him, and it was expected he perform near that level from then on. Those games never came in-a-row, which is the point I'm trying to make to you that you keep ignoring. Anyhow, comparing Danny to similar players like JJ Re (.558TS% [playoffs]) and Kyle Korver (.578%), I think a par shooting performance for a player of this type would be around .550. Again, Danny didn't put two games together in-a-row in which he shot that number. Let's compare his consistency to Kyle Korver's this season, which is a good comparison since both players played the same amount of playoff games.
Kyle:
Danny:
I threw out Danny's game in which he only took 1 shot. Kyle also had a game in which he took only one shot, but he missed the attempt. As you can see, Kyle was much more consistent and even had a streak where he shot north of .800TS in 4 out of 5 games. Danny didn't come close to that type of consistency. And for overall consistency that doesn't consider streaks, Kyle met or exceeded "par" in 6 out of 9 games (dismissing his 1 shot attempt game), while Danny met or exceeded par in 4 out 9 games.
Key phrase. "From deep." I'm considering his overall shooting percentage. In his prior runs, he was much better finishing in-between. He shot 0 PERCENT from 10-16 feet this season in the playoffs. In 2014, he shot over 50% (and in both cases, he took a similar amount shots).
I would say Danny had a slightly below average run, which would define it as "detrimental" in my book (I think average Danny wins us the series). But he was only a small part of the equation. Our bench was the primary culprit, as I've stated numerous times on here. Duncan breaking down at the wrong time was also a key factor.
Real shooters will always EMBARRASS DG.
Even though, I too, complain about his consistency, what you say is now so very true.
He's an amazing value right now. There's no way he should be traded off unless there's a sureshot improvement to the team involved (i.e. Durant).
Danny Green's defense is vastly overrated, as he's not nearly as good a defender as Bruce Bowen was, but even if he hadn't taken a discount, which allowed the Spurs to get Aldridge, his contract would be a huge ing bargain for what he produces. He had a disappointing regular season, but he was kick ass in the playoffs, and if everyone else had stepped up the way he did, there's no telling how far they would have advanced.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
