No, just a fan trying to understand why NO chose Turner, what Turner's strengths are as a player, and how he might fit into the Blazers.
Here are DRtg for the list, plus the Blazer wings from last year, plus Nic and Wes from their Blazer years: basketball-reference: Turner 104 Bradley 106 Butler 106 George 101 Leonard 96 Aminu 107 Harkless 108 Crabbe 110 Batum 107 (Blazer career) Matthews 110 (Blazer career) Here, Turner compares favorably to all but Leonard and George, who rates higher here than the detailed analysis I did yesterday. He is also better than Nic and Wes. His DRtg was around 4 points per 100 possessions better than last year's Blazer wings, which is significant
Here's another question for you stats guys: how does Turner compare to Parsons? Obviously, Parsons is the better offensive player, but as Olshey's first free agent target, how does Parsons stack up against Turner? Was Olshey mainly looking to bolster the defensive prowess of the Blazers, or was that just a secondary thing that Turner happened to bring to the table?
It is now obvious that Olshey was trying to make the roster a better one defensively, without hurting the offense.
Parson does not compare to Turner on defense. What Parson is better is shooting the 3 ball. I like Turner better due to he more rounded the Parson on his overall game. I see Turner increase his points this year to 15-17 points a game. His stats will be 15/6/6.
Once again, just the top two play types by sample size: Spot Up: 20% of NBA possessions Turner 85.0% Parsons 64% Ball Handler: 17% of NBA possessions Turner 92.3% Parsons 76.7 Parsons is known as a good 2-way payer, which is exactly what this team needs. He's not a lockdown defender, but passable to the point of probably being better than average. At, least he doesn't suck on defense and would have given us a reliable 3rd option on offense to take some defensive pressure off Dame and C.J. If Parsons was Neil's Plan A and Turner his Plan B, I'm cool with that. Parsons is a better shooter/scorer, but Turner is a better distributor/defender. 3 and D guys are all the rage these days, and many of them vastly overpaid. Turner lacks the 3-point shooting to fit the latest buzzword, he's more of a create and D guy, which given we have so many other 3-point shooters may end up being a better fit for this team than a guy like Parsons. BNM
I wouldn't get too excited about that. Paul George is still a better defender and a MUCH better offensive player. He's also a max player and wasn't available. As I stated in a previous post, these play type stats suffer from small sample sizes. In some play types, even a full season's worth of data produces a very small sample size. Because of this, they are also dependent on position, role, defensive assignment and quality of opponent. For example, Paul George is a bigger player. Basketball-reference still lists him as a SF, but he played 39% of his minutes last season at PF (in the playoffs, he played 67% of his minutes at PF). So, that means, for example, when IND plays CLE, Paul George is tasked with guarding LeBron James. Not so for Evan Turner, he ends up guarding a smaller, perimeter player, like J.R. Smith (in this case). Obviously, LeBron James is a MUCH better offensive player than J.R. Smith, a one-dimensional, streaky shooter. So, Paul George could actually do a good job on LeBron and hold him below his season scoring average, but still get "lit up" for 25 points. Because Smith runs hot and cold, he could easily end up going 2-9 from 3-point range for 6 points. Was that Turner's defense, or Smith's streaky shooting? Hard to say, but at the end of the day, it makes Turner look like a defensive stud, whether he deserves the credit or not. And, because the sample sizes are so small, one exceptionally cold shooting night from a volume shooter like Smith can have a statistically significant impact on Turner's play type defensive numbers. Point being, don't read TOO much into these stats. As I said earlier, they are somewhat useful, and certainly interesting, for players who play similar minutes and similar roles. But, you still need to look at other advanced stats, defensive assignment, quality of opponent, use the eye test, and most of all, common sense. I'm thrilled we got Evan Turner, he's a good defender and a good distributor - TWO things this team needed. Still, I'd take Paul George in a heartbeat, for his defense alone, over Evan Turner. And, I think pretty much every GM in the league would too, if given that option. Edit: Here's a few more. more established (but not necessarily more "accurate" defensive metrics comparing George and Turner): DRtg: Paul George: 2015-16 = 101 Career = 99 Evan Turner: 2015-16 = 104 Career = 105 DWS: Paul George: 2015-16 = 4.8 Career = 22.8 Evan Turner: 2015-16 = 3.0 Career = 14.8 DBPM: Paul George: 2015-16 = 1.0 Career = 1.8 Evan Turner: 2015-16 = 1.3 Career = 1.5 STL/G: Paul George: 2015-16 = 1.9 Career = 1.7 Evan Turner: 2015-16 = 1.0 Career = 0.8 STL% Paul George: 2015-16 = 2.7 Career = 2.7 Evan Turner: 2015-16 = 1.7 Career = 1.5 Opponent PER (from 82games.com): Paul George: 2015-16 = 14.2 2014-15 = 6.1 (small sample size, only played 6 games due to injury) 2013-14 = 12.3 2012-13 = 11.2 Evan Turner: 2015-16 = 12.2 2014-15 = 14.4 2013-14 = 15.8 IND, 15.0 PHI 2012-13 = 15.4 George has been 1st or 2nd team All Defense three times, Turner zero. George is regularly among the top 10 in steals, DRtg, and Defensive Win Shares. Turner has never finished in the top 20 in any of these, or any other, defensive category. The good news is Turner's defense has been steadily improving. George's defense hasn't quite returned to the elite level he was at prior to his injury, but he is still a top 20 defender in the league. BNM
Seems obvious to me that Neil sees the writing on the wall and is building a highly versatile, long, athletic, defensive team to stop (or at least slow down) the Warriors. Turner Crabbe Harkless Aminu All wings that can play multiple positions and defend.
I don't think it's just the Warriors, I think it's a good plan, in general. Traditional positions are being blurred a replaced by roles and skill sets. Such is the world of analytics. Having versatile players with complementary skill sets gives the coach flexibility for different opponents and different situations. BNM
The entire league seems to be trending towards smaller lineups with bigs that can shoot/pass/switch on the pick and roll. The old ground and pound style of the 90's is a thing of the past.
Aminu holds James to 11 points that make him defense stud. No but Paul George is star of the game. I really care less to stats and I wouldn't compare Turner to George because right George is better. This is what i care about is what Turner brings to us. He is upgrade to what we have period. Plus I never can see George in Blazer uniform.
Turner is not even close to being the level of defender that PG is. Come on, now. This is a classic case of the stats hiding more than they reveal. Just watch the games!
It's even more recent than the 90s. As recently as 10 years ago, teams built around dominant big men (Shaq and Duncan) were still winning titles - and they weren't doing it by playing small ball and making record numbers of 3-pointers. In the olden days (10 or 12 years ago), the most efficient way to score was still to pound the ball into the low post. The closer you were to the basket, the higher the shooting percentage and the more likely you were to earn a trip to the line. Shaq was still the most dominant player in the game and Duncan was Mr. Fundamentals on the low block. Back then, the evolutionary arms race was bigger and stronger. If your opponent had a dominant scorer that was 6'10" 250, the solution was to get a defender that was 7'0" 270. The league wide 3FG% has remained remarkably steady (generally between .350 and .360) for the last 20 years. But what has increased dramatically, is the number of made 3FGs. The number of made 3-pointers has steadily increased year, after year, after year. 9 years ago, the average number of made 3-pointers was 498 per team. In 2015-16, it was a record 698 made 3-pointers per team. Teams used to have 1 or 2 three point specialists. Now, most teams have 3 or 4 quality 3-point shooters in their starting line up with one or two more coming off the bench. It's not unheard of these days for a team to actually have 5 legitimate 3-point threats on the court at once. In today's analytics driven game, the most efficient way to score is no longer getting as close to the basket as possible, it's the 3-point shot - specifically, the catch and shoot 3-pointer, when the shooter has his feet set and shoulders square to the basket. Pounding the ball into the low post kills player movement and ball movement, which are both key to getting open catch and shoot 3-pointers. Teams replaced their traditional low post power forwards with stretch 4s. Now, we have stretch 5s and small ball centers. 10 years ago, a dominant low post scorer could still carry his team to the finals. Now, the best low post big man in the game can't even get his team out of the lottery. The pendulum has swung. Part of the problem is there aren't any Shaqs or Duncans. It was the perfect storm for a great shooting team like GSW to win 73 games fueled by a small ball lineup featuring a 6'8" small ball center combined with some of the best 3-point shooters the league has ever seen. The days of the catch and shoot 3-pointer are here to stay, but there will be other dominant big men at some point. Hell, CLE showed you can beat the greatest small ball line up the league gas ever seen by attacking the paint. CLE outscored GSW by an average of 17 points in the paint over the last 3 games of the series for a historic comeback from down 3-1. Even though you can shoot the 3-pointer, you still need to be able to defend the rim. With no one over 6'8" manning the paint, CLE attacked the rim with impunity. Sometimes, you can go too small and it bites you in the ass. The layup (or dunk) is still the highest percentage shot in the game. Give up too many of those and you'll lose, even if you are the greatest 3-point shooting team in the history of the world. BNM
Yep, that's the best thing about Turner - he plays for us. Still, if there is ever an opportunity for a consolidation trade for a great 2-way player like Paul George, you jump all over it. Our two best scorers are weak defenders. We don't need lock down defenders at every position, but we do need good defenders at other positions to make up for Dame and C.J.'s weak defense. But, we also can't afford to play 2-5 on offense as other teams will just swarm Dame and C.J. and dare other players to beat them. That's why Hordford, Millsap, Butler and George were all on my wish list for the offseason. All of those guys would have vastly improved our defense while also improving our offense. They were all pipe dreams, but I can also understand why Neil was (allegedly) interested in Parsons (good 3rd scorer, decent defender). In the end, Turner may not be a great scorer, but he's a very solid defender that will help make it easier for his teammates to score on the other end. Not the two-way superstar I'd hoped for, but still a guy who will improve our team at both ends of the court - and that's a good thing. BNM
super small but great line up lillard crabbe turner harkless aminu i bet they crush just about any team that doesnt have a dominant big. 4 good defenders, 2 good distributors/ball handlers lots of good shooting, lots of slashing to the basket
THANKS for looking into this. I agree that defensive stats are not so precise. And that George is taller, and gives him the versatility to defend bigger players. My main point is that the stats, no matter how imprecise, indicate that Turner is a very good defender, and better than any Blazer wing last year or in the recent past.
You don't need a dominant big to destroy that lineup. Pretty much anyone 6'11 with a pulse will do. Sure, its fun to envision that group running around the court launching long range missiles, but in the real world, you'd never get away with playing that group together for more than 5 minutes. It's not even the lack of height that would do them in, it's the complete lack of bulk. There isn't s single player in that group that can root Jonas Valanciunas off the low block or keep Cole Aldrich off the offensive glass. Forget dominant big men like DeMarcus Cousins, DeAndre Jordan, Karl-Anthony Towns, Anthony Davis and Andre Drummond, the Marcin Gortats, Andrew Boguts and Greg Monroes of this world would feast on that line up. Remember, in order to get out and run, you need to do two things - stop the other team and secure the rebound. That lineup wouldn't be able to do either. Average NBA big men would kill them in the paint and on the glass. Every NBA team has at least one, or two, guys on their roster that would have a field day against that group. We have a surplus of bigs. That's an advantage. I'm not saying we never play small ball, but let's not get ridiculous. Plumlee, with his passing ability, makes a good small ball center, but he's an ACTUAL center that can rebound and protect the rim. So, use him as one surrounded by 4 shooters. BNM
Oh, I agree. I'm not disputing your conclusions, just refuting the notion that Evan Turner "stomps" on Paul George in every defensive stat. BNM
Last year, Golden State and Boston played 2 games. Basketball-Reference's Head2Head tool shows that Klay Thompson shot 15/39 on FG (38%) and 4/16 on 3P (25%) when matched up with Evan Turner. Small sample size, but still good news, and perhaps some insight into why NO brought Turner in
