How Evan Turner can open up the Portland Trail Blazers' offense

The shear lassitude of the national media on the Turner signing is what I find most aggravating.

Last off season Neil Olshey replaced 4 starters with relatively unknown players, three of who were cast offs by their previous teams. Terry Stotts figured out how to make it all work - how to optimize those players' talents while covering for their weaknesses.

The result was an unexpectedly successful season that took nearly everyone in the national media by complete surprise. As a result Olshey and Stotts came in second in Executive of the Year and Coach of the Year voting.

I sort of get how the national media underestimated Olshey, Stotts and the team last year. What I don't get is how they can be similarly surprised two years in a row. Do they consider the success these two men and this team had last year purely a fluke?

It would seem so. Their analysis of the Turner signing starts and ends with the fact he is not a good 3-point shooter. It's like they think Neil and Terry are complete morons. I wasn't in the room, but I'm pretty sure, that at no point, did Terry turn to Neil and say, "you know what this team really needs is an overpaid guard who cant shot the 3".

So, there must have been some other reason the guys who came in second in EOY and COY decided to target Evan Turner. Sure, we missed out on Whiteside and Chandler Parsons. So, did a lot of other teams, but there were still a LOT of other free agents available when we signed Evan Turner. An inquisitive journalist would have asked, "Why did Olshey and Stotts target Evan Turner? What does he give them that they don't already have?"

Yet, I didn't see anyone in the national media ask, and attempt to answer, those questions. That's just plain lazy, and assuming Turner is a poor fit in Stotts' system because he's not a great 3-point shooter completely overlooks Turner's strengths, and how Terry Stotts can incorporate those strengths to make the team better as a whole. Basketball is still a team sport and this team proved last year that the sum can be greater than the whole of the parts. It's not about how good Evan Turner is individually. It's about how he can, and will, make this team better. The national media totally missed out on that.

BNM

 

"Turner came to Portland essentially to become its version of Shaun Livingston. "

I swear to god, I did not see this article until AFTER I made my Shaun Livingston comparison!

It's a good article and not simply because the author agrees with me. It's a good article because he did his research.

BNM

 

I'm baffled by their opinions as well. Did they not watch the series against golden state? In the last 15 games of the season and in the playoffs you saw major improvements in not only individual play but how the team was starting to gel and play within Terry's system. Two playoff series experience and another summer of bonding and they predict our regular season win total to increase by three? Absolutely crazy to me. I've watched every game last season along with probably every regular poster here and I feel as if 52+ wins and third in the west is where predictions for this team should start. I do really appreciate the slight though, just more fuel for the fire. And it's going to be fun watching all these water heads jump on our wagon about halfway through the season, while eating crow.

 

As Dame would say, "Thanks for the motivation".

BNM

 

#They

 

It's a little concerning for me that the says the midrange is the future of the NBA but he shoots less than 40% from midrange. I believe he did shoot quite well from the three in the 2nd half of the last season and I think Stotts wants him shooting more threes, not sure if he is buying in; I guess it's to early to know.

 

I found these comments especially interesting:


“When you’re in the playoffs, sometimes the midrange is the only shot you really have,” Turner said. “Especially from the defensive mind of the coaches. I know here, we like to give up the midrange. And in other situations, other teams like to give up the midrange, [too]. They’re betting on the analytics of it."

"If there’s one part of the court where Turner is truly excellent, it’s in the post. Turner scored 0.99 points per possession on post-up attempts last season, which put him in the 84th percentile among all players, and behind only Kevin Durant, Arron Afflalo, Kawhi Leonard, and Andrew Wiggins among perimeter-oriented players with at least 100 possessions in the post."

 

I am just curious if signing a smart player should always be considered a smart signing. Would Stephen Hawking be a smart signing? Anyway, I jest, but I'm very impressed with the basketball mind Evan Turner is offering here.

 

I don't agree with Turner's comment about the midrange being the future of the game. I do agree that it's a shot that is, and will always be, there for anyone who can knock it down. Back in the days when dominant low post centers roamed the earth, it was always there as teams used wing players to drop down and double team the big men. That created a defensive vacuum in the midrange area.

That defensive vacuum is even larger in today's analytics driven game where defenses focus on protecting the rim and running shooters off the 3-point line. It's viewed as a less efficient weapon than layups and 3-pointers. And, in general, it is for the fact that most players can't hit that shot at a decent percentage. However, for players that can, they can get wide open 13-17 footers all day long.

The problem is few players hit that shot at a high percentage, even when wide open, which seems bizarre as there are plenty of guys who can knock down an open 3 and shoot 90% from the line. I think the real issue is, because it's never been highlight reel material and now players are taught it's an inefficient shot, kids don't work on it growing up. Back when Michael Jordan burst on the scene, all anyone wanted to do was dunk like Mike. Now, with Steph Curry transcending the game, everyone wants to shoot the 3 like Steph. There hasn't been a transcendent player who was great in the midrange since maybe the 1960s or 70s. No kid growing up today says, damn, I want to grow up to have a midrange game like_________. So, it's neglected and no one works on it.

So, it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. No one can hit the midrange shot, so defenses always give it up and focus on the rim and 3-point line. If I was coaching kids in high school and college today, I'd make developing a midrange game a priority, especially for kids that lack the athleticism to be high flying dunkers and maybe lack the handles to create their own shots. Defenses will GIVE you that shot. All you have to do is knock it down.

So, maybe I just talked myself into agreeing with Turner. The midrange is the one area that is under exploited right now. If players start emerging on the scene that can consistently knock down that shot at > 50%, it will force defenses to adjust. Until then, the midrange jumper will remain wide open for the few players than can consistently make it. Which is why it can be such an effective weapon for a guy like Mason Plumlee. IF (big IF) Plums can consistently knock down that little elbow jumper, it will force opposing defenses to choose their poison.

BNM

 

Ha! That happens to me all the time. Yeah I think that was ET's point. As you said defenses adjust to what offenses are doing and if teams, like the Blazers, are giving up those shots to defend the 3 pt line and the post....then the next big trend/future...... is back to the mid range shot. CJ should benefit from this.

 

Here's a good read on the value of the midrange jumper in today's NBA:

Learning to love the NBA's middle: why the mid-range jumper still counts

The author makes some of the same points I did in my previous post, but also points out how the midrange jumper becomes even more important in the 4th quarter and during the post season.

BNM

 

Idle thought: ET is kind of the replacement for LaMarcus in our lineup, but doing all the things LaMarcus thought he could do but couldn't:

1 - Defending guards on switches, being the physical presence in the perimeter defense
2 - Midrange master, taking the open looks optimized defenses give up
3 - Post up threat, taking smaller defenders on mismatches down low
4 - Point Forward distributor, acting as the pivot point for the offense, freeing up spot shooters

We could see that LaMarcus was a PF who wanted to be an SF but needed to be a C to succeed. Turner is the SF LaMarcus thought he was.

 

I see him more of a cross between Nic and LA. I only disagree with you on #2

LaMarcus is a much better midrange shooter than ET. (or Nic)
ET attacks the basket much better than LA (and Nic) when receiving the ball outside the key.
ET is more of a point forward like Nic when passing off the dribble. Much better than LA
LA was not good at guarding players on the perimeter, although few PF/C are.
LA did struggle at times with smaller players guarding him. ET is much better

 

LaMarcus was a 42.5% shooter midrange in his last season for San Antonio; ET was 41.5% last season for Boston; Nic was 47.4% (Contract year) for Charlotte.

I'll retract ET's role there (since CJ is the best there anyway at 51.7%).

 

Interesting stats for sure.
But you got to admit there were many times for us when LA was just on fire from the floor. Unstoppable.
I doubt anyone has ever said that about Nic or ET.