His Offense. He was clearly better the year before - I suspect that losing all that weight requires him for some adjustment. He does not need to become a focal point of the offense, but if he can just convert at a higher rate near the basket - he will become a much better player.
Yeah, maybe he can increase his conversion rate to a point equal to a guy who just got a 4.5M deal... OK, I just needed one more. I'm done now.
I realize contracts have been stunted because the cap situation. In fact, because of the money offered a couple years ago, contracts have been unusually “cheap” (if there’s such a thing in pro sports). Like there’s been an “over correction”. With the cap growing the next couple years, I can see that contracts will probably jump a bit again. Mozgov anyone? All that being said, it’s probably a little bit of an overpay, but I still think it’s pretty reasonable overall. I wouldn’t feel like we got fucked (like Meyers’ or ET’s deals).
keep in mind their is a really large increase in capspace available next summer and it also the league cap is expected to increase to 109 mil as well, and the yr after that should be big as well as all the 2016 horrid contracts come off the books, this is not great deal or a bad one, is "fair" IMO and if Nurk improves could be really good
If this is true, he'll be making less than Timofey Mosgov over the next two years. Seems like Nurk isn't the one being overpaid. Anyone know if the third year is a team option or a player option? With all of Turner, Meyers and Moe coming off the books in two more years, it seems like the team would want that as a team option for Nurk as well. BNM
Did you read where I said: “With the cap growing the next couple years, I can see that contracts will probably jump a bit again.”
The Blazers have always overpaid. Out of necessity. If anything, they've overpaid less over the last few years, ET and Meyers being the notable exceptions.
You are comparing a role player off the bench that played about 17 mpg on a bad team to a guy that was a starter and played 26mpg for a 3rd seeded team in the west. https://www.basketball-reference.co...rkic&y2=2018&player_id2=nurkiju01&idx=players
Good thing Nurk isn't an average player. He may not be perfect. He still has room to improve (which is a good thing), but he's most definitely above average. He transformed our defense from bottom 7 to top 8 in a single season. That alone makes him an above average contributor. It's hard to measure individual defensive impact based on stats, but Nurk was top 10 in multiple defensive areas, including a couple advanced stats. He was 10th in the league in BLKS and 10th in BLK/G. He was 7th in DRtg and 9th in DWS. With guys like Rudy Gobert and Anthony Davis ahead of him, he's not going to make 1st or 2nd team All Defense anytime soon, but he's actually one of the better defenders in the league. He anchors POR's defense, and while Aminu may be a better 1-on-1 defender, Nurk has more of an impact on team defense. Remember, we were a HORRIBLE defensive team, even with Aminu, before Nurk arrived. I don't want to go back to sucking that badly on defense - ever. Offensively, he still needs to work on finishing around the basket, but was much improved over the second half of the season. Here's Nurk's shooting percentages by month: October = .400 November = .482 December = .425 January = .520 February = .540 March = .576 April = .549 He clearly improved after a slow start. Over the last 4 months of the season (47 games) his FG% was .547. That's a significant sample size, and if he'd shot that well for the entire season, he would have finished 12th in the league in FG%. Not bad for a guy who doesn't get nearly as many lobs as guys like Clint Capela and DeAndre Jordan. And this is a considered a weakness and an area when he can further improve! Even with the slow start, he finished 25th in the league in FG%. I realize that PER has it's flaws. For one, it highly favors offensive production over defensive production. So, I would never use it as a one-size-fits-all measure of a player's contribution. I would also never use it to compare the production of players who play significantly different roles (for example, comparing an end of bench player who only plays during garbage time - a small sample size superstar - to a starter). That said, Nurk's PER of 19.2 is significantly above the league average of 15.0. And, remember, this is an offense heavy stat. Of the 259 players who played enough minutes to qualify, Nurk's PER of 19.2 ranked 39th in the league. Does that make him the 39th best player in the league. No, it does not. But, I do believe it qualifies him as far above average. So, above average on both offense and defense == an above average player. BNM
He got conned into over-paying for Crabbe. Hark is getting a bonus for what he could be, not the inconsistent player he is.
