Boston Celtics Hope To Stabilize Offense With Evan Turner

http://nepatstalk.com/boston-celtics-hope-stabalize-offense-evan-turner/




Boston Celtics Hope To Stabilize Offense With Evan Turner

July 21, 2014 Robert Hyland Reply



Multiple sources have reported that the Boston Celtics have agreed with a deal with the athletic free agent shooting guard Evan Turner. Turner was drafted by the Sixers second overall in the 2010 NBA draft and played in Philadelphia up until lasts season where he finished his season with the Indiana Pacers after being traded.

Turner being a free agent came as a surprise as many initially expected the Pacers would tender a qualifying offer for the 25 year old however due to personal reasons, presumably linked to Turner’s off court attitude, the Pacers let the scoring guard test the free agent market.

So now that Evan Turner is signed what does he immediately bring to the Boston Celtics?

1. A Wing Scorer Upgrade – Although many people would think of Kobe or Carmelo when thinking of isolation scorers Evan Turner has a similar ability to attack defenders and score. Turner’s abilities are very much the opposite of his new teammate Jeff Green who shies from the ball at times.Turner put his abilities on display best in the 2012-2013 season when he played in all 82 games for the Sixers averaging 13+ points and shooting 36% from deep, very good numbers when you take into account he only took 12 shots per game.

A versatile scorer Turner has shown the ability to both pull up and hit shots over defenders as well as use his tremendous length and athleticism to blow past defenders and finish inside.

2. Someone To Run – One of the most talked about points during the big three era in Boston was the teams inability to run the floor and get easy buckets in transition. With the addition of the 6’7” explosive leaping Evan turner along side loads of young talent that will no longer be the case at the TD Garden.

Arguably at his best in transition Evan turner has the luxury against recovering defenders to finish over and around the opposition at the hoop and will likely be on the receiving end of a handful of alley-oops this season with Rondo running point.

3. A Perimeter Defender – As previously stated Evan Turner is a smooth athlete and at 6’7” he can guard both the two guard and small forwards. Turner loves to get out into the passing lanes and reach in for steals which can create exciting plays defensively, but more importantly he has the length and quickness to stay with most wing players if he shows the determination.

4. Someone That Fits The Plan - Most free agent signings that arrive in Boston are players who are at the tail end of their prime yet this time the Celtics may have found a steal. Still only 25 Turner is just entering the beginning of hi prime and looked fantastic at the start of last season before being moved to Indiana.

Being part of such a young Celtics team Turner will get the ball often and with freedom to take the shots he likes. Being both young enough to grow with the team and skilled enough to fill a scoring role Evan Turner looks like a good signing in Boston.




bob




.

I previously suggested that we needed an upgrade for JG.

We have him in Turner.

Dboss

dboss wrote:I previously suggested that we needed an upgrade for JG.

We have him in Turner.  

Dboss

dboss,

You really think Turner is an upgrade over Jeff Green?



ob



.

ob,

I had read the Turner wasn't much of a perimeter shooter, but 36% doesn't sound all that bad.  Exciting offense and exciting defense too?  If anything will light a fire under Jeff, it could be this kid (IF Jeff stays with the team).  

Let's see now, slashing or jumpers?  Slashing or jumpers?  Geez, Turner could singlehandedly eradicate 25% of our Game-on gripes.

I just hope Brad won't tell him to go and stay in the corner like a bad boy.  I have to believe that won't happen.

Sam

Looks like Danny is committed to getting players to fit Steven's motion offense. It's good to see them both on the same page. Organizations where everyone is pulling in the same direction usually succeed. It may take awhile and if that superstar comes along that Danny can't resist we might see most of the present team traded away, but for now the strategy (born of necessity) seems to be to build with good young players who fit the system.

This requires patience from the fans. In spite of my somewhat advanced age, I'm willing to go along for the ride. It could be quite entertaining or it could be quite agonizing, but I'll be there no matter what.

Go Celtics!

bobheckler wrote:

dboss wrote:I previously suggested that we needed an upgrade for JG.

We have him in Turner.  

Dboss

dboss,

You really think Turner is an upgrade over Jeff Green?



ob



.

Bob

Yes I do think he is an upgrade over JG.

Dboss

dboss wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

dboss wrote:I previously suggested that we needed an upgrade for JG.

We have him in Turner.  

Dboss

dboss,

You really think Turner is an upgrade over Jeff Green?



ob



.

Bob

Yes I do think he is an upgrade over JG.  

Dboss

Me too. A slight one. With a good chance of being a significant one if Brad's system, and giving him an incentive-laden fresh start to rebuild his rep, motivates him to approach his potential.

Not quite ready to make any predictions about which player is an upgrade over whom.

However, I am always excited to see how a new player is integrated into the system.



KJ

For a team that needs some serious help in the scoring department, I don't see Turner being a significant up grade over the current cast of scorers. I like to measure a players scoring in terms of efficiency where I total a players field goal and free throw attempts per game and divide his points per game by this number. This past year Turner averaged 88.6 points per 100 shots and for his career has averaged 88.4 points per 100 shots. The league average this past year was 94.7 and the Celtics were at 91.9.  Of course he's still only in his mid twenties.  Now if I had to wager on my analysis or Ainge's basketball wisdom, put me down for 20 bucks on Danny.

swish

Swish,
While applauding your attempt to arrive at a rough way of comparing shooting efficiency, I respectfully have to point out some biasing factors in the system. 
1. The higher the proportion of shot attempts represented by free throw attempts (which are generally much easier/uncontested than the typical field goal attempt), the more a player’s final “score” is biased upward by the lower “degree of difficulty” of his shots.  For example, 42% of Jeff Green’s shot attempts this past season were free throws, while only 20% of Evan Turner’s shot attempts consisted of free throws.  That difference yields a very biased statistical advantage to Jeff in a comparison between their respective points per 100 shots.
 
2. It could be argued that a player’s points per 100 shots are inflated to the extent that a certain portion of his field goal attempts, if successful, count for 3 rather than only 2 points.  Last season, 34% of Jeff Green’s field goal attempts were three-pointers, compared to only 15% of Turner’s, giving Jeff an advantage.
 
3. On the other hand, the higher the proportion of field goal shot attempts represented by three-point attempts, the higher the average “degree of difficulty” of a player’s shots, which would tend to bias his points per 100 shots in a negative direction.  That fact gives Turner a “shooting efficiency” advantage over Jeff; and, on balance, it probably favors big men who play closer to the basket.
 
There may be other factors I haven’t identified, but these three are enough for me to feel that a lot of refinement would have to take place to make the “points per 100 shots” evaluative measure valid on a comparative basis.  Since two of the three factors I’ve listed give Jeff the advantage, I’d have to conclude that the nature of the comparison is biased slightly in Jeff’s favor.  And, since your formula produces results of 90.5 points per 100 shots for Jeff and 88.6 points 100 shots for Turner (a relatively tiny differential), it is fair to conjecture that Turner—absent a great change in his shooting habits—would not be dramatically more or less an efficient shooter than Jeff.
 
Obviously, shooting efficiency (however measured) is only one of many factors that would have to be considered in any comparisons of the two players.  Everything from ballhandling ability (not a strength of Jeff) to defensive ability (I’d have to see more of Turner to weigh in on that) should be considered, along with an appraisal of how each of them would fit into Brad’s desired offensive and defensive schemes.
 
By the way, just for the heck of it, I calculated the shooting efficiency for each Celtics rotation player this past season (using your formula—I hope I did it justice).  I’ve listed them below, along with the percentage of each player’s shots that were free throws and the percentage of each player’s field goal attempts that were from behind the arc.  (I also included Turner although he was not with the Celts.)  Guess who scored best on your efficiency index, despite being at a disadvantage by shooting a substantial proportion of threes and relatively few free throws.  Yup, I knew you’d guess right. It was Courtney Lee.

I bolded four stats that really stuck out for me.  Others are free to draw their own conclusions. 
 
Lee: 107.8 points per 100 shots, 11% of shots were free throws, 28% of FGA were 3-pointers

Olynyk: 97.3 points per 100 shots, 20% of shots were free throws, 23% of FGA were 3-pointers

Johnson: 97.3 pts per 100 shots, 17% of shots were free throws, 59% of FGA were 3-pointers

Humph: 95.7 points per 100 shots, 24% of shots were free throws, <1% of FGA were 3-pointers

Bradley: 95.1 pts per 100 shots, 12% of shots were free throws, 24% of FGA were 3-pointers

Bayless: 94.7 pts per 100 shots, 14% of shots were free throws, 34% of FGA were 3-pointers

Bass: 94.5 points per 100 shots, 25% of shots were free throws, <1% of FGA were 3-pointers

Crawford: 92.3 pts per 100 shots, 23% of shots were free throws, 35% of FGA were 3-pointers

Green: 90.5 points per 100 shots, 42% of shots were free throws, 34% of FGA were 3-pointers

Sully: 89.1 points per 100 shots, 18% of shots were free throws, 23% of FGA were 3-pointers

Wallace: 90.0 pts per 100 shots, 30% of shots were free throws, 28% of FGA were 3-pointers

Vitor: 89.1 points per 100 shots, 20% of shots were free throws, 27% of FGA were 3-pointers

Rondo: 83.9 pts per 100 shots, 16% of shots were free throws, 26% of FGA were 3-pointers

Pressey: 71.5 pts per 100 shots, 15% of shots were free throws, 42% of FGA were 3-pointers
 
Sam

Interesting stats, Sam.

Thinking back, I always thought Lee did a pretty decent job on offense. He had a few slumps but overall was an effective player on offense.



KJ

Sam

It will take me a while to fully understand, if ever, your points on bias etc. Not that your points are not 100% accurate but simply a case of my not being smart enough to catch on to the reasoning. I will say that on your first point I would point out that it does reward those players that get to the free thrown line frequently and shoot a high percentage. At the same time it punishes players like Wilt, Howard and Shaq that are huge liabilities at the line. It also rewards accurate 3 point shooting. Some of the better shooters get well over the 100 points per 100 shots mark. In any event--- for whatever its worth--- swish

Swish,

You're right about your system rewarding good free throw shooting and penalizing poor free throw shooting.  I guess I have difficulty conceiving of free throws in the same manner as field goal attempts when it comes to measures of efficient shooting.  A player can get be awarded two free throws without even attempting a field goal, and I have difficulty reconciling that with efficient shooting.  But, if the system works for you, that's great.

If you ever do figure out everything I said, perhaps you'd explain it to me.  Sometimes I just type random words.

Sam

dboss wrote:I previously suggested that we needed an upgrade for JG.

We have him in Turner.  

Dboss

I think it's highly possible we do have an upgrade here.

Furthermore, when you look at it, our man Danny has done a good job of looking for value at SF/wing without obligating us to very much.

To sum it up in an ineloquent way, wing is where the league is at.  Point is certainly critical, center has become almost a luxury to many teams, and is on it's way to not even being officially called center any more.  Wing, especially in the context of SF, is what gets you that shiny trophy at season's end.  As such, it's hard to find polished talent under favorable terms, if it can be found at all.

In Turner, we have a young player who may be able contribute the offense we sorely need, but if it doesn't work out it's easy enough to lose him.  With Young, we have long-term potential to develop, and on a rookie contract.  While we're playing out the string with Wallace and perhaps Green, we can bring Young along at any pace we need.  With The Spurs now being nearly two decades in on their run of showing how to run an NBA franchise, I'll compliment Mr. Ainge by saying how very San Antonio of him to search this way.

Interesting how a guy can go from a cancer who destroyed the Pacers' chemistry immediately upon his arrival, never found a place in their rotation, and the worst PER of any player with 8,000+ minutes the past for years to an upgrade over the Celtics' leading scorer.

Evan Turner/36mpg, career:


FG---FGA---FG%--3P---3PA---3P%---2P---2PA---2P%---FT---FTA---FT%---ORB---DRB---TRB---AST---STL---BLK---TOV---PF---PTS
5.5--13.0--.427---0.5---1.7---.326---5.0---11.3--.442---2.2--2.9---.770----0.8----5.8---6.5----3.9----0.9---0.2----2.3---2.6---13.8



Jeff Green/36mpg, career:

FG---FGA---FG%--3P---3PA---3P%---2P---2PA---2P%---FT---FTA---FT%---ORB---DRB---TRB---AST---STL---BLK---TOV---PF---PTS
5.8--13.1---.441--1.1---3.3---.344---4.6--9.8----.473---2.9--3.8----.783---1.2----4.4----5.6---1.8----0.9----0.7---2.0---2.7---15.6



Gerald Wallace/36mpg, BOSTON ONLY:  (he isn't the player he used to be, even he admits it)

FG---FGA---FG%--3P---3PA---3P%---2P---2PA---2P%---FT---FTA---FT%---ORB---DRB---TRB---AST---STL---BLK---TOV---PF---PTS
2.9--5.8---.504---0.5---1.6---.297---2.5---4.2---.584---1.2---2.6---.465---0.9----4.5----5.4----3.6---1.9----0.4---2.5----2.0--7.6




bob
MY NOTE:  Evan Turner's going to "stabilize the offense"?  Maybe if he replaces Gerald Wallace on the depth chart.  I'm not sure I agree with him vaulting over Green. With 32 year old Gerald Wallace (yesterday was his birthday) coming back from knee surgery, I think he'll have his chances.



.

Outside wrote:Interesting how a guy can go from a cancer who destroyed the Pacers' chemistry immediately upon his arrival, never found a place in their rotation, and the worst PER of any player with 8,000+ minutes the past for years to an upgrade over the Celtics' leading scorer.

Outside,

Although that does initially seem at odds with him being a potentially good pickup, I'm with those subscribing to the theory there was more going on behind the scenes last year.  I think there could be something to the thought that the transaction sat badly with Turner (especially with the acrimony with Stephenson) and that he wasn't thrilled the way contract negotiations were going with Philly, prior to the trade, to begin with.  I do think what he showed with the 76ers in 12-13 was the start of Turner showing his NBA growth and game.  Since he's on the cheap, and we know he has shown he has skills needed in what (we think) Stevens wants to run, I think it's worth giving him a shot.  I think a change to a system that would incorporate him in a way that would utilize his ability to run, score and rebound, combined with the fact he seems smart enough to know he won't get many more chances, makes him a very safe pickup with much more upside.  I don't think what he showed at Ohio State or the progress he showed in his one NBA season starting all 82 games was a fluke. Given the opportunity, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see his scoring and rebounding top Green. I think Turner is a more efficient passer as well.

Regards

NYCelt,

I also think there was more going on behind the scenes in Indy and that Turner's arrival and Indy's slide was likely coincidence and not causation. I also think Turner has significant potential and may in fact wind up better than Green in the long run, though I'm not ready to make that call just yet.

My post wasn't about that but more about the characterization of Turner in the media. I should have made the "media" part of that clear.

Outside,

I get your meaning. Heck, I'm just happy that Danny is willing to try what appears to be a reclamation project (Turner) or untapped potential (Zeller) rather than sitting around waiting for the phone to ring.  I like to keep moving forward, and sometimes 'ready-fire-aim' is more the order of the day!

Regards

I have always liked Turner's offensive game but I have heard he is terrible defensive player. He is a slasher to the basket, has a nice mid-range game and is a pretty good rebounder.

I was confused why Philly gave him away at the trade deadline and why he couldn't get into the Pacers rotation. There has to be more to his game then what we can see by PPG, RPG, APG or PER...

I found this article about how poor his defense was for Philly.
How he was by far, statistically the worst defensive player on the team.

I think Jeff's Green's SF starting job is safe as in my opinion, Jeff is a very good defensive player, even though he is inconsistent on offense.

Here's the article that was written about Turner's defense when he was in Philly:
http://www.libertyballers.com/2013/12/20/5218674/evan-turners-defense-philadelphia-76ers-michael-carter-williams

tjmakz wrote:I have always liked Turner's offensive game but I have heard he is terrible defensive player. He is a slasher to the basket, has a nice mid-range game and is a pretty good rebounder.

I was confused why Philly gave him away at the trade deadline and why he couldn't get into the Pacers rotation. There has to be more to his game then what we can see by PPG, RPG, APG or PER...

I found this article about how poor his defense was for Philly.
How he was by far, statistically the worst defensive player on the team.

I think Jeff's Green's SF starting job is safe as in my opinion, Jeff is a very good defensive player, even though he is inconsistent on offense.

Here's the article that was written about Turner's defense when he was in Philly:
http://www.libertyballers.com/2013/12/20/5218674/evan-turners-defense-philadelphia-76ers-michael-carter-williams

I have a problem with this article: The plural for three is not three's. It is threes. That's just the editor in me coming out...

This is one situation in which I don't think past stats tell anything close to the entire story.  What Turner has done elsewhere could have very little to do with how he could become "enabled" with the Celtics.  For one thing, I believe his skill set is more adaptable to a motion offense than Jeff Green's is.  Better ballhandling, great propensity to move without the ball, and (arguably) better slashing ability.

In this case (though not necessarily all cases) historical stats schmatz.  It's all about the team.....how much a given player can thrive in a given system and how much a given system can thrive by incorporating a given player.  We've seen a season when an offensive system never really got off the ground, and Jeff Green was part of that.  Certainly not the only factor or anything close to it.  But part of it.  If Turner sticks around, it will be interesting to see how Brad's system operates with Evan as part of it.

Sam

TJ,

Drives me nuts too.  We're an apostrophe-happy society where plurals are concerned.  But that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of grammar, punctuation and word misuse among many of today's journalists.

Sam

And if Evan Turner is marginally better than Jeff this year, will there be widespread applause?

Will he be criticized for not being the team's "go-to guy?"



KJ