turner has not only been good

[bogg]

Not to be the debbie downer - but he is the only regular rotation player on the team that has a worse net rating when he is on the court versus off it.

Your eyes are not facts.

Numbers are. 

There is nothing flawed about the numbers that say a team scored more points than the other in a basketball game. 

When Evan Turner is on the floor for the Celtics, the Celtics are not as good at scoring more points than the other team. 

None of this is "contrived."  The game is literally about putting the ball into the basket, and we use numbers to count these things up.  But tell me more about your eyes.

This isn't entirely fair, as the team's overall net rating (3.0) is better than the net rating when both Smart (2.6) and Jerebko (2.9) are on the floor as well, but for all three of those guys the team's defensive net rating is better when they're on the floor than the overall rating, and the offensive net rating is worse - that just sort of tells us what we already know from watching the games, that the second string (specifically, when Isaiah isn't on the floor) defends opposing benches really well but struggles to score.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the team playing better when Turner is off the floor isn't necessarily evidence that Turner makes the team worse. The need for a secondary ballhandler/creator on the roster should be painfully obvious to anyone watching the games, and for better or worse Turner's the best option on the roster there. Shaun Livingston, a guy whose role in GS is (in my opinion) roughly comparable to what Turner does for the second unit, also has a net rating a few points worse than the Warriors' overall net rating, but that doesn't mean that the Warriors would be well served cutting ties with him this summer.

I like Turner.  I want him on this team.  But the observation that the team is at its best when he is NOT on the court is completely accurate.

That is not a knock on him either.  Maybe the can build a roster that makes his presence on the court essential. I hope they do.  But right now, on this team, that is not the case.

Well, again, I think you're looking at a number and misunderstanding what it actually says. Obviously the team would be at its best if both Isaiah and Crowder could play 48 minutes a night without concern for fatigue, injury, or fouls, but that's fantasy land. In the real world, SOMEONE has to be on the court when either of those two guys aren't, and with this current squad that's usually Evan. The comparison you're making is Turner versus the team's very best five-man lineup, but that's wrong - it's Turner the primary ballhandler and creator against Smart and Rozier (who aren't ready yet) and Turner the defender of elite small forwards against Jerebko(who's too slow) and Hunter/Young (neither of whom knows what they're doing there) that you should be considering. If they can replace him this summer with guys who do those jobs better, then that's great (keep in mind you probably have to pay two guys to do his job), but the idea that he somehow makes this squad worse is simply rooted in a misreading of the numbers.

[the TRUTH]

I want Turner to come back next year...but at the right price. He could very well turn out to be an elite 6th man, but I would still hate to see Danny overpay him.

Completely agree.

Ainge is looking to hit home runs this offseason. He's proven that he's not satisfied with making the playoffs and advancing a round or two. He's shooting for titles, as he should be. With that in mind, I think the big question he'll ask himself when evaluating every player currently on our roster and every player he considers adding to the roster is whether that guy is good enough in a particular role for us to win a title with him.

When it comes to Turner, if someone is willing to pay him at a level that's higher than where Ainge rates him when it comes to a championship team, then letting Turner walk may be necessary. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[the TRUTH]

I want Turner to come back next year...but at the right price. He could very well turn out to be an elite 6th man, but I would still hate to see Danny overpay him.

Completely agree.

Ainge is looking to hit home runs this offseason. He's proven that he's not satisfied with making the playoffs and advancing a round or two. He's shooting for titles, as he should be. With that in mind, I think the big question he'll ask himself when evaluating every player currently on our roster and every player he considers adding to the roster is whether that guy is good enough in a particular role for us to win a title with him.

When it comes to Turner, if someone is willing to pay him at a level that's higher than where Ainge rates him when it comes to a championship team, then letting Turner walk may be necessary. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

To expand upon this, every GM says they're trying to build a championship team, but the expectation levels vary from team to team. With some teams, it's perfectly acceptable for a GM's team to make the playoffs every year and get bounced in the first or second round. With the Celtics, anything short of a title is a failure (unless it's an obvious rebuilding year). There may very well be some GM's around the league that know that Turner can just about guarantee that they'll be in the mix for a playoff spot for the next several years, and that buys those GM's some additional job security. Those teams are likely to be willing to overpay for Turner, while Ainge has less incentive to do so since he has higher expectations/aspirations for the C's.

[CoachBo]

Not to be the debbie downer - but he is the only regular rotation player on the team that has a worse net rating when he is on the court versus off it.

Your eyes are not facts.

Numbers are. 

There is nothing flawed about the numbers that say a team scored more points than the other in a basketball game. 

When Evan Turner is on the floor for the Celtics, the Celtics are not as good at scoring more points than the other team. 

None of this is "contrived."  The game is literally about putting the ball into the basket, and we use numbers to count these things up.  But tell me more about your eyes.

This isn't entirely fair, as the team's overall net rating (3.0) is better than the net rating when both Smart (2.6) and Jerebko (2.9) are on the floor as well, but for all three of those guys the team's defensive net rating is better when they're on the floor than the overall rating, and the offensive net rating is worse - that just sort of tells us what we already know from watching the games, that the second string (specifically, when Isaiah isn't on the floor) defends opposing benches really well but struggles to score.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the team playing better when Turner is off the floor isn't necessarily evidence that Turner makes the team worse. The need for a secondary ballhandler/creator on the roster should be painfully obvious to anyone watching the games, and for better or worse Turner's the best option on the roster there. Shaun Livingston, a guy whose role in GS is (in my opinion) roughly comparable to what Turner does for the second unit, also has a net rating a few points worse than the Warriors' overall net rating, but that doesn't mean that the Warriors would be well served cutting ties with him this summer.

I like Turner.  I want him on this team.  But the observation that the team is at its best when he is NOT on the court is completely accurate.

That is not a knock on him either.  Maybe the can build a roster that makes his presence on the court essential. I hope they do.  But right now, on this team, that is not the case.

Well, again, I think you're looking at a number and misunderstanding what it actually says. Obviously the team would be at its best if both Isaiah and Crowder could play 48 minutes a night without concern for fatigue, injury, or fouls, but that's fantasy land. In the real world, SOMEONE has to be on the court when either of those two guys aren't, and with this current squad that's usually Evan. The comparison you're making is Turner versus the team's very best five-man lineup, but that's wrong - it's Turner the primary ballhandler and creator against Smart and Rozier (who aren't ready yet) and Turner the defender of elite small forwards against Jerebko(who's too slow) and Hunter/Young (neither of whom knows what they're doing there) that you should be considering. If they can replace him this summer with guys who do those jobs better, then that's great (keep in mind you probably have to pay two guys to do his job), but the idea that he somehow makes this squad worse is simply rooted in a misreading of the numbers.

Outstanding post, Bogg, that illustrates the major mistake made when people allow sabremetrics to take over their analysis of basketball. Numbers are hardly facts, in and of themselves, and they are subject to willful misinterpretation, let alone the absurdity of relying on the scoreboard to define an individual player's worth in a team sport.

The game cannot be accurately evaluated by a set of numbers, and that is fact, unless the numbers are considered in the correct context - which they have most assuredly not been in the Turner discussion, as you accurately point out - and then folded into other intangible factors which cannot be accurately measured by any number.

Turner is, without question, an asset to this club, for many of the reasons you point out. That is beyond clear to the eye test, as well.

I categorically reject sabremetrics in general, and especially in these swing role instances filled by players like Turner, because they provide only a piece of the puzzle at best, a superficial and incomplete look at a player's value that leads analytics-based front offices down an error-filled path. Either you know what you're watching with Evan Turner, or you don't.

TP.

[Chief]

I want Turner to come back next year...but at the right price. He could very well turn out to be an elite 6th man, but I would still hate to see Danny overpay him.

Completely agree.

Ainge is looking to hit home runs this offseason. He's proven that he's not satisfied with making the playoffs and advancing a round or two. He's shooting for titles, as he should be. With that in mind, I think the big question he'll ask himself when evaluating every player currently on our roster and every player he considers adding to the roster is whether that guy is good enough in a particular role for us to win a title with him.

When it comes to Turner, if someone is willing to pay him at a level that's higher than where Ainge rates him when it comes to a championship team, then letting Turner walk may be necessary. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

To expand upon this, every GM says they're trying to build a championship team, but the expectation levels vary from team to team. With some teams, it's perfectly acceptable for a GM's team to make the playoffs every year and get bounced in the first or second round. With the Celtics, anything short of a title is a failure (unless it's an obvious rebuilding year). There may very well be some GM's around the league that know that Turner can just about guarantee that they'll be in the mix for a playoff spot for the next several years, and that buys those GM's some additional job security. Those teams are likely to be willing to overpay for Turner, while Ainge has less incentive to do so since he has higher expectations/aspirations for the C's.

If another team wants to get the most out of Turner, they better hope Cbs is part of the deal. Pacers Turner might be what a lot a teams get.

[bogg]

Not to be the debbie downer - but he is the only regular rotation player on the team that has a worse net rating when he is on the court versus off it.

Your eyes are not facts.

Numbers are. 

There is nothing flawed about the numbers that say a team scored more points than the other in a basketball game. 

When Evan Turner is on the floor for the Celtics, the Celtics are not as good at scoring more points than the other team. 

None of this is "contrived."  The game is literally about putting the ball into the basket, and we use numbers to count these things up.  But tell me more about your eyes.

This isn't entirely fair, as the team's overall net rating (3.0) is better than the net rating when both Smart (2.6) and Jerebko (2.9) are on the floor as well, but for all three of those guys the team's defensive net rating is better when they're on the floor than the overall rating, and the offensive net rating is worse - that just sort of tells us what we already know from watching the games, that the second string (specifically, when Isaiah isn't on the floor) defends opposing benches really well but struggles to score.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that the team playing better when Turner is off the floor isn't necessarily evidence that Turner makes the team worse. The need for a secondary ballhandler/creator on the roster should be painfully obvious to anyone watching the games, and for better or worse Turner's the best option on the roster there. Shaun Livingston, a guy whose role in GS is (in my opinion) roughly comparable to what Turner does for the second unit, also has a net rating a few points worse than the Warriors' overall net rating, but that doesn't mean that the Warriors would be well served cutting ties with him this summer.

I like Turner.  I want him on this team.  But the observation that the team is at its best when he is NOT on the court is completely accurate.

That is not a knock on him either.  Maybe the can build a roster that makes his presence on the court essential. I hope they do.  But right now, on this team, that is not the case.

Well, again, I think you're looking at a number and misunderstanding what it actually says. Obviously the team would be at its best if both Isaiah and Crowder could play 48 minutes a night without concern for fatigue, injury, or fouls, but that's fantasy land. In the real world, SOMEONE has to be on the court when either of those two guys aren't, and with this current squad that's usually Evan. The comparison you're making is Turner versus the team's very best five-man lineup, but that's wrong - it's Turner the primary ballhandler and creator against Smart and Rozier (who aren't ready yet) and Turner the defender of elite small forwards against Jerebko(who's too slow) and Hunter/Young (neither of whom knows what they're doing there) that you should be considering. If they can replace him this summer with guys who do those jobs better, then that's great (keep in mind you probably have to pay two guys to do his job), but the idea that he somehow makes this squad worse is simply rooted in a misreading of the numbers.

Outstanding post, Bogg, that illustrates the major mistake made when people allow sabremetrics to take over their analysis of basketball. Numbers are hardly facts, in and of themselves, and they are subject to willful misinterpretation, let alone the absurdity of relying on the scoreboard to define an individual player's worth in a team sport.

The game cannot be accurately evaluated by a set of numbers, and that is fact, unless the numbers are considered in the correct context - which they have most assuredly not been in the Turner discussion, as you accurately point out - and then folded into other intangible factors which cannot be accurately measured by any number.

Turner is, without question, an asset to this club, for many of the reasons you point out. That is beyond clear to the eye test, as well.

I categorically reject sabremetrics in general, and especially in these swing role instances filled by players like Turner, because they provide only a piece of the puzzle at best, a superficial and incomplete look at a player's value that leads analytics-based front offices down an error-filled path. Either you know what you're watching with Evan Turner, or you don't.

TP.

Just to be clear, I'm not totally dismissing the use of analytics, just saying that knowing what a number means and how to use it is as important as having that number to point at in the first place. Sure, Turner's net rating isn't as positive as some other players', but those aren't the guys he's keeping off the floor, and the rating is still positive. The guys whose way he's actually in, Hunter and Rozier, have net ratings of negative 3.5 and negative 6.6 respectively, so you can make an analytics-based argument in favor of Turner as well.

[nickagneta]

But what can't be measured in analytical is a player's value based on versatility and responsibilities within a system. Turner can play three different positions at an above average level and fits a need within the Stevens' system that few players could fill. There just aren't stats that measure a player 's worth for those types of situations and determining a player's value based on one or two stats, especially a versatile player like. Turner is always going to undervalue what a team gets from that player. That, more than anything else, is why the eye test also needs to be used to determine player value.