Centers with a usage over twenty:
Turnover Rate:
Okur – 8.3
Shaq – 12.1
Big Z – 12.4
Yao – 13.2
Amare – 14.2
Curry – 17.7
Howard – 19.3

Curry’s average turnover rate in Chicago: – 14.6

As you can see looking at both lists, aside from Okur (who plays like a SF despite being a Center), 12 is about the best Curry could hope for. Also all four players under 13 (not counting Okur) are veterans in their thirties. So since Curry is a young player his average turnover rate of 14.6 in Chicago is good enough to put him right in the middle of that list. If he could get down to 13-14 he would be ahead of the curve and right on par with Yao. (the best pure center in the league)

I totally agree that 17.7 is far from acceptable, in fact it is terrible, but his turnover numbers in Chicago were not too bad especially considering his age and experience.

If we can figure out why he is so turnover prone in NY, then hopefully we could fix it and he would, at the very least, return to his Chicago numbers if not improve on them.

“I know usage and rate stats are useful, but I just never feel it?s fair to exonerate a player because he is high usage.”

If you’re trying to judge a player’s ability I’d say it’s absolutely crucial to adjust for usage where appropriate.

Assume for a moment that TO rates per 100 possessions used are constant. Say player A averages 10 possessions used per game, at 10 TO per 100 possessions used. So A averages 1 TO/game total. Now if A’s poss/game increases to 20 (assume minutes held constant), his TO/game increases to 2. This looks like a bad thing if you’re just looking at TO/game or TO/minute; the guy’s TOs doubled! But in fact his TOs/possession remained constant.

Why should we not dock A credit for more TO/minute when his TO/poss remained constant? Well, A’s added possessions didn’t come from nowhere. They must have come at the expense of possessions used for his teammates. Assume that all 10 of A’s added poss/game came at the expense of player B. As long as B’s TO/poss is higher than A’s, then on the whole the team benefits from A’s higher usage, even though A increases his TO/min.

The key point there is that every player’s possession used comes at the expense of some other player using that possession. If this were not the case then TOs/min would be a fine measure. But since some fraction of all possessions used are going to generate TOs, no matter who on your roster happens to be low or high usage, the best stat to look at is TO/poss.

When he came to New York instead of seeing a reduction in turnovers as most fifth year players do he saw a dramatic increase. That makes me think since our team is turnover prone almost across the board it may be a team problem not just Curry’s. (bad guard play, poor offensive system, etc.)

Also while I think Curry needs to at least get his rate down to 13-14 he is a center so he plays a position that is more turnover prone than PF.

“What I was saying was that comparing Curry?s turnovers to the average center is unfair because Curry?s usage is so much higher. I think you need to compare turnover rates because that takes into account that Curry has many more opportunities per 48 minutes to turn the ball over than someone like Dampier.”

Agreed that we must take usage into account when judging a player’s proneness to TOs. But even when you do this Curry ends up looking bad. In my post about Randolph and Curry coexisting (knickerblogger.net/?p=553) I had a chart showing the turnovers per 100 possessions for last season’s high usage big men. It seems like the norm for a high usage big man is something like 11 or 12 TOs per 100 possessions used, but Curry as a Knick has been above 17. Even in Chicago his rate was around 15, not as bad as his Knick numbers, but still quite substandard compared to the average high usage big man.

If we take Owen/Berri’s analysis to be correct and Curry is in fact one of the worst players in the league, doesn’t that make him an incredibly valuable trade asset?

Follow my logic here. Like an overvalued stock, I’d say the majority of the league thinks of Curry as Isiah does — as a potential/borderline all-star. Now, if Owen/Berri…

(can I just refer to you as Owenberry? It reminds me of Frankenberries, which I really used to dig as a kid. Do they still make those anymore. I know I’ve seen Count Chocula, but I think the bigwigs killed off Frankenberries. Nostalgia for AM sugar highs notwithstanding…)

If Owenberries is right (and the majority of the GM’s are wrong) and Curry’s a stiff, couldn’t we get a better player for him (or cap room) fairly easily. I.e., since almost everyone is better than him, the Knicks would be better with ANYONE ELSE acquired in a trade for Curry. Even one that seemed to favor the other team, like Curry to Cleveland for a sign/trade of Varejao + cap filler would make NY a better team.

Now if Owenberries is wrong, and Curry is a valuable asset, well, then, golly…just keep him. It seems like a win/win situation for the ‘Bockers.

Of course all this assumes that Isiah can make decent trades and not get utterly fleeced.

Turnover rates, as far as I know, are per 100 pos by the player not team.

I agree that high usage should not exonerate a player. Low usage players are just as important to a team as low usage ones. I just think that while Hollinger tends to reward high usage players and punish low usage ones, Berri does the opposite. (because he fails to adjust turnovers to usage) FWIW I do not think Lee should change I would rather have his incredible efficiency than higher usage.

What I was saying was that comparing Curry’s turnovers to the average center is unfair because Curry’s usage is so much higher. I think you need to compare turnover rates because that takes into account that Curry has many more opportunities per 48 minutes to turn the ball over than someone like Dampier. (Curry, while average at turnovers for a center in Chicago, was still quite turnover prone in New York just not as bad as Berri’s charts make it look)

Also while winning the possession battle is very important you cannot simply equate rebounds and turnovers equally. Rebounds are very much a team statistic. If Curry were to increase his rebounds per 48 minutes by 2 (enough since becoming a Knick to put him at average) the team would probably only see an increase of less than 1 rebound per game because Curry only plays 35 minutes and for every rebound he gains he is almost as likely to take it away from a teammate as from the other team.

Turnovers are very important and while Curry has been turnover prone in New York his turnover rate in Chicago was better than the average center which gives me hope he can get his turnovers down, whether through self improvement or better guard play.

“deficiencies in Berri”

and I just wanted to see it again. :)