Wizenheimer wrote:jack had 4 turnovers in that entire game which makes 5 in the 4th quarter statistically unlikely.
That's because he was responsible for a 24 second violation as well in that game to start the 4th by attempting to drive with three seconds left, but instead of putting up the shot he threw it to Outlaw with no time left on the clock. 24 second violations count as team turnovers for official statistics, but it was Jack's turnover.
He had the same number as steve blake and only 1 more then brandon roy who had 3. That was a team-wide meltdown in that game and blaming jack for it is simply off-base.
He was the only player who played the entire fourth quarter, and he contributed a total of one defensive rebound and one assist on the positive side of the ledger while forcing up five shots that he missed. He hit the stat column ten times in the fourth--eight of them were either missed shot or turnovers.
I said so at the time, and I stand by it--everyone deserves equal blame for that meltdown, but some players are more equal than others, and Jack was absolutely brutal. The problem there wasn't so much that Jack was brutal, though, but that Nate kept playing him when he was brutal and getting exposed as such.
I didn't say that Jack was Mr Lollypop. I was just wondering how it was that jack "constantly made the team worse, especially down the stretch" as was asserted. A 21-6 record over the last 27 games, when the blazers have played so well down the stretch with Jack on the floor seems to refute the assertion. But maybe I'm missing something.
First, it's "lollipop"
Second, Jack had some good games, but he has been at best a fairly mediochre player this season for the most part. And the 21-6 record was jumpstarted in large part because Nate took the ball out of Jack's hands and made him a SG when he's on the floor with Roy. I'm not saying he's as horrible as some here, but we have to be realistic about Jack--he's a fairly low-ceiling player that tends to turn the ball over fairly frequently. He also tends to take shots out of rhythm of the offense, and we've all discussed his defensive liabilities.
Can you call him "a turnover machine"? Not judging by PER48 turnovers, I suppose, where many are worse. However, among the players that have committed the total number of turnovers or more than Jack, only one other is a non-starter, and that's Manu. No one who has committed the number of turovers as Jack or more has delivered less on the other side of the ledger to balance it out--Jack has the lowest EFF score, and the lowest combined points/rebounds/assists of all the players in that category. So while his rate isn't as high, because he is delivering less elsewhere it is more accurate to call him a turnover machine than most since it makes up a higher amount of his identity as a basketball player. You can excuse turnovers more from the other players who turn the ball over as much or more than Jack a lot more because they're just doing a lot more to help their team win.
