It’s well-known how much NBA fans value points per game. Most people who work in media, the league or have a pulse on the league will understand the pitfalls of lionizing raw points per game numbers. Certain sects of the basketball internet will still stick to their bucket-getting roots but it’s fairly accepted that points per game is, like all other numbers, a tool and a medium by which we understand the game.

What if I proposed an even greater offender? For the most part, I consume basketball through the lens of player development and progression, as someone who’s been working in or around the NBA draft for almost a decade. And aside from points per game, there’s no single statistic with more disingenuous usage than turnovers.

Turnovers fall towards the front of points folks will use to criticize basketball players, especially young players. When in fact the vast majority of young ballhandlers turn the ball over at disproportionate rates and iron this out as they age and grow. Simply put, raw turnovers as a proxy for passing/decision-making is an inadequate metric. 

Let’s take a common, easy example. Few would dispute the playmaking greatness of players like LeBron James, James Harden, Magic Johnson or Steve Nash. All four of those show up in the top 20 in total career turnovers. Even the all-time great quarterbacks will throw interceptions. It’s part of the sport.

Through a drafting lens, it makes sense to think players who turn the ball over are worse at passing. They give away possessions at a higher rate than their peers, after all. But turnovers only capture accurate passing value in the context of things like usage and passing creation volume.

Some turnovers do indicate negative projective value, but not all do! Here lies the crux of the issue — there are dozens and dozens of turnover variations, some related to ball control, vision, timing, accuracy, processing speed and even the faults of a handler’s teammates in a Caitlin Clarkian way. 

Take Cade Cunningham as a case study, who most agreed looked on track to be a special playmaking prospect out of high school. But his college stat profile made some question that notion — a 22% turnover rate and a 0.8 assist-to-turnover ratio led some to believe Cunningham’s passing was wildly overrated. How could a player who coughs up possessions more than he racks up assists bring positive passing value in the future?

Considering the historical data, it’s clear how common high turnover values are for young passers. John Wall, Ja Morant, Trae Young, Scottie Barnes and Tyrese Haliburton all eclipsed a 20% turnover rate in college, to name a few. 

It’s true that the assist-to-turnover ratio tends to be a valuable indicator of star upside, though the case of Cade Cunningham reminds us to consider context. Cunningham was the clear primary offensive option on an Oklahoma State team devoid of high level talent. He shifted into score-first mode with heavy on-ball usage, constantly seeing double teams and ball pressure. This kind of added pressure will lead to more turnovers, especially when playing with below-average teammates. So many Cunningham potential assists looked like this:

https://x.com/bjpf_/status/1335425041324969984

Even some turnovers can be more predictive of passing goodness than the opposite. All of the best passers in the world are risk-takers. The highest-value passes, often leading to dunks, free throws and wide-open threes, are the ones defenses work to take away. Elite passers will thread balls through tight windows because great defenses close off angles to easy buckets.

It’s the same as an elite quarterback threading the needle to a receiver breaking to the end zone or a winger feathering a cross perfectly to his teammate making a run. Some of these plays will inevitably result in giveaways, but the value of success is far less than the risk of failure. 

This idea is most critical from a scouting perspective, as it’s far too easy for some scouts to fade young playmakers because of their turnovers instead of praising their risk-taking as an indicator of high-level traits. Take these two plays from 2025 draft prospect Nolan Traore as an example:

https://x.com/bjpf_/status/1820671739401277511

Despite both of those passes resulting in turnovers, I’ll argue that they both showcase advanced passing traits more than they show signs of passing ineptitude. Both of these plays demonstrate Traore’s penchant for anticipation, a critical trait of elite floor generals. Off of his drives, Traore passes into space when his defenders cut off his line of sight, which happens often due to his elite paint touch creation.

Without even looking, Traore expects his roller to sit in the middle of the paint, where his pass was aimed. And even though Traore failed to read the tagger on both occasions, he’s clearly capable of passing without staring down his targets, which all elite passers do. 

I generally refer to this as court mapping, a requisite trait for the best passers in the world. The ability to see a mini-map of the court considering the motion of all 10 players isn’t something most players have, but the great ones do, and this isn’t a trait that’s feasible to develop beyond a very young age.

It’s true Traore’s failure to read second-level help is a notable area of improvement, though that often progresses with time, age and experience. We should also note in both clips that the tagger digs hard off of Noa Essengue, a lifetime 19% three-point shooter per Cerebro Sports. That makes Traore’s life harder and provides a real example of what draftniks mean when they describe the impact of poor spacing on elite guards. 

This principle works in reverse, as low turnover players aren’t automatically more efficient passers than high turnover ones. Michael Porter Jr.’s 7.6% turnover rate this past season is exceptionally low, though the missed passing reads and poor shots selected won’t show up on any stat sheet.

The stat sheet won’t represent the fact that all turnovers are different and lead to different development outcomes. It’s critical to re-frame the idea of a ‘turnover’ from a ubiquitous negative to a tool for understanding basketball, just like points per game.