Earlier this week, I wrote an article with advanced stats from Synergy Sports regarding the projected Indiana Pacers lineup for next season. It focused on each player’s impact in the core areas of the game, such as overall offense, overall defense, points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, and shooting efficiency.

For the next components of this series, I am going to focus on how each new projected starter stacks up in comparison to the player that they are replacing in the specific play types on both ends of the floor. In this installment of my series, I will compare Darren Collison and Jeff Teague.

Overall Half-Court Offense

Darren Collison had a good (0.955 PPP, 63rd percentile) season as a half-court offensive player last season for the Sacramento Kings. However, Jeff Teague, who had a good (0.959 PPP, 65th percentile) overall half-court offensive year for the Indiana Pacers, was a narrowly better. The difference between the two player’s half-court offensive production was that Collison was a more efficient scorer and had fewer turnovers, but Teague was a superior passer.

Of course, the distribution of their shot attempts was different, but both Teague and Collison produced almost identical efficiency in the primary forms of scoring in half court offense. Collison ranked in the 86th percentile on jump shots, 52nd on runners, and 23rd on finishes around the basket (non-post-ups). Teague ranked in the 88th percentile on jump shots, 51st on runners, and 17th on finishes around the basket (non-post-ups).

There is a reason why Collison had a 46.3% field goal percentage in half court offense, and Teague had just a 43.2% field goal percentage in these circumstances. Both players were most efficient when shooting jump shots and 66.4% of Collison’s shot attempts are jump shots while Teague attempted just 47.2%. Also, floaters are the most inefficient type of shot, and those accounted for 24.5% of Teague’s shots while only 6.6% of Collison’s attempts were floaters.

Both players had excellent success as passers in half-court offense last season. Teague had 32.3% of his half-court possessions result in assists while Collison’s assists accounted for 24.9% of his half-court possessions. When accounting for their overall half-court offensive production with their passing, Teague produced 1.393 points per possession and ranked in the 98th percentile while Collision created 1.332 points per possession and ranked in the 93rd percentile.

Fewer of Collison’s half-court possessions resulted in turnovers as 13.1% of his possessions ended in a turnover and 15.3% of Teague’s half-court possessions ended in turnovers. Where Teague held the edge over Collison was getting to the free throw line. Teague had 15.7% of his half-court possessions result in free throw attempts while Collison got to the line during only 7.8% of his half-court possessions.

Collison was excellent (1.388 PPP, 97th percentile) on catch-and-shoot jump shots and was very good (0.952 PPP, 82nd percentile) on all jump shots off the dribble in the half-court. He had balanced production from each shooting range too. He was excellent (1.224 PPP, 99th percentile) on short jumpers, very good (0.864 PPP, 70th percentile) on medium jumpers, and excellent (1.255 PPP, 92nd percentile) on perimeter jump shots. This is the type of cohesive impact needed alongside a backcourt partner like Victor Oladipo.

Teague was excellent (1.19 PPP, 83rd percentile) on catch-and-shoot jump shots and was excellent (1.08 PPP, 94th percentile) on all jump shots off the dribble in the half-court. His only deficient area regarding range was on medium range jumpers. He was excellent (1.208 PPP, 99th percentile) on short jumpers, average (0.733 PPP, 39th percentile) on medium jumpers, and very good (1.112 PPP, 66th percentile) on perimeter jump shots. Collison is more balanced in his jump shooting abilities, but Teague is quite impactful too.

Transition Offense

Darren Collison was much better in transition than Jeff Teague last season, but oddly enough, Teague had superior production as a ball handler. For reference, Collison’s overall transition offense grade was good (1.099 PPP, 51st percentile) and Teague received a below average (0.948 PPP, 25th percentile). Teague’s problem was that he turned the ball over at an alarming rate while Collison kept his down and was productive in the other areas.

Teague’s problem was that he turned the ball over at an alarming rate while Collison kept his down and was productive in the other areas. To compare, Teague had 22.7% of his transition possessions result in turnovers while only 10.5% of Collison’s transition opportunities were turnovers. That alone is such a massive difference that it didn’t matter how Teague performed in the other areas because nothing could make up for that.

Both players were efficient as transition scorers as Teague posted a 51.1% field goal percentage and Collison had a 53.7% field goal percentage. A significant difference between the two players was that Teague got the free throw line on 15.2% of his possessions while Collison did on just 10.5% of his, though. It’s worth noting that both players had strong success at creating made shots through their teammates as 34.5% of Teague’s transition possessions were assists and 30% of Collison’s were assists.

Teague was a ball handler for 80.6% of his transition possessions, and he was good (0.941 PPP, 56th percentile) at it but what held him back from elite status was that 22.2% of his possessions were turnovers. Also, his lack of production in other forms of transition offense badly hurt his overall grade. He was poor (0.786 PPP, 13th percentile) on the left wing and poor (0.583 PPP, 3rd percentile) on the right wing because he was unable to convert on his scoring attempts consistently

Collison was just average (0.853 PPP, 40th percentile) as a transition ball handler but he made his best impact filling the lanes. He was excellent (1.692 PPP, 90th percentile) when he was first in the middle, good (1.231 PPP, 59th percentile) when filling the left wing, and very good (1.278 PPP, 68th percentile) when filling the right wing. However, he was just average (1.444 PPP, 33rd percentile) on leak outs.

The difference between these two players as transition threats is the fact that Teague is a better ball handler, but Collison is a better off-ball player. Don’t confuse being a better ball handler with being better at limiting turnovers, though. With at least one other transition ball handling threat like Victor Oladipo, Lance Stephenson, and Cory Joseph on the floor with him at all times, there should be no shortage of opportunities for Collison to be an off-ball transition option.

Overview P&R Offense

Jeff Teague’s overall pick-and-roll derived offense was excellent (1.009 PPP, 84th percentile) and was significantly better in comparison to Darren Collison’s production. Of course, Collison was still good (0.93 PPP, 58th percentile) as an overall pick-and-roll player but it’s simply a testament to how good Teague was last season in this area. Regardless, Indiana is in good hands with Collison, and he will make offense easier for Turner and Oladipo.

Collison had very good (0.856 PPP, 67th percentile) production as a scorer out of the pick-and-roll while Teague was excellent (0.978 PPP, 86th percentile). Collison’s 45.8% field goal percentage as a pick-and-roll scorer was 0.9% higher than Teague. Collison had 16.3% of his possessions end up being turnovers, and Teague turned the ball over 16.2% of the time. Collison only had 6.6% of his possessions result in free throws while Teague had a fantastic 17.9% of his possessions end with a trip to the free throw line.

Teague was good (1.1037 PPP, 53rd percentile) as a pick-and-roll passer while Collison was just average (0.976 PPP, 34th percentile). Both players took great care of the ball when making their passes considering that only 5.3% of Teague’s passes resulted in turnovers and only 5.9% of Collison’s ended up as turnovers. They can each be highly successful when they are surrounded by legitimate shooting and finishing options, and Collison will have plenty of those next season.

To get an idea of their strengths as a passer in the pick-and-roll, Collison was average across the board in all forms of pick-and-roll passing. Teague was good (1.037 PPP, 53rd percentile) at passing to the roll man, average (0.965 PPP, 45th percentile) at passing to spot-up shooters, and average (1.184 PPP, 41st percentile) at passing to cutters. The Pacers lacked reliable spot-up shooters outside of George, Miles, and Turner, so that doesn’t help Teague’s production.

I could go on all day with all kinds of complexities about their performance in the pick-and-roll, but those aren’t the most important pieces of information. The overview of how they did against a committing defense is important. Darren Collison’s results were good (0.899 PPP, 52nd percentile) when the defensive committed and his pass out results was average (0.976 PPP, 34th percentile) in each particular category. Also, he turned the ball over 13.4% of the time in these situations.

Jeff Teague was good (0.93 PPP, 64th percentile) as a pick-and-roll ball handler against a committing defense. His overall pass out results was good (1.037 PPP, 53rd percentile) under these circumstances. He was good (1.045 PPP, 53rd percentile) when passing to the roll man, average (0.965 PPP, 45th percentile) when passing to spot up shooters, and average (1.184 PPP, 41st percentile) when passing to cutters. He turned it over 15.2% of the time but had better overall success on pass outs.

Spot-Up

Since the Indiana Pacers believe that Victor Oladipo has All-Star potential, it’s important that he has a backcourt partner that thrives as a spot-up threat. Darren Collison was very good (1.017 PPP, 78th percentile) overall in spot-up situations while Jeff Teague was good (0.972 PPP, 54th percentile), so there should be an improvement in this area. Collison was better at every main component of spot-up offense compared to Teague last season, so that’s certainly reason for optimism.

Darren Collison was very good (1.241 PPP, 80th percentile) on no dribble jumpers, excellent (1.174 PPP, 88th percentile) on dribble jumpers, and average (1.042 PPP, 44th percentile) when taking it to the basket. As for Jeff Teague, he was very good (1.207 PPP, 77th percentile) on no dribble jumpers, good (0.875 PPP, 55th percentile) at dribble jumpers, poor (0.684 PPP, 11th percentile) at runners, and poor (0.667 PPP, 5th percentile) at taking it to the basket.

It is a luxury to have a point guard that can knock down no dribble jumpers while being able to hit some tough shots like Darren Collison. The Indiana Pacers are not going to have a whole lot of playmaking talent to create easy shots for Collison, so his dynamic capabilities are a necessity. Jeff Teague compared well regarding no dribble jumpers on spot-ups, but Collison truly had the edge across the board, and that’s ideal for a guard playing alongside Oladipo.

Isolation

There won’t be too much need for isolation offense from the point guard position since the team’s building blocks are Myles Turner and Victor Oladipo, but it’s still good to have it. Jeff Teague holds the edge for isolation, he was excellent (1.049 PPP, 87th percentile) while Darren Collison was very good (0.956 PPP, 70th percentile). It’s nice to have a temporary point guard who can create as an isolation threat when necessary while mainly serving as a cohesive role player, which is exactly what Collison does.

Teague was excellent (1.088 PPP, 89th percentile) as an isolation player against single coverage. He was far better at driving the lane than he was at taking jumpers. On drives, Teague was excellent (1.154 PPP, 90th percentile) while he was just average (0.806 PPP, 44th percentile) on jump shots. Teague was highly impactful on his drives considering how he shot 50.4% from the field, only turned the ball over 1.3% of the time, and got to the free throw line 22.1% of the time.

Collison was very good (0.973 PPP, 66th percentile) when isolating against single coverage. His production was more balanced than Teague’s, but he didn’t come close in effectiveness regarding driving the lane. Collison was good (0.96 PPP, 57th percentile) on drives and very good (1 PPP, 77th percentile) on jumpers. His issue on drives was his scoring efficiency as he shot only 41% from the field. He took great care of the ball by turning the ball over just 2% of the time and got to the free throw line on 22% of his possessions, which is great.

When the defense would commit on Teague in isolation situations, he was very good (0.963 PPP, 66th percentile). The results on his drive and kicks were good (1.145 PPP, 64th percentile) overall but specifically, his drive-and-dish production was average (1 PPP, 50th percentile) to spot up shooters and good (1.37 PPP, 52nd percentile) to cutters. His main issue was that he turned the ball over 18.3% of the time but playing on a team that had many lineups with poor floor spacing will do that to you.

As for Collison, he was good (0.921 PPP, 61st percentile) when the defense would commit on his isolations. His drive and kick results were average (1 PPP, 39th percentile) but the important aspect of this is that he only turned the ball over 7.9% of the time. The Indiana Pacers will need all of the advantages that they can get, and players that can not only create personal offense but successfully pass the ball when faced with a committing defense are a necessity.

Miscellaneous Offense

The other areas of offense for guards like off screen plays, hand off plays, and cuts weren’t frequently used by Jeff Teague or Darren Collison last season, but there is still some value in taking a look at them. Depending on how extensive the Indiana Pacers want the playmaking roles of Victor Oladipo and Myles Turner to be, Collison could put some of these components of the game to more use next season. He won’t be a high usage player next season so making a nuanced impact is key.

Darren Collison was very good (0.984 PPP, 68th percentile) on hand off plays because he was a highly efficient scorer with a 50% field goal percentage. He turned the ball over 14.1% of the time and got to the free throw line just 4.7% of the time. Jeff Teague was good (0.952 PPP, 63rd percentile) on hand off plays. He recorded a 47.1% field goal percentage while turning the ball over 14.3% of the time and getting to the free throw line on only 4.8% of his possessions.

Regarding cutting, Darren Collison was average (1.158 PPP, 36th percentile) and he mainly only did basket cuts, which he was good (1.355 PPP, 57th percentile) at doing. Jeff Teague was good (1.312 PPP, 62nd percentile) on his cuts and he also had a majority of his possessions in this play type being basket cuts. He didn’t have enough volume for any particular cut to receive a rating comparing him to other NBA players.

Darren Collison was excellent (1.394 PPP, 98th percentile) on off screen plays. He mainly came off to the right and was excellent (1.727 PPP, 99th percentile) on those sequences. However, he was still just below average (0.727 PPP, 17th percentile) when coming off to the left. Jeff Teague was below average (0.786 PPP, 28th percentile) on off screen plays. He was average (0.852 PPP, 31st percentile) when coming off to the left and was poor (0.667 PPP, 14th percentile) when coming off to the right.

Overall Defense and Playmaking

Darren Collison has the reputation of being a bad defender, but he did produce average (0.946 PPP, 34th percentile) results last season. Jeff Teague wasn’t much better as he too was average (0.932 PPP, 39th percentile) as an overall defensive player. It’s worth adding that both Teague and Collison had 1.9% steal percentages last season which at least helps provide the opportunity for points off turnovers for their team. As for shot blocking, Teague had a 1.1% block percentage and Collison was at 0.3% last season. Even though they aren’t good defensive players, their ability to force turnovers helps alleviate some of that deficiency.

Defending P&R Ball Handler

Each of them defended the ball handler in the pick-and-roll for about half of their defensive possessions. Darren Collison was average (0.907 PPP, 32nd percentile) at defending pick-and-roll ball handlers and he did it on 50.4% of his defensive possessions. As for Jeff Teague, he was average (0.891 PPP, 37th percentile) in this area of defense and it accounted for 49% of his defensive play types. The Indiana Pacers will need Thaddeus Young and Myles Turner to continue to help cover up the pick-and-roll defense of their starting point guard.

Defending Spot Up

What separated Jeff Teague a bit defensively was that he was very good (0.923 PPP, 70th percentile) at defending spot up plays while Darren Collison was below average (1.144 PPP, 17th percentile). Now, it will help having a starting shooting guard that isn’t undersized because the team defense doesn’t have to over rotate or pre-rotate nearly as much by default. That will allow for the unit to be in proper position to defend spot up plays more and that will help a cover up some of the deficiency that Collison provides.

Defending Miscellaneous Plays

The sample sizes are small for these, so it’s not too valuable, but I want to at least provide the data for you all to make your own opinions. Their next most frequent defensive play type was against hand off plays. Darren Collison was below average (1.068 PPP, 24th percentile) and these play types accounted for 8.7% of his defensive possessions. Jeff Teague was a bit better but wasn’t spectacular either. He was average (1 PPP, 32nd percentile) against hand off plays and it accounted for 8.1% of his defensive possessions.

Against off screen plays, Collison was excellent (0.717 PPP, 86th percentile) and Teague was below average (1.119 PPP, 22nd percentile). The point position doesn’t face many opportunities where they have to chase guys through off-ball screens, so good or bad, it’s not that important. However, there is value in defending isolation, and Darren Collison was below average (1 PPP, 26th percentile) at defending isolation while Jeff Teague was good (0.877 PPP, 55th percentile). Most of the offense in today’s game is run through the pick-and-roll these days, but it certainly helps your unit to contain basic dribble penetration.

There will naturally be limitations with small guards who can’t make up for their size with strength and athleticism. It’s harder to defend both on, and off-ball screens and that can have plenty of harmful consequences. Handling cross match assignments is a nightmare too and sometimes even being tasked with the elite athletes at your own position can be a disaster. Teague and Collison both fit somewhere into this mix and they both need their unit to make up for what they can’t do at a high level.

Rebounding

Jeff Teague is a better overall rebounder than Darren Collison, but neither are game changers in this area. Teague posted a 7% total rebounding percentage, a 12.4% defensive rebounding percentage, and a 1.4% offensive rebounding percentage compared to Collison’s 4.3% total rebounding percentage, 7.1% defensive rebounding percentage, and 1.3% offensive rebounding percentage. For the Pacers to not get blasted by second chance points, they will need the other positions to do most of the work on the glass.

Bottom Line

The Indiana Pacers are not receiving an upgrade at the point guard position by going from Jeff Teague to Darren Collison, but they are getting a sufficient temporary point guard. While Teague is a better individual offensive player with his pick-and-roll ball handling and skills as an isolation threat, Collison helps bring a necessary complementary impact as a transition threat and as a playmaking and off-ball player in the half-court in a role that you wouldn’t want to pay Teague for since it limits his impact. Considering the economics and that their defensive limitations are similar, it was a smart decision.

Follow me on Social Media

Follow @GrantAfseth