Turnovers

[SoonerSpock]

Offensive rebounds, missed shots when fouled, probably some other things as well.

True and turnovers.

 

[sybarite]

True and turnovers.

Well, finally. That is all that some have been saying. Turnovers are a part. Some seem to think it is the only part. They are a part. Are they the most relevant part?

 

[Soonercuda]

OU leads the Big 12 in field goal percentage? 6th in turnovers per game? Are we in first place or 6th place?

Run a regression analysis on turnovers to explain Win% and on FG% to explain Win% and see which one has the higher RSquared. You will see FG% is more highly correlated to win% than turnovers.

 

[gosooner2]

Run a regression analysis on turnovers to explain Win% and on FG% to explain Win% and see which one has the higher RSquared. You will see FG% is more highly correlated to win% than turnovers.

Don't disagree with this. Only saying FG% is not the only answer. In OUr case it is no answer at all.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Syb,

Turnovers are a bit different than and more important than I think the way you are defining them.

Turnovers, particularly the silly ones we seem to constantly, season-after-season, game-after-game make, are indicative a lot more than your shooting percentage or even your rebounding percentages.

Turnovers are primarily the result of a lack of focus, effort, and decision making.

You make bad passes primarily when you don't think/focus or your effort is lazy or your decision-making is poor (lobbing a duck across the court or dribbling down the lane straight into three taller defenders).

Certainly a defender or a defensive can exacerbate turnovers, make more happen. Primarily, however, a turnover is the offensive players fault.

Rebounding, shooting -- those things are rote, learned talents honed by endless practice. They come naturally or instictively based upon repetition.

I think they hold a different type of importance, likely a lesser one. Let me try to make it more simple...

Rebounding and shooting are physical -- turnovers are normally the result of your brain malfunctioning for a nanosecond.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Well, finally. That is all that some have been saying. Turnovers are a part. Some seem to think it is the only part. They are a part. Are they the most relevant part?

I have never disputed your position on turnovers being only a part of our problems with you listing other concerns. I also agree with you that aggressive turnovers are not necessarily bad turnovers but no turnover is a good turnover and you can go brain dead when you are being aggressive. Also my observation from 10+ years sitting in LNC is that close to half of the Guys turnovers are bad turnovers. Just bad decisions or poor execution.

Moreover I have been temporarily brain dead or insane with regard to my comments with AustinTxSooner. Everything I have said completely wrong with regard to scoring opportunities associated with turnovers. I have been double counting using no logic. He is absolutely 100% correct.

 

[sybarite]

Don't disagree with this. Only saying FG% is not the only answer. In OUr case it is no answer at all.

I don't know that anyone has said that FG percentage is the only important thing. Cuda makes the valid point. Which is most correlated with winning percentage.

The ideal is to make no turnovers, get every rebound, hit every shot, steal every pass, and block every shot. The NCAA keeps a lot of statistics, and I suspect that winning coaches are very aware of what is the first point of emphasis. I doubt that any want to ignore the the other points.

But, the constant and persistent harangue over turnovers is focusing on something that is not all that highly correlated with winning percentage, at least as compared to other statistics. It doesn't quite merit the attention that it gets on this board.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Yes, scoring and rebounding are the crux of the game, Syb.

Turnovers certainly can be overcome when you shoot and rebound well.

But turnovers are the result of sloppy effort and numb-headedness.

All three can get you beat.

Turnovers are a sign that a team doesn't care enough to focus and play well. As I said, I believe they more clearly define a team's ability, toughness and mind-set to win than the other two.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I don't know that anyone has said that FG percentage is the only important thing. Cuda makes the valid point. Which is most correlated with winning percentage.

The ideal is to make no turnovers, get every rebound, hit every shot, steal every pass, and block every shot. The NCAA keeps a lot of statistics, and I suspect that winning coaches are very aware of what is the first point of emphasis. I doubt that any want to ignore the the other points.

But, the constant and persistent harangue over turnovers is focusing on something that is not all that highly correlated with winning percentage, at least as compared to other statistics. It doesn't quite merit the attention that it gets on this board.

When I started this thread, I never said anything about national statistics, winning percentages, or anything of the kind. I believe you are the one who introduced that sidetrack into the discussion. That could easily be discussed in a different thread if you wish. All I did was point out some games that OU likely would have won if they would have just done ONE thing...reduce turnovers.

 

[sybarite]

Yes, scoring and rebounding are the crux of the game, Syb.

Turnovers certainly can be overcome when you shoot and rebound well.

But turnovers are the result of sloppy effort and numb-headedness.

All three can get you beat.

Turnovers are a sign that a team doesn't care enough to focus and play well. As I said, I believe they more clearly define a team's ability, toughness and mind-set to win than the other two.

I don't really believe. I just look at the statistics and let them teach me.

 

[Oliver Hardy]

Yes. You rely on your facts and figures.

What's the old saying about numbers being twisted to mean anything you want?