|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 27, 2019 19:18:54 GMT -8
OSU Turnovers
2015 14.0 per game
2016 15.3 per game
2017 14.6 per game
2018 14.2 per game
2019 12.5 per game
That's a significant improvement. And given how many close games we've played this season, has certainly been responsible for a couple of W's.
|
|
billsaab
Freshman
Retired. Live in SW Washington on 73/4 Acres.
Posts: 589 
|
Post by billsaab on Mar 28, 2019 5:46:26 GMT -8
Poor stat for two reasons. We force very few.We don't play pressure defense. So it is a negative number to whom we play. The other reason is Athletic frenetic physical Teams create more of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 28, 2019 6:20:24 GMT -8
Poor stat for two reasons. We force very few.We don't play pressure defense. So it is a negative number to whom we play. The other reason is Athletic frenetic physical Teams create more of them. This isn’t turnover margin. This is total turnovers per game. Fewer is better. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 28, 2019 11:56:58 GMT -8
Poor stat for two reasons. We force very few.We don't play pressure defense. So it is a negative number to whom we play. The other reason is Athletic frenetic physical Teams create more of them. This isn’t turnover margin. This is total turnovers per game. Fewer is better. Actually fewer is not necessarily better. The key point is that style of play determines how the TO # is interpreted. If you average a lower number but have fewer possessions per game because of you style of play it is actually a higher % of TO/possession... low # but high % is bad. Also, the point above is that TO differential is more important than the # a team commits. If your in the negative in differential the team is "losing" possessions.... hence the low TO # is a misleading stat... like most stats are when cherry picked to make a point. |
|
|
|
Turnovers
Mar 28, 2019 12:03:21 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 28, 2019 12:03:21 GMT -8
This isn’t turnover margin. This is total turnovers per game. Fewer is better. Actually fewer is not necessarily better. The key point is that style of play determines how the TO # is interpreted. If you average a lower number but have fewer possessions per game because of you style of play it is actually a higher % of TO/possession... low # but high % is bad. Also, the point above is that TO differential is more important than the # a team commits. If your in the negative in differential the team is "losing" possessions.... hence the low TO # is a misleading stat... like most stats are when cherry picked to make a point. So you would not consider a lower tpg figure as an improvement in that category? |
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Mar 28, 2019 12:30:34 GMT -8
Actually fewer is not necessarily better. The key point is that style of play determines how the TO # is interpreted. If you average a lower number but have fewer possessions per game because of you style of play it is actually a higher % of TO/possession... low # but high % is bad. Also, the point above is that TO differential is more important than the # a team commits. If your in the negative in differential the team is "losing" possessions.... hence the low TO # is a misleading stat... like most stats are when cherry picked to make a point. So you would not consider a lower tpg figure as an improvement in that category? Baseball111 is saying lower turnovers per possession per game is a better comparable stat. [.3 turnovers per possession is better than .4 turnovers per possession on a game by game basis) And that lower TO Margin (differential) is a better stat if the Beavers have more turnovers than their opponent. [-1.5 turnover margin is better than -2.5 turnover margin] Higher Turnover Margin is better when your team owns the positive differential [ +4.0 turnover margin is better than 2.0 turnover margin] |
|
|
|
Post by jegerklog on Mar 28, 2019 12:32:34 GMT -8
True, an individual statistic is not comprehensive and in isolation its significance is generally difficult to assess. Nonetheless reducing turnovers is generally a good idea in spite of some possible misinterpretation of the statistics, as in the example given by baseball1111. There is a subtle difference between interpreting individual statistics and coaching strategy. Causing the opponent to have more turnovers is probably also a good idea although Reuck argues that trying to cause more turnovers has its risks like more fouls or missing the intended steal and leaving the opponent wide open. A little bit like trying to win the battle but loosing the war.
Nonetheless, the turnover statistics supplied by Werebeaver was somewhat of a surprise to me and it is safe to say that I misjudged this years team. I now feel better informed. Quite a good feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Mar 28, 2019 12:36:20 GMT -8
That's just wrong. TO differential is irrelevant.
OSU's defensive style is not focused on generating TOs at all - our focus is on forcing poor shots. But our offensive style is fairly free-wheeling (at least, when Scott has his way), and we take a lot of chances on O to generate fast breaks and easy buckets. So our TO ratio is usually pretty poor.
There are also teams that play pressure D but bring the ball up the floor with deliberation. Such teams will have great TO ratios - but so what?
|
|
|
|
Turnovers
Mar 28, 2019 12:42:22 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 28, 2019 12:42:22 GMT -8
So you would not consider a lower tpg figure as an improvement in that category? Baseball111 is saying lower turnovers per possession per game is a better comparable stat. [.3 turnovers per possession is better than .4 turnovers per possession on a game by game basis) And that lower TO Margin (differential) is a better stat if the Beavers have more turnovers than their opponent. [-1.5 turnover margin is better than -2.5 turnover margin] Higher Turnover Margin is better when your team owns the positive differential [ +4.0 turnover margin is better than 2.0 turnover margin] Cool. Soooo how are we doing on turnovers per posession this season as compared to 2015 through 2018 seasons? Anyone tracking that? |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Mar 28, 2019 15:13:10 GMT -8
Yeah, no one keeps track of that. Must be a really important stat.
But you know what the Beav's are #1 in the entire country??? Steal rate baby!!!!!! Less chance of the Beav's stealing your bball on any possession than any other team in the ENTIRE country!! WOOHOOOOO.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmancarl on Mar 29, 2019 7:38:38 GMT -8
I didn't look for TO's per possession, but overall the Beavers are 11th in the country in points per possession, so the TO per possession can't be too bad. For stats fanatics............. herhoopstats.com/stats/team/11e8e149-ca40-274a-af82-12df17ae4e1e/...... just noticed the Beavers TO rate is 42nd in the country. Not bad, but not as lofty as most of their stats. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 29, 2019 8:00:00 GMT -8
I didn't look for TO's per possession, but overall the Beavers are 11th in the country in points per possession, so the TO per possession can't be too bad. For stats fanatics............. herhoopstats.com/stats/team/11e8e149-ca40-274a-af82-12df17ae4e1e/...... just noticed the Beavers TO rate is 42nd in the country. Not bad, but not as lofty as most of their stats. Thanks for the link. They do list "Turnover Rate" which they list in their glossary as "Percentage of plays in which a team committed a turnover" 2019 15.9%2018 18.3% 2017 18.7% 2016 19.4% So it does look like the lower 2019 tpg figure correlates for this data set with the lower 2019 "turnover rate". I think it's safe to assume that is a positive thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ochobeavo on Mar 29, 2019 8:05:07 GMT -8
I'm not smart enough to speak to all this fancy turnover stuff, but I just saw that they are in the top 16 in the all important Still Playing Basketball Games category. Or is it SPBG?
That seems pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Mar 29, 2019 8:38:26 GMT -8
I'm not smart enough to speak to all this fancy turnover stuff, but I just saw that they are in the top 16 in the all important Still Playing Basketball Games category. Or is it SPBG? That seems pretty cool. Still playing is good. Especially in the NCAA tournament (not the WNIT or WBI). |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Mar 29, 2019 10:17:01 GMT -8
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
|
|
