|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jan 27, 2016 8:41:33 GMT -8
That's something this team can hang their hats on - being good at this stat can help compensate for weaknesses in rebounding. Reid leads OSU for TOs/Min by a pretty wide margin for th team (~1 TO/10 mins), followed by GP and Malcolm. GP is generally trying to make plays with his TOs or breaking the press, while it seems like Malcom's and Reids are caused more trying to get to the rim, although GP II has his share of that type as well. That is a surprising stat to me - and there's lots of room to improve. We're currently ranked 78th in TOs/game overall, two spots behind Stanford for the top in the Pac - not bad, particularly for a team that plays a lot of frosh. We're pretty decent at forcing TOs as well, putting us at 87th nationally in TO margin, behind Washington (who is great at forcing TOs) and hole in the Pac. www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/217/p2www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/519/p2 |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jan 27, 2016 8:52:32 GMT -8
I don't think that giving up offensive rebounds count as a turnover, but the outcome is basically the same. Another possession for your opponent.
How do we stack up, statistically speaking, on Offensive Rebounds surrendered?
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 27, 2016 9:34:36 GMT -8
Really in conference stats we are pretty much exactly even except...
Total boards... Opp 278 / OSU 239 (39.7 / 34.1)
Fouls... Opp 130 / OSU 162
TOs... Opp 98 / OSU 69
FT %... Opp .715 / OSU .642 (20 less attempts)
FGA... Opp 369 / OSU 413 (% virtually even .428 vs .424 and both are .317 from three)
Steals... Opp 28 / OSU 54
Typical of a .500 type team... Really lacking an inside post game hurts in several categories... teams foul less, we shoot less FTs, we shoot lower % shots and lower FG %. Not things we can really count on being fixed unless Drew gets some kind of post game. Even Big G has some semblance of both hands/baby hook and good strong positioning... his improved play/playing time might be the one factor that can help us immediately. Others need to just take better shots and make them. Shooting below 45% really puts you behind the 8-ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jan 27, 2016 12:48:25 GMT -8
I don't think that giving up offensive rebounds count as a turnover, but the outcome is basically the same. Another possession for your opponent. How do we stack up, statistically speaking, on Offensive Rebounds surrendered? Our conference offensive rebounds delta went: -2 (win) -11 (loss) +8 (win) -1 (loss) -2 (loss) +6 (loss) -5 (win) So it doesn't actually correlate that well directly with the outcome, partly because it gets hidden when we give them a big FT delta (e.g. agains Colorado - their bigs killed us inside, but wasn't obvious from the offensive rebounding numbers because they made a lot of shots and/or shot FTs). In aggregate, a -7 for the Pac-12 conference season doesn't seem like a problem area, but we know better. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jan 27, 2016 12:56:33 GMT -8
Really in conference stats we are pretty much exactly even except... Total boards... Opp 278 / OSU 239 (39.7 / 34.1) Fouls... Opp 130 / OSU 162 TOs... Opp 98 / OSU 69 FT %... Opp .715 / OSU .642 (20 less attempts) FGA... Opp 369 / OSU 413 (% virtually even .428 vs .424 and both are .317 from three) Steals... Opp 28 / OSU 54 Typical of a .500 type team... Really lacking an inside post game hurts in several categories... teams foul less, we shoot less FTs, we shoot lower % shots and lower FG %. Not things we can really count on being fixed unless Drew gets some kind of post game. Even Big G has some semblance of both hands/baby hook and good strong positioning... his improved play/playing time might be the one factor that can help us immediately. Others need to just take better shots and make them. Shooting below 45% really puts you behind the 8-ball. Well, in career development, there's generally 2 approaches - identify your weaknesses and make them better, or identify your strengths and focus on making them better. The latter is much more popular currently. That's my point here - this team is not going to be a great rebounding team, it's unrealistic. They aren't going to become a much better shooting team either, although that could change just by shortening the bench (depending on the players who get the PT). The aren't going to get better at drawing fouls overnight either (or conversely, fouling themselves less often - our bigs in particular have not learned the nuances of contesting shots without fouling). So rather than spending a lot of time and energy trying to upgrade the weaker areas, I'm of the mind that the'll have a better chance of increasing their winning % by focusing on getting better at what they are already pretty good at. That is not turning the ball over, and forcing turnovers. |
|
