Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The turnover prone guys

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    Mike -- Getting technical enough to move this over to the analysis stuff. I didn t notice it until the list of players who turn the ball over a lot -- but you
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 19, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

       

      Mike --

       

      Getting technical enough to move this over to the analysis stuff…

       

      I didn't notice it until the list of players who turn the ball over a lot -- but you clearly have just one non-time-variable equation to define expectation.  There are a lot of recent players on the good list and a lot of old ones on the other.  Because turnovers have been coming down a lot league-wide, there may be reason to adjust.

       

      This won't change your absolute best and your absolute worst, I don't think.  But it can change some of the others.

       

      Echoing a bit of what others have said, players who don't commit many turnovers may still be inefficient players and vice-versa.  Sam Mitchell makes the list of players who don't turn the ball over much, but he was overall just as efficient as Andrew Toney who makes your list of players who turn the ball over a lot.  Generally, though, players who don't turn the ball over much are pretty efficient.

       

      I'm actually surprised that Kerry Kittles doesn't make your list.  He is one I noted from his rookie year as surprisingly carefull with the ball.

       

       

      --- In APBR@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:

      > The assist-to-turnover ratio is a mystery to me.  Turnovers are

      > sometimes a result of attempting a pass, sometimes from a scoring

      > attempt, sometimes after a rebound, etc.

      >

      > There is a statistical correlation of turnovers and virtually every

      > other statistical category.  Basically, when you possess the ball,

      > you are in a position to get a turnover.

      >

      > For example, if player A averages 15 pts, 10 reb, 5 ast; and player B

      > averages 15 pts, 5 reb, and 5 ast, we can expect fewer turnovers from

      > player B.

      >

      > I've done some experimenting with the variables, and come up with a

      > list of Players Who Take Care of the Ball (and those who don't).

      >

      > Of some 410 players since turnovers have been counted, Muggsey ranks

      > 46th.  Since he seldom turned it over on scoring attempts, he looks

      > real good in the A/T ratio, and not quite so good overall.

      >

      > Guys Who Take Care of the Ball

      >

      > column 3 is ratio of turnovers to turnovers-expected

      >

      > .59 Michael Cage (1.6 TO expected / 0.9 committed)

      > .60 Horace Grant 2.1/1.2

      > .69 Michael Jordan 4.0/2.7

      > .70 Dan Majerle 1.9/1.3

      > .71 John Paxson 1.7/1.2

      > .72 Cazzie Russell 2.0/1.5

      > .73 Kevin Gamble 1.8/1.4

      > .74 Trent Tucker 1.7/1.2

      > .74 Larry Nance 2.7/2.0

      > .74 Dale Davis 1.9/1.4

      >

      > .75 Bryon Russell 1.8/1.3

      > .75 Bill Laimbeer 2.2/1.7

      > .75 Vinny Del Negro 1.9/1.4

      > .76 Reggie Lewis 2.3/1.8

      > .76 Shaquille O'Neal 3.8/2.9

      > .76 David Robinson 3.6/2.7

      > .76 Sam Perkins 2.0/1.5

      > .77 Zelmo Beaty 2.2/1.7

      > .77 A.C. Green 1.8/1.4

      > .77 Sam Mitchell 1.7/1.3

      >

      > .78 Reggie Miller 2.6/2.0

      > .78 Chris Mills 1.9/1.5

      > .79 Bobby Smith 1.9/1.5

      > .79 Dave Robisch 2.0/1.6

      > .79 HotRod Williams 2.1/1.6

      > .80 B.J. Armstrong 2.0/1.6

      > .80 Eddie Jones 2.3/1.9

      > .80 P.J. Brown 1.8/1.4

      > .81 Rudy Tomjanovich 2.3/1.8

      > .82 Kevin McHale 2.7/2.2

      >

      > .82 Greg Ballard 2.1/1.7

      > .82 Jeff Hornacek 2.5/2.0

      > .83 Terrell Brandon 2.9/2.4

      > .83 Kiki Vanderweghe 2.3/1.9

      > .83 Glen Rice 2.3/1.9

      > .83 Dennis Scott 1.8/1.5

      > .83 Tree Rollins 1.8/1.5

      > .84 Danny Ferry 1.7/1.5

      > .84 Wes Unseld 2.2/1.9

      > .84 Elden Campbell 2.1/1.8

      >

      > .84 Loy Vaught 2.0/1.7

      > .84 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 3.5/3.0

      > .85 Rasheed Wallace 2.3/2.0

      > .85 Kevin Garnett 2.9/2.5

      > .86 Don Buse 1.7/1.5

      > .86 Muggsy Bogues 2.3/2.0

      > .87 Karl Malone 3.5/3.1

      > .87 Dale Ellis 2.0/1.7

      > .87 Terry Mills 2.0/1.7

      > .87 Dave Cowens 2.6/2.2

      >

      >

      >

      > --- In APBR@y..., Keith Ellis <jolk85@y...> wrote:

      > > Muggsy & Cal Murphy aren't really comparable in size

      > > nor are their talents similar.  Cal couldn't grab a

      > > rebound to save his life; Muggsy had seasons

      > > rebounding on a par w/ the likes of Mark Jackson, &,

      > > early on, Paul Pressey.  Muggsy's Assist-TO ratio was

      > > also huge; this stat is something akin to baseball's

      > > on-base pct, i.e., it's a strong indicator, albeit not

      > > a guarantee of, success.

      > >

      > > Cal didn't play D anything like Muggsy, either,

      > > against the FB nor Penetrators.  But Cal had some

      > > super mid-70s seasons, scoring 20+ ppg & assisting

      > > 700+ for the year.

      > >

      > > Judged over their full careers, Muggsy was the better

      > > player, altho not scorer.  FG% & FT% don't count much

      > > for these two.

      > >

      > >

      > > --- jampatod@a... wrote:

      > > > uh, the following statements seem a little

      > > > contradictory to me.  Terry

      > > > Cummings, while I agree, probably shouldn't make the

      > > > HOF, but I can't believe

      > > > anyone thinks Mugsy should even be considered.

      > > > Maybe we should think of Spud

      > > > Webb too.

      > > >

      > > > I really wish that the Basketball HOF was taken a

      > > > little more seriously, ala

      > > > the Base- ball HOF.  As wonderful as these players

      > > > were, people like Bill

      > > > Walton, Arnie Risen, Dick McGuire, Calvin Murphy

      > > > among others, are borderline

      > > > HOF's but made it.

      > > > Walton played 468 games in 14 years (33 games per

      > > > year).  McGuire averaged 8

      > > > pts and 5.7 assists per game in his 11 year career,

      > > > and Risen isn't even

      > > > listed in the NBA guide in the "All-Time Great

      > > > Players" section. 

      > > >

      > > > Murphy might be the only legit borderline guy with

      > > > an average of 18 points

      > > > and .892 free throw pct. and a .482 from the

      > > > field....and he was 5-9. 

      > > > Compare that to Bogues averages of 8 points/8

      > > > assists and .820 and .459. 

      > > >

      > > >

      > > > > I agree that Mugsey should be in the hall. What he

      > > > accomplished was simply

      > > > > amazing.

      > > > >

      > > > > I looked at Terry Cumming's NBA stats and I don't

      > > > find them that

      > > > > extraordinary. He's an excellent basketball player

      > > > - no doubt about that.

      > > > > But

      > > > > Top 50? Please... stop it. You're hurting my

      > > > sides. I doubt he'll make the

      > > > > hall (a much lower threshold than Top 50) - he's

      > > > on the bubble.

      > > > >

      > > >

      > > >

      > >

      > >

      > > __________________________________________________

      > > Do You Yahoo!?

      > > HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

      > > http://www.hotjobs.com

       

      Dean Oliver

      deano@...

      Journal of Basketball Studies

      http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/

       

    • mikel_ind
      ... I have turnovers inversely related to minutes-per-game, because I noticed a lot of guys with otherwise good numbers, high TO, and low minutes. ... coming
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 20, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
        >
        > Mike --
        > ... you clearly have just one non-time-variable equation to
        > define expectation.

        I have turnovers inversely related to minutes-per-game, because I
        noticed a lot of guys with otherwise good numbers, high TO, and low
        minutes.

        >There are a lot of recent players on the good list
        > and a lot of old ones on the other. Because turnovers have been
        coming
        > down a lot league-wide, there may be reason to adjust.

        Yes. Some humongous steals and blocks rates were also recorded in
        the first couple of years of their recording. I don't know if the
        stat-keepers were pencil-happy, if standards took a while to be
        established, or what.

        I think maybe TOs were more tolerated at one time. Especially in the
        ABA. Also, I haven't adjusted TOs to game pace. And clearly,
        running and gunning yields not only more possessions, but more TOs
        per possession; so all those ABA guys on the bottom of the list were
        probably just doing their jobs.

        At the same time, some guys Were taking care of the ball, on the same
        teams.

        >
        > This won't change your absolute best and your absolute worst, I
        don't
        > think. But it can change some of the others.
        >
        > Echoing a bit of what others have said, players who don't commit
        many
        > turnovers may still be inefficient players and vice-versa. Sam
        Mitchell
        > makes the list of players who don't turn the ball over much, but he
        was
        > overall just as efficient as Andrew Toney who makes your list of
        players
        > who turn the ball over a lot. Generally, though, players who don't
        turn
        > the ball over much are pretty efficient.

        Dean, this is a flawed study. It really only allows a comparison of
        players from the same era, and to an extent it isn't comparable
        between positions even then.

        Look at how many former Jordan teammates are near the top of the
        list. Two factors at work here: They didn't have to be creative
        with the ball; and Jordan didn't tolerate turnovers (among other
        things).

        I don't remember thinking Toney was a TO-prone guy. I do remember he
        had a novel but effective bit of footwork driving the lane. Maybe
        the regular-season refs called it travelling, and when I saw him in
        the playoffs, it was deemed ok.

        And, he was an effective passer when he wanted to be.

        >
        > I'm actually surprised that Kerry Kittles doesn't make your list.
        He is
        > one I noted from his rookie year as surprisingly carefull with the
        ball.

        Actually, this study is a year old, and Kittles only this year joined
        the '10,000 club', from which the sample is taken.

        Having looked back at the careers of some of these guys, their
        turnover rates are Highly incomplete. Cazzie Russell, for example,
        has only his last year to go by.

        3 of the top 18 are players who go by their initials. What's up
        with that?


        (Players who take care of the ball)

        > > .59 Michael Cage (1.6 TO expected / 0.9 committed)
        > > .60 Horace Grant 2.1/1.2
        > > .69 Michael Jordan 4.0/2.7
        > > .70 Dan Majerle 1.9/1.3
        > > .71 John Paxson 1.7/1.2
        > > .72 Cazzie Russell 2.0/1.5
        > > .73 Kevin Gamble 1.8/1.4
        > > .74 Trent Tucker 1.7/1.2
        > > .74 Larry Nance 2.7/2.0
        > > .74 Dale Davis 1.9/1.4
        > >
        > > .75 Bryon Russell 1.8/1.3
        > > .75 Bill Laimbeer 2.2/1.7
        > > .75 Vinny Del Negro 1.9/1.4
        > > .76 Reggie Lewis 2.3/1.8
        > > .76 Shaquille O'Neal 3.8/2.9
        > > .76 David Robinson 3.6/2.7
        > > .76 Sam Perkins 2.0/1.5
        > > .77 Zelmo Beaty 2.2/1.7
        > > .77 A.C. Green 1.8/1.4
        > > .77 Sam Mitchell 1.7/1.3
        > >
        > > .78 Reggie Miller 2.6/2.0
        > > .78 Chris Mills 1.9/1.5
        > > .79 Bobby Smith 1.9/1.5
        > > .79 Dave Robisch 2.0/1.6
        > > .79 HotRod Williams 2.1/1.6
        > > .80 B.J. Armstrong 2.0/1.6
        > > .80 Eddie Jones 2.3/1.9
        > > .80 P.J. Brown 1.8/1.4
        > > .81 Rudy Tomjanovich 2.3/1.8
        > > .82 Kevin McHale 2.7/2.2
        > >
        > > .82 Greg Ballard 2.1/1.7
        > > .82 Jeff Hornacek 2.5/2.0
        > > .83 Terrell Brandon 2.9/2.4
        > > .83 Kiki Vanderweghe 2.3/1.9
        > > .83 Glen Rice 2.3/1.9
        > > .83 Dennis Scott 1.8/1.5
        > > .83 Tree Rollins 1.8/1.5
        > > .84 Danny Ferry 1.7/1.5
        > > .84 Wes Unseld 2.2/1.9
        > > .84 Elden Campbell 2.1/1.8
        > >
        > > .84 Loy Vaught 2.0/1.7
        > > .84 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 3.5/3.0
        > > .85 Rasheed Wallace 2.3/2.0
        > > .85 Kevin Garnett 2.9/2.5
        > > .86 Don Buse 1.7/1.5
        > > .86 Muggsy Bogues 2.3/2.0
        > > .87 Karl Malone 3.5/3.1
        > > .87 Dale Ellis 2.0/1.7
        > > .87 Terry Mills 2.0/1.7
        > > .87 Dave Cowens 2.6/2.2
      • HoopStudies
        ... Turnovers are the first thing that will get a player yanked from a game. They indicate to a coach that the guy can t keep up with the speed or intensity.
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 20, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Mike --
          > > ... you clearly have just one non-time-variable equation to
          > > define expectation.
          >
          > I have turnovers inversely related to minutes-per-game, because I
          > noticed a lot of guys with otherwise good numbers, high TO, and low
          > minutes.
          >

          Turnovers are the first thing that will get a player yanked from a
          game. They indicate to a coach that the guy can't keep up with the
          speed or intensity. I'm not surprised that turnover _rate_ declines
          with minutes played.

          > >There are a lot of recent players on the good list
          > > and a lot of old ones on the other. Because turnovers have been
          > coming
          > > down a lot league-wide, there may be reason to adjust.
          >
          > Yes. Some humongous steals and blocks rates were also recorded in
          > the first couple of years of their recording. I don't know if the
          > stat-keepers were pencil-happy, if standards took a while to be
          > established, or what.
          >

          Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as they've been
          coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more plentiful in less
          mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high rates of
          turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as the Mavs set
          a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki had about the
          lowest turnover rate I've seen.

          > Look at how many former Jordan teammates are near the top of the
          > list. Two factors at work here: They didn't have to be creative
          > with the ball; and Jordan didn't tolerate turnovers (among other
          > things).
          >

          I definitely noticed this. That was one of Jordan's biggest effects
          on teammates. I think a lot of great scorers have this effect and
          have been studying it.


          > >
          > > I'm actually surprised that Kerry Kittles doesn't make your
          list.
          > He is
          > > one I noted from his rookie year as surprisingly carefull with
          the
          > ball.
          >
          > Actually, this study is a year old, and Kittles only this year
          joined
          > the '10,000 club', from which the sample is taken.
          >

          I remember Kittles entering the league and not showing the very
          typical first year effect of high turnovers. Almost every future
          good player shows the effect. In fact, I discredit players who don't
          have high turnover rates their first year because they aren't testing
          their abilities enough, playing it too cautious. They end up role
          players, a bit like Kittles is.

          > Having looked back at the careers of some of these guys, their
          > turnover rates are Highly incomplete. Cazzie Russell, for example,
          > has only his last year to go by.
          >

          That is the big reason I don't like evaluating players from before
          individual turnovers were recorded. They make a huge difference and
          are just not easily speculated on.
        • John W. Craven
          ... Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive efficiency rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting percentages may have fallen in part
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 20, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
            > Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as they've been
            > coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more plentiful in less
            > mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high rates of
            > turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as the Mavs set
            > a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki had about the
            > lowest turnover rate I've seen.


            Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive efficiency rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting percentages may have fallen in part because teams are choosing less risky (in terms of committing TOs) yet less successful (in terms of made FGs per FGs attempted) options is one that I hadn't considered until this thread.

            >
            > > Look at how many former Jordan teammates are near the top of the
            > > list. Two factors at work here: They didn't have to be creative
            > > with the ball; and Jordan didn't tolerate turnovers (among other
            > > things).
            > >
            >
            > I definitely noticed this. That was one of Jordan's biggest effects
            > on teammates. I think a lot of great scorers have this effect and
            > have been studying it.
            >
            >
            > > >
            > > > I'm actually surprised that Kerry Kittles doesn't make your
            > list.
            > > He is
            > > > one I noted from his rookie year as surprisingly carefull with
            > the
            > > ball.
            > >
            > > Actually, this study is a year old, and Kittles only this year
            > joined
            > > the '10,000 club', from which the sample is taken.
            > >
            >
            > I remember Kittles entering the league and not showing the very
            > typical first year effect of high turnovers. Almost every future
            > good player shows the effect. In fact, I discredit players who don't
            > have high turnover rates their first year because they aren't testing
            > their abilities enough, playing it too cautious. They end up role
            > players, a bit like Kittles is.
            >
            > > Having looked back at the careers of some of these guys, their
            > > turnover rates are Highly incomplete. Cazzie Russell, for example,
            > > has only his last year to go by.
            > >
            >
            > That is the big reason I don't like evaluating players from before
            > individual turnovers were recorded. They make a huge difference and
            > are just not easily speculated on.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • HoopStudies
            ... less ... of ... set ... the ... rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting percentages may have fallen in part because teams are choosing less
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 21, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
              > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
              > > Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as they've been
              > > coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more plentiful in
              less
              > > mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high rates
              of
              > > turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as the Mavs
              set
              > > a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki had about
              the
              > > lowest turnover rate I've seen.
              >
              >
              > Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive efficiency
              rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting percentages may
              have fallen in part because teams are choosing less risky (in terms
              of committing TOs) yet less successful (in terms of made FGs per FGs
              attempted) options is one that I hadn't considered until this thread.

              It went up sharply in the '70's, steady in the '80's, and down in
              the '90's. It's at least flat or rising now.

              Season AvgRtg
              1974 99
              1975 99
              1976 99
              1977 101
              1978 102
              1979 105
              1980 106
              1981 107
              1982 107
              1983 105
              1984 108
              1985 108
              1986 107
              1987 108
              1988 108
              1989 108
              1990 108
              1991 108
              1992 108
              1993 108
              1994 106
              1995 108
              1996 108
              1997 107
              1998 105
              1999 102
              2000 104
              2001 104
              2002 105
            • alleyoop2
              That s what my #s show as well - offensive efficiency rose last year after a four-year period that looks like a bottoming out, at least right now, with the
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 21, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                That's what my #s show as well - offensive efficiency rose last year
                after a four-year period that looks like a bottoming out, at least
                right now, with the lockout year being the worst.

                Interesting discussion on turnovers by the way, and I couldn't agree
                more with whoever was ripping on Muggsy Bogues. Assist-Turnover ratio
                is about the most idiotic statistic I've ever seen, and has almost no
                correlation with any kind of skill whatsoever.

                Interestingly, guys who make too *few* turnovers are interesting
                bunch - most are poor players or at best role players. Seems like
                below a certain level, a guy can only get a rate that low if all he
                does is shoot wide-open jump shots. The lowest rate in the league by
                my calcs belonged to Cal Bowdler, who will be coming soon to a D-
                League team near you. A couple good players show up in the top ten
                (Terell Brandon, Michael Finley) but there's also a whole lot of Fred
                Hoibergs and Pat Garritys.



                --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
                > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
                > > > Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as they've
                been
                > > > coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more plentiful in
                > less
                > > > mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high rates
                > of
                > > > turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as the
                Mavs
                > set
                > > > a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki had
                about
                > the
                > > > lowest turnover rate I've seen.
                > >
                > >
                > > Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive efficiency
                > rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting percentages
                may
                > have fallen in part because teams are choosing less risky (in terms
                > of committing TOs) yet less successful (in terms of made FGs per
                FGs
                > attempted) options is one that I hadn't considered until this
                thread.
                >
                > It went up sharply in the '70's, steady in the '80's, and down in
                > the '90's. It's at least flat or rising now.
                >
                > Season AvgRtg
                > 1974 99
                > 1975 99
                > 1976 99
                > 1977 101
                > 1978 102
                > 1979 105
                > 1980 106
                > 1981 107
                > 1982 107
                > 1983 105
                > 1984 108
                > 1985 108
                > 1986 107
                > 1987 108
                > 1988 108
                > 1989 108
                > 1990 108
                > 1991 108
                > 1992 108
                > 1993 108
                > 1994 106
                > 1995 108
                > 1996 108
                > 1997 107
                > 1998 105
                > 1999 102
                > 2000 104
                > 2001 104
                > 2002 105
              • HoopStudies
                ... year ... agree ... ratio ... no ... Obviously assists are good and turnovers are bad, but the ratio is just one of so many indicators that the value of the
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 21, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                  > That's what my #s show as well - offensive efficiency rose last
                  year
                  > after a four-year period that looks like a bottoming out, at least
                  > right now, with the lockout year being the worst.
                  >
                  > Interesting discussion on turnovers by the way, and I couldn't
                  agree
                  > more with whoever was ripping on Muggsy Bogues. Assist-Turnover
                  ratio
                  > is about the most idiotic statistic I've ever seen, and has almost
                  no
                  > correlation with any kind of skill whatsoever.
                  >

                  Obviously assists are good and turnovers are bad, but the ratio is
                  just one of so many indicators that the value of the two numbers gets
                  lost. I don't think anyone seriously ranks players by the ratio, but
                  it does tell you something -- which is the point. Kind of like GIDP
                  in baseball doesn't rank players, but it tells you something if used
                  properly.

                  Basketball is so multidimensional -- with so many things going on --
                  that simple stats often don't tell the true story. They tell part of
                  the story. Assist-to-turnover ratio is a fine example. Its "lack of
                  correlation" with skill doesn't mean that it says nothing at all
                  about quality, it just means that it gets dwarfed by other things in
                  importance. I would actually say that coaching quality is important,
                  but its importance gets dwarfed by the talent that the coach has. We
                  try to give awards to coaches, but they are often pretty much
                  guesswork because the tools for evaluating coaches aren't very
                  refined to overcome the dwarfing impact of talent.

                  DeanO

                  >
                  > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                  > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
                  > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
                  > > > > Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as they've
                  > been
                  > > > > coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more plentiful
                  in
                  > > less
                  > > > > mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high
                  rates
                  > > of
                  > > > > turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as the
                  > Mavs
                  > > set
                  > > > > a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki had
                  > about
                  > > the
                  > > > > lowest turnover rate I've seen.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive efficiency
                  > > rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting percentages
                  > may
                  > > have fallen in part because teams are choosing less risky (in
                  terms
                  > > of committing TOs) yet less successful (in terms of made FGs per
                  > FGs
                  > > attempted) options is one that I hadn't considered until this
                  > thread.
                  > >
                  > > It went up sharply in the '70's, steady in the '80's, and down in
                  > > the '90's. It's at least flat or rising now.
                  > >
                  > > Season AvgRtg
                  > > 1974 99
                  > > 1975 99
                  > > 1976 99
                  > > 1977 101
                  > > 1978 102
                  > > 1979 105
                  > > 1980 106
                  > > 1981 107
                  > > 1982 107
                  > > 1983 105
                  > > 1984 108
                  > > 1985 108
                  > > 1986 107
                  > > 1987 108
                  > > 1988 108
                  > > 1989 108
                  > > 1990 108
                  > > 1991 108
                  > > 1992 108
                  > > 1993 108
                  > > 1994 106
                  > > 1995 108
                  > > 1996 108
                  > > 1997 107
                  > > 1998 105
                  > > 1999 102
                  > > 2000 104
                  > > 2001 104
                  > > 2002 105
                • alleyoop2
                  You said, in part says nothing at all about quality, it just means that it gets dwarfed by other things in importance. I disagree: I actually think
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 22, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You said, in part "says nothing at all about quality, it just means
                    that it gets dwarfed by other things in importance."

                    I disagree: I actually think assist-turnover ratio says nothing at
                    all about quality. It is dominated by players who never penetrate
                    like Jeff McInnis and Alvin Williams (or the previous example, Muggsy
                    Bogues) and as a result this particular stat is at least as much a
                    contrarian indicator as it is a positive one.



                    --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                    > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                    > > That's what my #s show as well - offensive efficiency rose last
                    > year
                    > > after a four-year period that looks like a bottoming out, at
                    least
                    > > right now, with the lockout year being the worst.
                    > >
                    > > Interesting discussion on turnovers by the way, and I couldn't
                    > agree
                    > > more with whoever was ripping on Muggsy Bogues. Assist-Turnover
                    > ratio
                    > > is about the most idiotic statistic I've ever seen, and has
                    almost
                    > no
                    > > correlation with any kind of skill whatsoever.
                    > >
                    >
                    > Obviously assists are good and turnovers are bad, but the ratio is
                    > just one of so many indicators that the value of the two numbers
                    gets
                    > lost. I don't think anyone seriously ranks players by the ratio,
                    but
                    > it does tell you something -- which is the point. Kind of like
                    GIDP
                    > in baseball doesn't rank players, but it tells you something if
                    used
                    > properly.
                    >
                    > Basketball is so multidimensional -- with so many things going on --

                    > that simple stats often don't tell the true story. They tell part
                    of
                    > the story. Assist-to-turnover ratio is a fine example. Its "lack
                    of
                    > correlation" with skill doesn't mean that it says nothing at all
                    > about quality, it just means that it gets dwarfed by other things
                    in
                    > importance. I would actually say that coaching quality is
                    important,
                    > but its importance gets dwarfed by the talent that the coach has.
                    We
                    > try to give awards to coaches, but they are often pretty much
                    > guesswork because the tools for evaluating coaches aren't very
                    > refined to overcome the dwarfing impact of talent.
                    >
                    > DeanO
                    >
                    > >
                    > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                    > > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...>
                    wrote:
                    > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
                    > > > > > Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as they've
                    > > been
                    > > > > > coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more plentiful
                    > in
                    > > > less
                    > > > > > mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high
                    > rates
                    > > > of
                    > > > > > turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as the
                    > > Mavs
                    > > > set
                    > > > > > a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki had
                    > > about
                    > > > the
                    > > > > > lowest turnover rate I've seen.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive
                    efficiency
                    > > > rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting
                    percentages
                    > > may
                    > > > have fallen in part because teams are choosing less risky (in
                    > terms
                    > > > of committing TOs) yet less successful (in terms of made FGs
                    per
                    > > FGs
                    > > > attempted) options is one that I hadn't considered until this
                    > > thread.
                    > > >
                    > > > It went up sharply in the '70's, steady in the '80's, and down
                    in
                    > > > the '90's. It's at least flat or rising now.
                    > > >
                    > > > Season AvgRtg
                    > > > 1974 99
                    > > > 1975 99
                    > > > 1976 99
                    > > > 1977 101
                    > > > 1978 102
                    > > > 1979 105
                    > > > 1980 106
                    > > > 1981 107
                    > > > 1982 107
                    > > > 1983 105
                    > > > 1984 108
                    > > > 1985 108
                    > > > 1986 107
                    > > > 1987 108
                    > > > 1988 108
                    > > > 1989 108
                    > > > 1990 108
                    > > > 1991 108
                    > > > 1992 108
                    > > > 1993 108
                    > > > 1994 106
                    > > > 1995 108
                    > > > 1996 108
                    > > > 1997 107
                    > > > 1998 105
                    > > > 1999 102
                    > > > 2000 104
                    > > > 2001 104
                    > > > 2002 105
                  • harlanzo
                    So how dou you meaningfully interpret turnovers? I agree that context is important (ie Rodman s low turnovers do not indicate his ballhandling ability). Can
                    Message 9 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      So how dou you meaningfully interpret turnovers? I agree that
                      context is important (ie Rodman's low turnovers do not indicate his
                      ballhandling ability). Can you estimate touches per game and then
                      divide turnovers into this number? That would theoretically balance
                      out the problems you mention. (of course determining what is a real
                      touch and tos in the half court v. fast break might make differnece
                      too.)

                      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                      > You said, in part "says nothing at all about quality, it just means
                      > that it gets dwarfed by other things in importance."
                      >
                      > I disagree: I actually think assist-turnover ratio says nothing at
                      > all about quality. It is dominated by players who never penetrate
                      > like Jeff McInnis and Alvin Williams (or the previous example,
                      Muggsy
                      > Bogues) and as a result this particular stat is at least as much a
                      > contrarian indicator as it is a positive one.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                      > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                      > > > That's what my #s show as well - offensive efficiency rose last
                      > > year
                      > > > after a four-year period that looks like a bottoming out, at
                      > least
                      > > > right now, with the lockout year being the worst.
                      > > >
                      > > > Interesting discussion on turnovers by the way, and I couldn't
                      > > agree
                      > > > more with whoever was ripping on Muggsy Bogues. Assist-Turnover
                      > > ratio
                      > > > is about the most idiotic statistic I've ever seen, and has
                      > almost
                      > > no
                      > > > correlation with any kind of skill whatsoever.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Obviously assists are good and turnovers are bad, but the ratio
                      is
                      > > just one of so many indicators that the value of the two numbers
                      > gets
                      > > lost. I don't think anyone seriously ranks players by the ratio,
                      > but
                      > > it does tell you something -- which is the point. Kind of like
                      > GIDP
                      > > in baseball doesn't rank players, but it tells you something if
                      > used
                      > > properly.
                      > >
                      > > Basketball is so multidimensional -- with so many things going
                      on --
                      >
                      > > that simple stats often don't tell the true story. They tell
                      part
                      > of
                      > > the story. Assist-to-turnover ratio is a fine example.
                      Its "lack
                      > of
                      > > correlation" with skill doesn't mean that it says nothing at all
                      > > about quality, it just means that it gets dwarfed by other things
                      > in
                      > > importance. I would actually say that coaching quality is
                      > important,
                      > > but its importance gets dwarfed by the talent that the coach
                      has.
                      > We
                      > > try to give awards to coaches, but they are often pretty much
                      > > guesswork because the tools for evaluating coaches aren't very
                      > > refined to overcome the dwarfing impact of talent.
                      > >
                      > > DeanO
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                      > > > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...>
                      > wrote:
                      > > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
                      > > > > > > Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as
                      they've
                      > > > been
                      > > > > > > coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more
                      plentiful
                      > > in
                      > > > > less
                      > > > > > > mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high
                      > > rates
                      > > > > of
                      > > > > > > turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as
                      the
                      > > > Mavs
                      > > > > set
                      > > > > > > a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki
                      had
                      > > > about
                      > > > > the
                      > > > > > > lowest turnover rate I've seen.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive
                      > efficiency
                      > > > > rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting
                      > percentages
                      > > > may
                      > > > > have fallen in part because teams are choosing less risky (in
                      > > terms
                      > > > > of committing TOs) yet less successful (in terms of made FGs
                      > per
                      > > > FGs
                      > > > > attempted) options is one that I hadn't considered until this
                      > > > thread.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > It went up sharply in the '70's, steady in the '80's, and
                      down
                      > in
                      > > > > the '90's. It's at least flat or rising now.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Season AvgRtg
                      > > > > 1974 99
                      > > > > 1975 99
                      > > > > 1976 99
                      > > > > 1977 101
                      > > > > 1978 102
                      > > > > 1979 105
                      > > > > 1980 106
                      > > > > 1981 107
                      > > > > 1982 107
                      > > > > 1983 105
                      > > > > 1984 108
                      > > > > 1985 108
                      > > > > 1986 107
                      > > > > 1987 108
                      > > > > 1988 108
                      > > > > 1989 108
                      > > > > 1990 108
                      > > > > 1991 108
                      > > > > 1992 108
                      > > > > 1993 108
                      > > > > 1994 106
                      > > > > 1995 108
                      > > > > 1996 108
                      > > > > 1997 107
                      > > > > 1998 105
                      > > > > 1999 102
                      > > > > 2000 104
                      > > > > 2001 104
                      > > > > 2002 105
                    • HoopStudies
                      ... Muggsy ... Quick comment: There was a study going around when I was in high school showing that studying more hours was not correlated with good grades in
                      Message 10 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                        > You said, in part "says nothing at all about quality, it just means
                        > that it gets dwarfed by other things in importance."
                        >
                        > I disagree: I actually think assist-turnover ratio says nothing at
                        > all about quality. It is dominated by players who never penetrate
                        > like Jeff McInnis and Alvin Williams (or the previous example,
                        Muggsy
                        > Bogues) and as a result this particular stat is at least as much a
                        > contrarian indicator as it is a positive one.
                        >

                        Quick comment:

                        There was a study going around when I was in high school showing that
                        studying more hours was not correlated with good grades in classes
                        (tainted by the really smart kids not having to study). Does that
                        mean that studying doesn't help? No. It means that there are other
                        factors that are important. It certainly convinced some people not
                        to study. I think they're working at the Piggly Wiggly now.

                        Common sense says a high assist-turnover is a good thing, kinda like
                        studying is a good thing. An extremely high ratio doesn't
                        necessarily make you a good player, as studying infinite hours
                        doesn't necessarily make you a good student.

                        McInnis, Williams, and Bogues are not horrible players. Not stars by
                        any measure, except for assist-turnover ratio. But no one saw them
                        as stars, including their coaches who recognized that the ratio has
                        some value and kept them around to be solid and safe distributors.

                        DeanO


                        >
                        >
                        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                        > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "alleyoop2" <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
                        > > > That's what my #s show as well - offensive efficiency rose last
                        > > year
                        > > > after a four-year period that looks like a bottoming out, at
                        > least
                        > > > right now, with the lockout year being the worst.
                        > > >
                        > > > Interesting discussion on turnovers by the way, and I couldn't
                        > > agree
                        > > > more with whoever was ripping on Muggsy Bogues. Assist-Turnover
                        > > ratio
                        > > > is about the most idiotic statistic I've ever seen, and has
                        > almost
                        > > no
                        > > > correlation with any kind of skill whatsoever.
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > > Obviously assists are good and turnovers are bad, but the ratio
                        is
                        > > just one of so many indicators that the value of the two numbers
                        > gets
                        > > lost. I don't think anyone seriously ranks players by the ratio,
                        > but
                        > > it does tell you something -- which is the point. Kind of like
                        > GIDP
                        > > in baseball doesn't rank players, but it tells you something if
                        > used
                        > > properly.
                        > >
                        > > Basketball is so multidimensional -- with so many things going
                        on --
                        >
                        > > that simple stats often don't tell the true story. They tell
                        part
                        > of
                        > > the story. Assist-to-turnover ratio is a fine example.
                        Its "lack
                        > of
                        > > correlation" with skill doesn't mean that it says nothing at all
                        > > about quality, it just means that it gets dwarfed by other things
                        > in
                        > > importance. I would actually say that coaching quality is
                        > important,
                        > > but its importance gets dwarfed by the talent that the coach
                        has.
                        > We
                        > > try to give awards to coaches, but they are often pretty much
                        > > guesswork because the tools for evaluating coaches aren't very
                        > > refined to overcome the dwarfing impact of talent.
                        > >
                        > > DeanO
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
                        > > > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, HoopStudies wrote:
                        > > > > > > Definitely turnovers have been coming down, just as
                        they've
                        > > > been
                        > > > > > > coming down in the WNBA. Turnovers are much more
                        plentiful
                        > > in
                        > > > > less
                        > > > > > > mature leagues. I've always believed that the early high
                        > > rates
                        > > > > of
                        > > > > > > turnovers were real. They are still coming down now as
                        the
                        > > > Mavs
                        > > > > set
                        > > > > > > a record last year for fewest turnovers. And Nowtizki
                        had
                        > > > about
                        > > > > the
                        > > > > > > lowest turnover rate I've seen.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Which raises a point: How has your overall offensive
                        > efficiency
                        > > > > rating changed over the years? The idea that shooting
                        > percentages
                        > > > may
                        > > > > have fallen in part because teams are choosing less risky (in
                        > > terms
                        > > > > of committing TOs) yet less successful (in terms of made FGs
                        > per
                        > > > FGs
                        > > > > attempted) options is one that I hadn't considered until this
                        > > > thread.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > It went up sharply in the '70's, steady in the '80's, and
                        down
                        > in
                        > > > > the '90's. It's at least flat or rising now.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Season AvgRtg
                        > > > > 1974 99
                        > > > > 1975 99
                        > > > > 1976 99
                        > > > > 1977 101
                        > > > > 1978 102
                        > > > > 1979 105
                        > > > > 1980 106
                        > > > > 1981 107
                        > > > > 1982 107
                        > > > > 1983 105
                        > > > > 1984 108
                        > > > > 1985 108
                        > > > > 1986 107
                        > > > > 1987 108
                        > > > > 1988 108
                        > > > > 1989 108
                        > > > > 1990 108
                        > > > > 1991 108
                        > > > > 1992 108
                        > > > > 1993 108
                        > > > > 1994 106
                        > > > > 1995 108
                        > > > > 1996 108
                        > > > > 1997 107
                        > > > > 1998 105
                        > > > > 1999 102
                        > > > > 2000 104
                        > > > > 2001 104
                        > > > > 2002 105
                      • bchaikin@aol.com
                        In a message dated 8/23/02 5:09:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, harlanzo@yahoo.com writes: .....can you estimate touches per game and then divide turnovers into
                        Message 11 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 8/23/02 5:09:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, harlanzo@... writes:

                          ".....can you estimate touches per game and then divide turnovers into this number?  that would theoretically balance..."

                          this is what the Historical Statistical Database at the www.apbr.org website lists for all players from 1977-78 to the present and for most of the ABA years - turnovers as a percentage of total touches (its listed as %TO). you'll see players like bogues at only 3% TO, meaning 3 turnovers per 100 ball possessions, which is excellent....

                          AST/TO ratio is essentially a meaningless statistic. people use it because its easy to calculate - just two simple numbers that are already measured by the league, and at some point someone assigned importance to it. %TO tells you how many times per 100 ball possessions a player turns it over - far more meaningful and it puts every player on the same measuring parameter, that of what occurs per ball possession...

                          in 82-83 mike dunleavy (san) had 437 ast and 160 to, for an AST/TO ratio of 2.73. in 95-96 brent price had an AST/TO (416/153) ratio of 2.72. in 90-91 doc rivers had an AST/TO (340/125) ratio of 2.72. but dunleavy's %TO was 6%, brent price's was 5%, and river's was 4%. that means for every 100 ball possessions dunleavy committed 2 more turnovers than rivers did - that's 33% more. so if you are looking for AST/TO ratio to mean something about how well a player handles the ball, you're looking in the wrong place...

                          players such as manute bol, james donaldson, george johnson (the shot blocking center, not the forward), darryl dawkins, and today's jahidi white have all had a season of 14-18 %TO, which is a turnover every 5-7 times the player has the ball on offense, pretty awful. %TOs of between 3-5 are typical of most point guards and represent a turnover only every 20-30 times the player has the ball on offense...

                          bob chaikin
                          bchaikin@...










                          in 89-90 terry catledge had an AST/TO (72/181) ratio of 0.40. in 83-83 darryl dawkins had an AST/TO (114/281) ratio of 0.41. but dawkins' %TO was 17% and catledge's was 8.5%, twice as worse, meaning dawkins commited twice as many turnovers per 100 ball possessions...

                          the bottom line is that an assist occurs only on a pass, and a turnover can occur whenever a player has the ball, while dribbling, passing, or shooting. the two statistical parameters are not mutually dependent, and thus really have no significance when compared just to each other....

                          on the other hand, player ball possessions take into account pretty much everything that can happen when you have the ball - either shoot, pass, get fouled, or turn the ball over. other things like double fouls, offensive fouls, etc. occur rarely and in the big picture can be considered statistically insignificant when trying to determine how often a player turns the ball over, although if measured would surely add to the accuracy of the measurement...

                          bob chaikin
                          bchaikin@...






                        • alleyoop2
                          Pretty much echoes my thoughts -- turnover rates are only meaningful if you include all possessions and not just the ones that end in assists... One other
                          Message 12 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Pretty much echoes my thoughts -- turnover rates are only meaningful
                            if you include all possessions and not just the ones that end in
                            assists...

                            One other thing. The Jahidi White stat you mentioned reminds me --
                            turnover ratio is misleading when you see a high turnover rate by a
                            big man who rarely shoots. Examples from last year are Darvin Ham,
                            Charles Oakley, and Alvin Jones. This high TO rate is almost
                            certainly from illegal screen calls rather than being an unusually
                            poor ballhandler.



                            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
                            > In a message dated 8/23/02 5:09:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                            > harlanzo@y... writes:
                            >
                            > ".....can you estimate touches per game and then divide turnovers
                            into this
                            > number? that would theoretically balance..."
                            >
                            > this is what the Historical Statistical Database at the
                            www.apbr.org website
                            > lists for all players from 1977-78 to the present and for most of
                            the ABA
                            > years - turnovers as a percentage of total touches (its listed as %
                            TO).
                            > you'll see players like bogues at only 3% TO, meaning 3 turnovers
                            per 100
                            > ball possessions, which is excellent....
                            >
                            > AST/TO ratio is essentially a meaningless statistic. people use it
                            because
                            > its easy to calculate - just two simple numbers that are already
                            measured by
                            > the league, and at some point someone assigned importance to it. %
                            TO tells
                            > you how many times per 100 ball possessions a player turns it over -
                            far more
                            > meaningful and it puts every player on the same measuring
                            parameter, that of
                            > what occurs per ball possession...
                            >
                            > in 82-83 mike dunleavy (san) had 437 ast and 160 to, for an AST/TO
                            ratio of
                            > 2.73. in 95-96 brent price had an AST/TO (416/153) ratio of 2.72.
                            in 90-91
                            > doc rivers had an AST/TO (340/125) ratio of 2.72. but dunleavy's %
                            TO was 6%,
                            > brent price's was 5%, and river's was 4%. that means for every 100
                            ball
                            > possessions dunleavy committed 2 more turnovers than rivers did -
                            that's 33%
                            > more. so if you are looking for AST/TO ratio to mean something
                            about how well
                            > a player handles the ball, you're looking in the wrong place...
                            >
                            > players such as manute bol, james donaldson, george johnson (the
                            shot
                            > blocking center, not the forward), darryl dawkins, and today's
                            jahidi white
                            > have all had a season of 14-18 %TO, which is a turnover every 5-7
                            times the
                            > player has the ball on offense, pretty awful. %TOs of between 3-5
                            are typical
                            > of most point guards and represent a turnover only every 20-30
                            times the
                            > player has the ball on offense...
                            >
                            > bob chaikin
                            > bchaikin@b...
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > in 89-90 terry catledge had an AST/TO (72/181) ratio of 0.40. in 83-
                            83 darryl
                            > dawkins had an AST/TO (114/281) ratio of 0.41. but dawkins' %TO was
                            17% and
                            > catledge's was 8.5%, twice as worse, meaning dawkins commited twice
                            as many
                            > turnovers per 100 ball possessions...
                            >
                            > the bottom line is that an assist occurs only on a pass, and a
                            turnover can
                            > occur whenever a player has the ball, while dribbling, passing, or
                            shooting.
                            > the two statistical parameters are not mutually dependent, and thus
                            really
                            > have no significance when compared just to each other....
                            >
                            > on the other hand, player ball possessions take into account pretty
                            much
                            > everything that can happen when you have the ball - either shoot,
                            pass, get
                            > fouled, or turn the ball over. other things like double fouls,
                            offensive
                            > fouls, etc. occur rarely and in the big picture can be considered
                            > statistically insignificant when trying to determine how often a
                            player turns
                            > the ball over, although if measured would surely add to the
                            accuracy of the
                            > measurement...
                            >
                            > bob chaikin
                            > bchaikin@b...
                          • Michael K. Tamada
                            ... It s a good point, although how many such offensive fouls do these players commit, compared to their ballhandling turnovers? Is it enough to make a
                            Message 13 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, alleyoop2 wrote:

                              > Pretty much echoes my thoughts -- turnover rates are only meaningful
                              > if you include all possessions and not just the ones that end in
                              > assists...
                              >
                              > One other thing. The Jahidi White stat you mentioned reminds me --
                              > turnover ratio is misleading when you see a high turnover rate by a
                              > big man who rarely shoots. Examples from last year are Darvin Ham,
                              > Charles Oakley, and Alvin Jones. This high TO rate is almost
                              > certainly from illegal screen calls rather than being an unusually
                              > poor ballhandler.

                              It's a good point, although how many such offensive fouls do these players
                              commit, compared to their ballhandling turnovers? Is it enough to make a
                              difference? Maybe, I don't know.


                              The thing that makes me uncomfortable with the TOs as a percent of all
                              touches is that not all touches are the same. A Dale Ellis type who did
                              only two things with the ball -- shoot it or make a safe backward pass --
                              got a lot of touches but commited very few turnovers. His Asst:TO ratio
                              was probably mediocre but his touches:TO ratio was very good. But that
                              didn't make him a good ballhandler.

                              Meanwhile, the guys who fed him, Nate McMillan and Sedale Threatt and I
                              forget who else on the Sonics, typically scored relatively few points,
                              their touches often resulted in either assists or turnovers. McMillan in
                              particular had a good asst:TO ratio. His touches:TO ratio was probably
                              poor, given how few shots he took so unless you have play-by-play sheets
                              to count his non-shooting touches, the touches:TO stat would probably make
                              him look like a mediocre ballhander. When in fact he was excellent, a
                              creative AND careful ballhandler.

                              For players such as Ellis and McMillan, I suspect that asst:TO gives a
                              better measure of their ballhandling skill than touches:TO.


                              --MKT
                            • bchaikin@aol.com
                              In a message dated 8/24/02 12:28:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tamada@oxy.edu ... well then just what is your definition of ...a good ballhandler... ? just
                              Message 14 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 8/24/02 12:28:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tamada@... writes:


                                The thing that makes me uncomfortable with the TOs as a percent of all
                                touches is that not all touches are the same.  A Dale Ellis type who did
                                only two things with the ball -- shoot it or make a safe backward pass --
                                got a lot of touches but commited very few turnovers.  His Asst:TO ratio
                                was probably mediocre but his touches:TO ratio was very good.  But that
                                didn't make him a good ballhandler.

                                Meanwhile, the guys who fed him, Nate McMillan and Sedale Threatt and I
                                forget who else on the Sonics, typically scored relatively few points,
                                their touches often resulted in either assists or turnovers.  McMillan in
                                particular had a good asst:TO ratio.  His touches:TO ratio was probably
                                poor, given how few shots he took so unless you have play-by-play sheets
                                to count his non-shooting touches, the touches:TO stat would probably make
                                him look like a mediocre ballhander.  When in fact he was excellent, a
                                creative AND careful ballhandler.

                                For players such as Ellis and McMillan, I suspect that asst:TO gives a
                                better measure of their ballhandling skill than touches:TO.




                                well then just what is your definition of "...a good ballhandler..."? just what IS a good ball handler? a player who does not turn the ball over often? a good dribbler? a good passer? is your opinion of a good ballhandler someone who can dribble the length of the court against tough pressure without turning the ball over? someone who can dribble between his legs? behind his back?...

                                dale ellis' career %TO is about 6%, excellent for a SG/SF. nate mcmillan's career %TO is about 5%, good for a PG. sedale threatt's is 4-5%, excellent to good for a PG (6% is getting to the poor side for a starting PG)....

                                are all touches the same? in reality of course not - a pass to a wide open cherry picking player for an easy two points is not the same as a player being triple-teamed while stuck in the backcourt. but in general and for statistical purposes, all touches are indeed the same - because with each touch a player is eventually trying to score himself or trying to set up a teammate to score, and he can in general do one of only four things - either shoot, pass, get fouled, or turn it over....

                                over the span of a season dale ellis is guarded by as many good defenders as nate mcmillan is, and as many as sedale threatt is. no player is guarded by poor defenders far more often than any other player - more often yes, but not far more often. sure most of the time michael jordan was guarded by a tougher defender than john paxson or b.j. armstrong was, but with constant switchoffs, 3 on 2s, shooters blowing past their man only to be confronted by a big man, etc, and not every team having a joe dumars, in reality and over the long haul players are guarded by the same type of players. for every game george gervin in his prime was guarded by t.r. dunn or dennis johnson or sidney moncrief, there were games where he was also guarded by lloyd free and darrell griffith and kevin grevey and pete maravich...

                                so in essence a touch is a touch as with each touch of the ball on offense players are trying to score or trying to set up a scoring opportunity....

                                "...the guys who fed him....their touches often resulted in either assists or turnovers...." is inaccurate. take nate mcmillan, a player who rarely shot the ball. well his FGAs still outnumber his TOs by almost 4 to 1. he did average more TOs than FTAs, but far more FGAs than TOs. thus if mcmillan wasn't passing (70-80% of the time he had possession of the ball), he was more than likely shooting (10-20% of the time he had the ball), and only turned the ball over 5% of the time or got fouled 3-4% of the time - infrequently. sedale threatt in his career shot the ball 5 to 6 times more often than he committed a TO...

                                bob chaikin
                                bchaikin@...























                              • mikel_ind
                                I am still unclear about estimating touches . Is this a term for all possessions used ? i.e., a touch which results in a shot attempt, foul, turnover, or
                                Message 15 of 18 , Aug 24, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I am still unclear about estimating 'touches'. Is this a term for
                                  all possessions 'used'? i.e., a touch which results in a shot
                                  attempt, foul, turnover, or assist?

                                  If it isn't referring to a literal 'touch' (or temporary possession
                                  of the ball), then it seems like not quite the right term. (Though,
                                  it is notably more brief than 'possession used'.)

                                  The real point of my inquiry is not the term one may use here, but
                                  whether there are uncounted touches (low-risk passes, for example)
                                  left out of the equation here. Players swinging the ball around the
                                  perimeter, passing out of the double team -- whatever situation that
                                  does not register an assist or TO -- don't get credited (or charged),
                                  and yet they touched the ball.


                                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
                                  > In a message dated 8/23/02 5:09:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                  > harlanzo@y... writes:
                                  >
                                  > ".....can you estimate touches per game ... ?>

                                  > this is what the Historical Statistical Database at the
                                  www.apbr.org website
                                  > lists for all players from 1977-78 to the present and for most of
                                  the ABA
                                  > years - turnovers as a percentage of total touches (its listed as %
                                  TO).
                                  > you'll see players like bogues at only 3% TO, meaning 3 turnovers
                                  per 100
                                  > ball possessions, which is excellent....



                                  > AST/TO ratio is essentially a meaningless statistic. people use it
                                  because
                                  > its easy to calculate - just two simple numbers that are already
                                  measured by
                                  > the league, and at some point someone assigned importance to it. %
                                  TO tells
                                  > you how many times per 100 ball possessions a player turns it over -
                                  far more
                                  > meaningful and it puts every player on the same measuring
                                  parameter, that of
                                  > what occurs per ball possession...
                                  >
                                • bchaikin@aol.com
                                  possession factor (touches per minute) = (shots) + (passes) + (# times fouled) + (turnovers) shots = FGA passes = ast/factorA #times fouled = FTA/factorB if
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Aug 24, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    possession factor (touches per minute) =

                                              (shots) + (passes) + (# times fouled) + (turnovers)

                                    shots = FGA
                                    passes = ast/factorA
                                    #times fouled = FTA/factorB

                                    if you don't understand this or want to see it in "action" you can download the free demo from "members.aol.com/bchaikin" where the software plays entire seasons in minutes and then lists, among a hundred other things, player total possessions for a season...
                                  • John W. Craven
                                    ... And then there s the question of especially tough touches, the type that Allen Iverson seems to get a lot of. I m talking about the situations where a
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Aug 24, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

                                      > I am still unclear about estimating 'touches'. Is this a term for
                                      > all possessions 'used'? i.e., a touch which results in a shot
                                      > attempt, foul, turnover, or assist?
                                      >
                                      > If it isn't referring to a literal 'touch' (or temporary possession
                                      > of the ball), then it seems like not quite the right term. (Though,
                                      > it is notably more brief than 'possession used'.)
                                      >
                                      > The real point of my inquiry is not the term one may use here, but
                                      > whether there are uncounted touches (low-risk passes, for example)
                                      > left out of the equation here. Players swinging the ball around the
                                      > perimeter, passing out of the double team -- whatever situation that
                                      > does not register an assist or TO -- don't get credited (or charged),
                                      > and yet they touched the ball.

                                      And then there's the question of especially tough "touches," the type that Allen Iverson seems to get a lot of. I'm talking about the situations where a player gets the ball with 5 seconds or left on the shot clock and must create something. If we ever do a Project Scoresheet thing with the NBA, I'd like to see us track these kinds of touches.

                                      Anyway, I do have a couple points on Threatt, at least as to why his TOs/touch may be so low. For one, he tended to split his minutes between the 1 and the 2. For two, IIRC he was much more of a jump shooter who passed to the open man than a "drive-and-draw" style point guard; while both have their relative advantages and disadvantages, it seems to me that the particular disadvantages of the Threatt type (more breakdowns on offense lead to lower-percentage shots, more turnovers by other players, and the occasional shot-clock violation) don't show up in his line in the box score.

                                      John Craven

                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
                                      > > In a message dated 8/23/02 5:09:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                      > > harlanzo@y... writes:
                                      > >
                                      > > ".....can you estimate touches per game ... ?>
                                      >
                                      > > this is what the Historical Statistical Database at the
                                      > www.apbr.org website
                                      > > lists for all players from 1977-78 to the present and for most of
                                      > the ABA
                                      > > years - turnovers as a percentage of total touches (its listed as %
                                      > TO).
                                      > > you'll see players like bogues at only 3% TO, meaning 3 turnovers
                                      > per 100
                                      > > ball possessions, which is excellent....
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > AST/TO ratio is essentially a meaningless statistic. people use it
                                      > because
                                      > > its easy to calculate - just two simple numbers that are already
                                      > measured by
                                      > > the league, and at some point someone assigned importance to it. %
                                      > TO tells
                                      > > you how many times per 100 ball possessions a player turns it over -
                                      > far more
                                      > > meaningful and it puts every player on the same measuring
                                      > parameter, that of
                                      > > what occurs per ball possession...
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • dlirag
                                      ... balance ... real ... That s what Bob Chaikin does in his program. He defines touches per game as the sum of FGA, TO, the number of passes the player makes,
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Aug 26, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
                                        > So how do you meaningfully interpret turnovers? I agree that
                                        > context is important (ie Rodman's low turnovers do not indicate his
                                        > ballhandling ability). Can you estimate touches per game and then
                                        > divide turnovers into this number? That would theoretically
                                        balance
                                        > out the problems you mention. (of course determining what is a
                                        real
                                        > touch and tos in the half court v. fast break might make differnece
                                        > too.)

                                        That's what Bob Chaikin does in his program. He defines touches per
                                        game as the sum of FGA, TO, the number of passes the player makes,
                                        and the number of times he was fouled. It seems that the best
                                        ballhandlers are usually the point guards, turning the ball over on 5-
                                        6% of their touches. PF's and C's are on the other end of the
                                        spectrum with TO/touch percentages of 10% or more.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.