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

Re: The turnover prone guys

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Aug 21, 2002
      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 2 of 18 , Aug 21, 2002
        --- 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 3 of 18 , Aug 22, 2002
          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 4 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
            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 5 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
              --- 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 6 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                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 7 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                  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 8 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                    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 9 of 18 , Aug 23, 2002
                      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 10 of 18 , Aug 24, 2002
                        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 11 of 18 , Aug 24, 2002

                          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 12 of 18 , Aug 24, 2002
                            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 13 of 18 , Aug 26, 2002
                              --- 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.