Hidden key to this SU team

[billsin01]

I haven't seen this written or talked about that much, but this team is (at the risk of jinxing it) on pace for what I think is an historically low turnover rate this season.

Right now they are averaging 10.56 TO/game (ESPN rounds that to 11 for some reason). Last season, a team that also took good care of the ball, turned it over 12.34 times a game -- about a possession and a half better per game.

Outside of that, I went through every Cuse team that SU athletics has a season box score for (back to the '83-'84 team) and none took care of the ball like this. In fact, most were at 15 or north of that number.

Now a lack of turnovers doesn't tell the whole story -- they don't necessarily make you a good team or even a good offensive team. But when you consider the troubles this group has had shooting the ball at times and rebounding at others, their ability to at least not give away possessions has been big.

Anyone know of any team prior to 83-84 that might equal or better this TO rate?

 

[Marsh01]

I have said this after almost every game. The lack of turning the ball over is really a stat that people are not looking at and is a big reason why we are winning games depsite the lack of rebounding and consistent perimeter shooting. Good take.

 

[jdubs30]

The lack of turnovers plus the fact that we are causing so many is huge for us, that's usually 6 extra possessions at least right there.

Not many teams win while getting outrebounded; but we can get outrebounded by 15 vs. a top 12 team and still win. Rare quality for sure.

 

[billsin01]

I have said this after almost every game. The lack of turning the ball over is really a stat that people are not looking at and is a big reason why we are winning games depsite the lack of rebounding and consistent perimeter shooting. Good take.

That's why it drives me crazy that people get so worked up when national media say something folks perceive as unflattering about this team: there isn't a lot of quality analysis going on. The fact that people aren't talking much about a significant reduction in turnovers as a key to overcoming other shortcomings is a pretty bad oversight.

 

[jordoo]

I would also add that the turnovers we have had are usually of the variety that you cannot run with. I cannot remember a game this year where we had more than one turnover that resulted in an easy two for the oponent.
Great job and advantage for us in the turnover and points off turnover battle all season.

 

[Knicks411]

Yeah it's something I think I mention after every game too. It doesn't stick out; a lot of times I won't realize it until they flash the stat on the screen, but it is hugely important. We win th e TO battle every game.

 

[moqui]

Scoop has been key there - not only are his own turnovers down, but turnovers that would have been credited to the bigs due to fumbled passes are down because Scoop's passing has been both sharper and smarter

 

[RF2044]

Scoop has been key there - not only are his own turnovers down, but turnovers that would have been credited to the bigs due to fumbled passes are down because Scoop's passing has been both sharper and smarter

Scoop has benefited TREMENDOUSLY from the improved depth. Jardine playing 37 MPG generally means slightly more tired legs, more propensity for poor plays, unforced errors, etc. Jardine playing closer to 30 MPG has resulted in much more crisp execution.

 

[TinyManInside]

That's why it drives me crazy that people get so worked up when national media say something folks perceive as unflattering about this team: there isn't a lot of quality analysis going on. The fact that people aren't talking much about a significant reduction in turnovers as a key to overcoming other shortcomings is a pretty bad oversight.

Gottlieb mentioned this on his radio show last week, that SU was +7 in turnovers.

 

[TinyManInside]

This is why I've been so put off by the CONSTANT arguments about our guards this year... all three of our rotation guys are at ~ 2:1 Ast:To and our 4th string guy is at 3:1! The guard play has been heads and shoulders better than it was last year.

 

[billsin01]

This is why I've been so put off by the CONSTANT arguments about our guards this year... all three of our rotation guys are at ~ 2:1 Ast:To and our 4th string guy is at 3:1! The guard play has been heads and shoulders better than it was last year.

Yeah, I didn't want to go there b/c I'm not sure you can convince some posters that certain players are worth their salt. But this team has been historically good at taking care of the basketball. Really tough to be too critical of the guards when the team has been decent at scoring, is lethal in the open court/unsettled situations, excellent defensively and taking good care of the ball. Not too much more you could ask for.

 

[swish7]

That's why it drives me crazy that people get so worked up when national media say something folks perceive as unflattering about this team: there isn't a lot of quality analysis going on. The fact that people aren't talking much about a significant reduction in turnovers as a key to overcoming other shortcomings is a pretty bad oversight.

To be fair, we would not be saying anything about this unless jb had not said as much about this just recently.

IMO, gut reactions and quick observations are fine as long as you take them for what they are.

Getting out rebounded by 16 is a mind blower. The immediate reaction is not to find some stat which downplays it.

 

[CaliCuse]

I haven't seen this written or talked about that much, but this team is (at the risk of jinxing it) on pace for what I think is an historically low turnover rate this season.

Right now they are averaging 10.56 TO/game (ESPN rounds that to 11 for some reason). Last season, a team that also took good care of the ball, turned it over 12.34 times a game -- about a possession and a half better per game.

Outside of that, I went through every Cuse team that SU athletics has a season box score for (back to the '83-'84 team) and none took care of the ball like this. In fact, most were at 15 or north of that number.

Now a lack of turnovers doesn't tell the whole story -- they don't necessarily make you a good team or even a good offensive team. But when you consider the troubles this group has had shooting the ball at times and rebounding at others, their ability to at least not give away possessions has been big.

Anyone know of any team prior to 83-84 that might equal or better this TO rate?

When Andy Rautins was throwing in his 3s he was giving the ball away at a higher rate. 11 TOs a game is still too much. I know that to cut it down puts the brakes on the team on the offensive side of the game. Some of those passes in the paint have to be rethought before they are attempted.

 

[billsin01]

To be fair, we would not be saying anything about this unless jb had not said as much about this just recently.

IMO, gut reactions and quick observations are fine as long as you take them for what they are.

Getting out rebounded by 16 is a mind blower. The immediate reaction is not to find some stat which downplays it.

I beg to differ. I wasn't aware of JB mentioning it (not that I doubt he did and that he noticed) but I've been saying it for two years -- it was a huge improvement last year and it's been even more noticeable this season.

I get what you're saying, but I tend to think the nuances are the most fun aspect of following sports. I don't mean you have to go crazy with advanced metrics, but I think understanding the shortcomings of RPI or understanding the importance something as unsexy but unquestionably important is simply not giving the ball away a few times a game, or understanding that a 7-pitch at-bat is worth something even if it ends in a 4-3 putout is fun. The gray -- in almost all aspects of life -- is what really matters even though the black and white is the most debated and easiest to understand.

 

[VaBeachOrFan]

SU has been at or near the top all year in turnover margin and it has served them well -- likely making the difference in their close games. Their ball-handling success also aligns with the truism that experienced guard play pays dividends in the NCAA tournament. Cuse is in good shape doing what it does. Now if only their shooting would improve just a tad. . . -VBOF

 

[swish7]

I beg to differ. I wasn't aware of JB mentioning it (not that I doubt he did and that he noticed) but I've been saying it for two years -- it was a huge improvement last year and it's been even more noticeable this season.

I get what you're saying, but I tend to think the nuances are the most fun aspect of following sports. I don't mean you have to go crazy with advanced metrics, but I think understanding the shortcomings of RPI or understanding the importance something as unsexy but unquestionably important is simply not giving the ball away a few times a game, or understanding that a 7-pitch at-bat is worth something even if it ends in a 4-3 putout is fun. The gray -- in almost all aspects of life -- is what really matters even though the black and white is the most debated and easiest to understand.

I hear ya. I appreciate interesting and objective statistical takes, that are not two pages long.

Jb did mention this specifically in the presser after the -16 rebounding game.

You may have been on it last year, but it was a new take for me.

As I always do, I will fail at phrasing this without offending someone, but certain people, not saying you, often throw out complex statistical scenarios to deflect an obvious and correctable fault. Conviently after the fact, and without a proper causal relationship. Do we get more turnovers because we don't rebound well? To me, that is more interesting than "forget the rebounding problem, bc the turnover ratio is solid.". The latter is more convience, than proof or cause.

At least to me at this point.

Gray area is fine, but there is black and white too. Ball goes up, find a man and box out. If there are two, pick one.

 

[billsin01]

Jb did mention this specifically in the presser after the -16 rebounding game.

You may have been on it last year, but it was a new take for me.

As I always do, I will fail at phrasing this without offending someone, but certain people, not saying you, often throw out complex statistical scenarios to deflect an obvious and correctable fault. Conviently after the fact, and without a proper causal relationship. Do we get more turnovers because we don't rebound well? To me, that is more interesting than "forget the rebounding problem, bc the turnover ratio is solid.". The latter is more convience, than proof or cause.

At least to me at this point.

Gray area is fine, but there is black and white too. Ball goes up, find a man and box out. If there are two, pick one.

Yeah, I think I misinterpreted. I agree. The rebounding and shooting woes are issues regardless of turnover numbers. I think the turnover numbers are more of just an underrated storyline with this group.

I tend to agree that advanced stats can get in the way of solid basic analysis. Especially in basketball.