A Sea Of Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

Kentucky basketball: Talking Turnovers and Rebounding

Btn_ball_medium

Turnovers have been all the buzz in the Big Blue Nation lately.  Naturally, people are wondering just how bad the turnovers are hurting us.  We know they are, but how can we quantify that damage?

A few weeks back, I did a little exercise looking at the two types of giveaways and how all miscues are not created equally by examining our five highest turnover games.  So lets take some of the lessons learned from that exercise and apply it to the South Carolina game.

Star-divide

South Carolina wound up taking 28 more shots than UK did.  Let's see what that means, applying the numbers we derived from the earlier analysis:

  • Kentucky committed nine direct ("live") turnovers and USC five for a difference of 4.  These types of turnovers are worth 1.28 points apiece based on our previous numbers (which we admit may not quite be accurate, but which should be close enough), for a total of 5.12 points.
  • UK committed 12 dead-ball turnovers and USC committed 10 for a difference of 2.  These turnovers are worth 0.7 points each, for a total of 1.4 points.

So far, UK has surrendered an additional 6.52 points to USC, but that isn't the end of the story.  There is also the opportunity cost from turnovers, and for this, all turnovers are considered the same.  Since UK had a net 6 turnovers more than USC, the opportunity cost to UK using true shooting percentage and considering the excess turnovers as negative for UK and positive for USC:

-6 *.71 = -4.25

Adding it all up, UK surrendered an additional 10.75 (11) points to South Carolina by the turnover margin.  Note that we are not assuming zero turnovers here, that goal is not achievable in the real world.  What we are looking at is the margin of difference between the two teams.

Since South Carolina took 28 more shots than UK did, the question remains, "Where did they come from?"  Obviously, six of them could be attributed to turnovers, but the other 22 had to come from somewhere else.  Where?  Offensive rebounds, for one.  South Carolina had nine more offensive rebounds, which makes it look like UK did a really bad job on the defensive glass.  But in reality, both Kentucky and USC got very near their season averages on the offensive glass (UK averages 35%, and we got 36%).  What is disappointing about that performance is that UK has such a significant size advantage that we could have reasonably expected them to hold the Gamecocks to well below their season average on the offensive glass, but that didn't happen.

So as much griping as we have seen about offensive rebounding, the fact of the matter is, OR% in the USC game was very close, 38-36%.  Without going into much additional analysis, we can say that the ORs did not hurt us nearly as much as the excess turnovers, even though they probably accounted for a couple of points above the South Carolna season average.

In case you're wondering where the additional 13 shots came from, remember that UK had 14 more free throw attempts than USC.  Those don't count as shots, and after the free throws are over, possession changes.  That's a net positive for UK, since we shot 83% from the line as a team.  So you can forget about all the other Gamecock attempts, they are due to a possession change after the free throw, with one caveat -- when a team misses the front end of a one-and-one or both shots in a two-shot foul, it is effectively a turnover.  Liggins missed one front-end, and Stevenson missed two big ones at the end of the game.  You could consider those dead-ball turnovers that cost us an additional 1.4 points, and the opportunity cost of 3 ponts for a total of 4.4 more, which would bring the grand total to almost 16 points.

In the final analysis, UK's turnover margin really hurt us most in the USC game.  Kentucky is one of the best shooting teams in the nation, but when we turn the ball over more than a couple of times more per game than our opponents, we are sometimes going to struggle, particularly when those turnovers are "live" and in close games.  With respect to the USC game, had we merely managed one less "live" turnover or two less dead-ball turnovers, we likely would have won the game.  Another offensive rebound or a couple of defensive rebounds, or even Stevenson or Liggins' free throws, would likely have won it for us as well.

0 recs  |  Comment 11 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Rebounds

While it’s nice that UK is 2nd in the nation in block shots, when Patterson and Stevenson both go after the blocked shot that leaves no one in position to get the defensive rebound. A lot of USCs offensive rebounds were because UK was trying so hard to block every shot.

by cthom on Feb 3, 2009 7:11 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Exactly.

I have been harping on this for weeks.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Truzenzuzex on Feb 3, 2009 7:31 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Totally Agree

Someone’s got to either stay home on their man or rotate back to him to block out. We leave the front end of the basket wide freakin open when they both go after the blocked shot.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Feb 3, 2009 9:45 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Another suggestion:

If Stevenson & Patterson are both going up to block….and that is fairly common for many teams, by the way…you need to have the guards rebounding. I’m not going to investigate the stats right now, but I don’t think Porter or Meeks have rebounding stats to be too proud of…I would suspect there is plenty of room for improvement in this area.

'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'

by HozeKing on Feb 3, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

True

Good point. the guards do need to rebound. My primary gripe though is boxing out the big man that either Pat or Perry leave. If one of the guards can box that big out great. If not one of perry or pat needs to stay home on his man,.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Feb 3, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Great analysis!

What concerns me most are the unforced “live” turnovers that the team seems to be committing. It is not just the other team’s defense that is causing what seems a surprisingly large portion of our turnovers. It is slipping on the open court, passing where there is no teammate, shooting when there is no one under the basket and demonstrating a general lack of concentration on ball handling.

Cthorn is right about our seeming desire to block shots over our desire to rebound, but both of the big men have to get into position to rebound before the shot goes up. Perry, Ramon, and Darius are struggling to find a way to get into that position.

It was so interesting to see two of the USC big men eating at Rafferty’s Friday night. Never saw such a relaxed and confident pair of young gentlemen. I just don’t think our team has earned any respect this year. While the new recruits are way better than those who have left us, they really haven’t made the impact on our team success we have needed, yet. Offensively, we are depending on two stars and a very physically weak power forward. The remainder of the team and bench are worth about 3-5 points each and will “give” the opposition several points on turnovers. This has got to change. We work hard on defense and with Harris and Stevenson, we cause teams trouble defensively. Its the new kids who have not yet helped us.

by Blueobsessed on Feb 3, 2009 7:51 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

More great ananlysis.......

Good stuff Tru! The unforced TOs are a big concern. The word toughness has been thrown around a lot lately (myself included), but it seems the Cats just don’t play “smart” sometimes. So I think they have mental toughness……….they’ve actually shown that on several occasions…………but at times they don’t make smart choices.

And Tru, I agree that the ORs didn’t hurt us as much as the TOs. But considering our TO situation hasn’t really improved, we sure could have used a lot more ORs to make up for that TO deficiency. And we should have had a LOT more!!!

by slidemank on Feb 3, 2009 8:47 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

TOs and Rebounds

TOs, of course, have been a problem for us all year but we have often been able to overcome that problem with good rebounding. in the USC game we saw what happens when we don’t rebound well. we have won games with one major flaw, but even against lesser (in theory) teams we can not win when we don’t control one aspect of the game and that is scary. basically it means we have to play well to win games. good teams can play bad, yet pull out a victory. we may not be that good and you can’t count on playing well in every game, especially during tournament time.

by small balls on Feb 3, 2009 10:42 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Is Blocking Shots a Good Strategy?

I haven’t analyzed any video tape or anything, but it seems to me that many of the shots that get blocked are bad shots to begin with. An opposing players dribbles into traffic and tries to shoot in a crowd. A player gets out of control on the baseline and launches a prayer.

These shots are not likely to go into the basket anyway. We’d be better off keeping five sets of feet on the floor and going after the rebound or loose ball.

Second observation: It seems to me that blocks cause a change in possession a fairly low percentage of the time. Not more than 50, I would guess. The blocked shot goes out of bounds or back to a player on the other team.

What I’m suggesting is that blocks seldom actually stop baskets from being scored and that they don’t necessarily gain us a possession. Is it really good defensive strategy overall to try to block every shot possible? Is there a smarter way to play?

by Fortunatus on Feb 3, 2009 2:29 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

"Is there a smarter way to play?"

How about totally denying the ball entry into the post in the first place?

If our opposing teams post players are denied possession:

A) we don’t have to worry about blocking the shot
B) we obviously won’t be called for a foul
C) they aren’t going to make the shot if they never receive the ball to begin with

That seems pretty smart to me. But, probably not too realistic, though, huh? : )

by BigSkyCat on Feb 3, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It seems to me that a good number

of the shots we’ve blocked have led to a recovery by the opposition (which really is the same as an offensive rebound) and a kick-out for a three.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.

by blbskue on Feb 3, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

An exciting community-driven SBNation blog, by and for fans of the Kentucky Wildcats.

Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 3/31/2009]
Start posting about the Wildcats »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Harold-the-dog_small
We look into our crystal balls
128_small
2009 SEC Football Schedule
Miners__2__small
Inconsistency plagues Kentucky football
Iconator_2f99b654c1a51345314f8a8458af10e5_small
Best Programs 2000-2009
Small
Excuses and Analysis of The Campbellsville Game
Small
I need tickets for Friday
Photo_small
Gillespie changes plea
128_small
Pure Defensive and Offensive Efficiency
Small
Tipton Mans Up To Another Error
Uk_logo_blue_small
A Long Hard Look Ahead....

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Twitter Widget -- Follow me!


Managing Editor

Tru_small Truzenzuzex

Editor

Small Ken Howlett

Author

Diane-black_heels_small BigSkyCat

Official Partner of CBS Sports