The high cost of turnovers

by Glenn Logan on Jan 7, 2008 3:29 PM EST in Kentucky Wildcats Basketball

One of the things that has plagued this year's version of the Wildcats is turnovers. As I was thinking about that, I decided to have a look at how turnovers affect a team from a scoring standpoint.

What I have done is take the statistics from the Louisville game, and assign points to the turnovers. How I have done this is simple -- I take the actual points scored off turnovers, then I add the opportunity cost of the turnovers, which is really just the points per possession times the number of turnovers. The same thing is done for steals.

What you can see by looking at this is the dramatic impact turnovers have on the game. By my crude accounting, Kentucky gave away more than 31 points in turnovers, versus Louisville's 13+ points. that is an 18 point margin. Of course, the reason the math doesn't work out is because I have included "opportunity points," which aren't real. I included them so that we could see not only points we actually lost, but the potential points we threw away.

Statistic	Kentucky	Louisville
Points per possession	0.9	1.1
Turnovers	22	14
Points by opposition from T/O's	25	18
Points lost/TO	1.14	1.29
Opportunity points lost from T/O's	19.8	15.38
Total points lost	44.8	33.38
Total points lost per turnover	2.04	2.38
Steals	6	8
Points scored off steals	6	14
Opportunity points scored by steals	5.4	8.79
Total points won	11.4	22.79
Total points won per steal	1.9	2.85


*Player*	*Points*	*Turnovers*	*Points surrndred*	*Steals*	*Extra points*	*Total*
Kentucky
Joe Crawford	19	7	-14.25	0	0	4.75
Patrick Patterson	6	6	-12.22	1	1.9	-4.32
Ramel Bradley	27	4	-8.15	1	1.9	20.75
Derrick Jasper	6	2	-4.07	0	0	1.93
Jodie Meeks	7	1	-2.04	3	5.7	10.66
Perry Stevenson	2	1	-2.04	1	1.9	1.86
Ramon Harris	8	0	0	0	0	8
		21	-42.76	6	11.4

Louisville
Terrance Williams	15	5	-10.18	0	0	4.82
Jerry Smith	17	2	-4.07	1	1.9	14.83
Derrick Caracter	6	2	-4.07	3	5.7	7.63
David Padgett	9	2	-4.07	0	0	4.93
Juan Palacios	17	1	-2.04	1	1.9	16.86
Edgar Sosa	10	1	-2.04	0	0	7.96
Andre McGee	11	1	-2.04	1	1.9	10.86
Preston Knowles	2	0	0	2	3.8	5.8
		14	-28.51	8	15.2

As you can see, many things change when taking turnovers into consideration. Patrick Patterson actually scored negative points by this measure. Joe Crawford's 19 points virtually disappear in a barrage of turnover costs. Jodie Meeks' 3 steals show that even though he shot poorly, he had a greater net positive impact on the game by this measure than Crawford did. Take a look at Louisville's Terrance Williams -- his 15 points didn't help as much as Derrick Caracter's six.

This is all academic and just for fun, but my whole point is something we already knew -- turnovers are making us uncompetitive. We can play as hard as we want to, do as much work on the boards as we want to (we held Louisville to a tie in that statistic, despite their size advantage) but we cannot win turning the ball over 20 times per game, except almost by accident.

If this team could improve to what Louisville had, 14 turnovers, that would have narrowed the real margin by 8 points based on the above stats -- enough to put us right there. If we had just a good game turnover-wise by any reasonable definition, say 10, we could have been close to the lead. And those are real points, not counting "opportunity" points. The bottom line is this -- we are losing primarily because we are giving up the basketball.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nice analysis...

that really shows how difficult it will be for this team to win with turnovers. It would be interesting to see this same comparison done for the Gardner-Webb game which was the lowest turnover total for the season (12) and yet we still lost. It's easy to see why we lost this game with one of our players (Patterson) posting a negative score, and only two in double digits. Conversely, Louisville had no negatives and 3 in double digits as well as contributors all around. Very interesting.

by hoopchi on Jan 7, 2008 4:07 PM EST reply actions

Wow

We all knew this in the back of our minds, but it still smacks you in the face to see it on paper (er... pixels.) It seems to me that turnovers primarily are caused by two factors: adjustment to the new offensive system and low basketball IQ. Assuming Billy G. attracts players with a higher basketball IQ (and I think we all expect that to be a foregone conclusion) both of these issues should get better in time. That means that for all the griping that has been done about how Billy G. is too inflexible, won't play zone, isn't the coach we thought he was, etc. we could still be winning games if we fixed this one area of our game. Of course, if/when that happens, there won't be nearly as much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the other issues. Here's hoping it happens sooner rather than later.

by Acdixon on Jan 7, 2008 4:42 PM EST reply actions

WTB Poing Guard. PST.

All of a sudden, losing out on Jai Lucas looks huge doesn't it?

by chirop1 on Jan 7, 2008 4:51 PM EST reply actions

Heh ...

that didn't occur to me, but it is an interesting point. Let's see if there is a bit of "there" there ...

Substituting him for, say, Porter:



Player   Min   TO

Porter   22    2.3

Lucas    29    1.9


Delta = .4/game.

I'm thinking less than half a turnover/game wouldn't make all that much difference.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 7, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

Recruiting Point Guards

Interesting analysis. I do think that your half a turnover is a little bit off due to the fact that Lucas seems to be playing 7 more minutes a game. I really didn't know how he was playing this year, I havn't followed the Gators much. (For a 2 time defending champ... they sure aren't on TV much!) I think my point is more about getting Billy's "lead guard" players in here quick!

So Lucas seems to be doing pretty well for himself. Is he sharing a lot of minutes with Calathes? or is the other Billy using them on the floor at the same time a lot?

by chirop1 on Jan 7, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

UFA

Donovan is starting both Calathes and Lucas.

He uses Lucas and Walter Hodge as his two points.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 7, 2008 10:08 PM EST up reply actions

Great Points

I have been screaming to anyone who would listen for the last two years that turnovers are the primary reason UK has struggled. Acdixon hit the nail on the head with his "low basketball IQ" theory.

Last year UK had 53 more turnovers than their opponents.

In the 12 losses UK had 32 more turnovers. If one takes out the two Florida games where UFA had a total of +13 turnovers, but conversely, they outshot UK 47% to 38% and 64% to 46%. Good shooting makes up for a multitude of sins.

In the remaining 10 losses UK had 45 more turnovers than their opponents. That's 4.5 possessions per game, where the average margin of defeat was 7.9 points.

Of course, the timing of the to's have also cost UK dearly the last few years. For example, Bradley's miscue at the end of the UCLA game last year probably cost UK an excellent opportunity to win that game. By the way, the UCLA game was very close, but UK had 9 more to's than the Bruins.

Turnovers turn wins into losses, and routs into close games. And in a close game, as we know, anything can happen in the last few minutes.

Couple the high turnover rate with a mammoth deficit in offensive rebounds, and the result is pedestrian won-loss records, and a need for a Diary giving us a homemade recipe for heartburn.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 7, 2008 4:57 PM EST reply actions

Here's another one...

As they say in the sports radio world, "long time listener, first time caller." That said, I thoroughly enjoyed your turnover analysis and thought it might be equally illuminating--especially in light of BG's rather curious substitution patterns-- to anaylze the impact of BG's strange starting linups on the Cat's performance during the first 5 minutes of each half for every game. Call me crazy, but it seems that, in virtually every game this year, the Cats have come out of the locker room slow, sluggish, and seemingly uninspired, and have dug themselves into some pretty big holes in the process. Can this analysis be done? Do you, the all-knowing, all-seeing soothsayer of all things Blue have the technology? Just curious. In the meantime, I will tune in to the next game and, unless properly anesthetized, will probably curse my TV once again as I watch Coury and Company fall behind during the first five minutes of that game as well.

Thanks for the great site.

by tooblue on Jan 7, 2008 5:11 PM EST reply actions

Thanks ...

for stopping by and making a comment, you are most welcome.

I really don't know if it can be done or not, to be honest. I'll ponder it and see if I can come up with some kind of meaningful measurement.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 7, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

Paging Tim Asher..

... he's UK's video coordinator.

Perhaps someone can drop him a line and request all the tapes.

Actually, if one wanted to research slow starts, ukthletics.com has a minute by minute breakdown of every game.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 7, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah ...

that's where I had to go to get the points off steals. That stat isn't kept separately in public box scores, but I'm quite certain the coaching staff keeps that, along with a bunch more.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 7, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions

Turnovers

ade not the only nemisis of this UK team.Add fouling.UL shot 46 frees,pf course a lot of fouling occurred the last 4 minutes,turning what is normally a two hour game into a marathon,but fouling has been a big issue so far this season.It seems these Cats can't play defense without fouling,and worst of all,where fouls are being committed,too many times 60 feet away from the basket.

Getting back to turnovers ,in Saturdays game the two Seniors had a whopping 11,and Patterson had 6,That accounts for 17 of the 22 turnovers,so you can;t blame this one on the least talented players.

If Crawford and Braflet would play under control and stop putting on a dribble exhibition,this would cut down on turnovers enormously.But thats asking too much of players who have been allowed to handle the ball without learning how to pass.

Jaspers one turnover was based on a horrible palming call when he had a high dribble.Replays showed he did'nt palm it,and Packer remarked what a bad call that was.

Antwat.it looks like one answer is to keep the ball out of Joe and Ramels hands as much as possible,but then you take away much of their offense.

by UKats on Jan 7, 2008 6:10 PM EST reply actions

Excellent Points

UK will continue to shoot fewer free throws than their opponents. Generally speaking, the less talented team shoots fewer free throws.

That fact doesn't excuse the fouls away from the basket though.

Your point about Crawford and Bradley is right on.
This has been a problem for 3 years now. I seriously doubt it will change.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 7, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions

Crawford with the ball

Its now at the point after four years, that when I see Crawford receive the ball on the wing... I'm expecting a walk. I think he likes to think his first step is so fast the refs will never see it. Unfortunately, more times than not he gets called for the walk.

One point from UKats post: "Getting back to turnovers ,in Saturdays game the two Seniors had a whopping 11,and Patterson had 6,That accounts for 17 of the 22 turnovers,so you can;t blame this one on the least talented players."

That's very true, however... I think it could be argued that the most talented people will have the ball in their hands MORE. And by sheer volume of minutes, they are more likely to get more turnovers. A better stat might be turnovers/minute played.

by chirop1 on Jan 7, 2008 9:45 PM EST up reply actions

Math Over My Head

But 6-7 isn't. We should (could) be 9-4 worst case. G-W, SD, and UAB were L that should be W.

UK needs to pick a PG and stick with him.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 7, 2008 7:48 PM EST reply actions

Very nice analysis

It was rather obvious to me that turnovers were killing us, I just hadn't done usch good analysis to prove it.

Keep up the great work.

by sweasyf on Jan 7, 2008 8:20 PM EST reply actions

Congratulations...

...to the LSU Tigers.

When was the last time, if ever, UK beat a team that went on to win the NC?

by Ken Howlett on Jan 7, 2008 11:50 PM EST reply actions

Slow Starts

Based on the minute to minute game summaries provided at ukathletics.com, the following represents the score at (approximately) the fifteen minute mark of the first half of each of UK's 7 losses:

UL 10--UK 5
SD 12--UK 5
Houston 12--UK 7
IU 7--UK 2
UAB 9--UK 8
UNC 7--UK 9
GW 14--UK 2

Looks like I might be on to something regarding the impact of BG's rather curious "starting" lineups. Just more food for this site's collective thought. Enjoy... .

by tooblue on Jan 8, 2008 2:07 PM EST reply actions

Maybe second half...

If you average it out, you see that UK is down an average of 5.8 points at the 15 minute mark of the first half. While I would much rather be up 5.8 than down, it's still less than two possessions that we are down. Where I think your theory has more merit is in the second half. I've always felt that I could tell who would win by how they played the first 5 minutes of the second half and we have not played those well at all this year. If starting lineups are having an effect I feel it would be at that point rather than the start of the game.

Either way I don't have too much gripe as the key players seem to be getting the minutes if they are healthy. We just cannot have Joe and Ramel turn the ball over 11 times! Start Joe and maybe that number becomes much higher...

by hoopchi on Jan 8, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions

I agree...

You raise some good points and, candidly, I was too lazy to conduct the same analysis on the first five minutes of the second half of each loss. However, several related factors that do not show up in the numbers but undeniably impact the outcome of the game are control, tempo, confidence, crowd involvement, and momentum. By falling behind at the start of virtually every game (especially against the lesser opponents, like G-W), UK fails to seize control of the game, fails to establish a desired tempo, concedes the early momentum, takes its home crowd out of the game (or fires up the opponent's crowd) and, most important, gives the other team confidence that they can not only hang with the Wildcats, but also beat them. These "immeasurables", I continue to believe, warrant a more closer examination of BG's decision to constantly start the hard-working but far more athletically-challenged players like Coury and Porter.

Thanks for allowing this frustrated Wildcat fan to express his opinion from deep in the heart of Florida Gator Country.

by tooblue on Jan 8, 2008 4:37 PM EST reply actions

Great points

all with validity. Losing any of those things during any part of a game will contribute to a loss. So the question becomes, what would drive a coach to set his team up for failure night after night? If not starting our "most qualified players" does set up this scenario, why would you do such a thing as a coach?

I think Tubby started our best players all year last year and we still limped in with a 9-7 conference record and didn't make any noise in the tournament. In fact we haven't really made any noise with this class of seniors seeing as how we haven't seen a Final Four since 1998. I think BCG has to be trying to build a culture that is predicated on hard work each and every day in practice and one that we will probably not see come to fruition until we have a bench full of players that can compete. Can someone tell me how long it has been since UK could go 9 or 10 deep on the bench without risking a game? A long time. Other premier programs can do it and I think he must be building for the time when competition and hard work in practice will actually result in better game day play. But I don't know. Maybe he's just crazy. :)

Xbox Live Gamertag: Rone Tyr

by hoopchi on Jan 8, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions

Game Control

I agree completely with the need to get control of the game as early as possible. Obviously, we're not doing that offensively even though other teams are not killing us offensively early in the game either. And we're really weak coming out of the locker room at half.

What I see is that we are very predictable. Knowing that we want the ball to go to Patterson on every trip, Pitino uses the 3-2 with 2 behind Patterson on the left side of the court cutting off his pass to Coury and the 3 cutting off the passing lanes out to the wings. Then in the second half Pitino traps at the center line. We don't adjust or have any alternative tactics (except Ramel & J0e going one on one). And I didn't see Jasper bringing the ball up court when we needed his skills the most.

The turnovers come as much from the defense knowing exactly what we are going to do as they do from individual errors (although at least half of Crawford's are inexcusable).

by Fortunatus on Jan 8, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions