Turnover rate = number of turnovers / number of possessions “used”
Possessions used = shot attempts + turnovers + shot attempts that draw fouls*
So someone with a turnover rate of 20% means that they turn the ball over on 20% of the possessions that end with them.
*this is typically estimated off of free throws attempted
Oh wow
My quibble with usage % is that it’s just a measure of how many possessions end in a player’s hands. Which is fine on its own but then when it’s applied in another rate like turnover %, it can be misleading. I wish there was a way to include assists but that takes you down the road of having to include every pass to a player who missed a shot, so not really feasible.
Hauser is a good example, in how his role changed from Marquette to UVA. He became a primary scorer, so his usage rate went up a good bit, but he played less with the ball in his hands leading to fewer turnovers and assists. Was the same with Franklin. It’s all contextual.
Aaaaaaand now Fresh is more confused ha
Just to add: smaller number in that list is better in terms of turnovers. You turn it over less per time the possession ends with you.
Thank you. And I am further confused again
Doesnt a possession end with me every time I turn it over?
You guys wanna go deep on put call parity by any chance now?
In Hauser’s case, it meant he was no longer playing with Markus Howard (which is I think why he transferred)
Yep. And when you take a shot or get fouled taking a shot.
To @HoozGotNext’s point, I think a better usage metric (or maybe “importance”) would incorporate additional info, like amount of time with the ball in their hands, but that data isn’t publicly available.
Making this about me, of course. All these sort of metrics would have made me near indespensible when I played
Still kinda interesting
Looks like a pretty good turnover rate drop in your last year, from 28.5% to 18.5%:
Hmmm. To be honest, I know you say he has a high ceiling, but reading through that somewhat concerned me.
We now have Warley and Ames who are primarily only effective with the ball in their hands and aren’t real threats playing off ball. You already talked about the potential issue with having them on the court together. But my other question is - what does this all mean for Bliss this year? We going to play him off ball? Only going to give him spot minutes?
And after this season, is the idea Bliss is floor general and we just hope Dai Dai learns to be effective off ball? Is one just backing up the other?
Anyway, this just re-raises my already over-posted concerns about adding somebody like Dai Dai. We have our theoretical point general in house (Bliss). We needed a secondary point guard to complement him who can also be effective off ball (see a plus shooter).
Anyway, going to be hoping Dai Dai figures out how to shoot from deep and Bliss can shoot too. Otherwise we’re gonna have problems.
Yeah I understand the urgency for Dai Dai after Gertrude’s injury, but I could’ve been convinced to roll with the guys we had and give Bliss a bigger role. After all the years of Kihei and Dante, and even Nigel before that, I’m kind of over undersized ball dominant guards who aren’t game changers offensively either as 3P shooters / off-ball scorers.
Just feel like Dai Dai has a higher ceiling than those guys, despite some similarities. He was a 4 star top 75 player coming out of HS. I don’t believe any of the 3 mentioned were even top 200.
Think of Dai Dai as a MUCH higher ceiling Kihei Clark and Bliss as a Jerome/Perrantes hybrid type (not saying he will be as good of course). And McKneely/hopefully Dixon as that kyle guy shooter and tertiary play maker.
I think Dai Dai was pretty respectable 3 all throughout HS and AAU. I dont think his freshmen stats tell the whole story/ he’s one of the many top 75 kids whose stats are wonky first year (like I doubt young Peja is going be as poor a shooter at Cal as he was his freshman year at Stanford).
I think Im all in on Dai Dai now. He’s a legit 6’2 (Kihei and Dante were like 5’9 max) and he can play some real bully ball.
Warley still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me unless we really do revolutionze the offense. We’ll see. Warley would have been a good fit for what UConn was doing, pushing the ball and a lot of downhill and cutting
Yeah - I wrote that (high ceiling), but I also agree with much of this sentiment because I think his ceiling is as a true PG, not a combo guard, and we have a glut of those on the roster.
I think he’s a true PG, just as Warley is and I actually spent a pretty large chunk of time trying to make sure I wasn’t just confirming my priors because I expected this after watching Warley.
His ceiling is tied to his utilization, IMO, and how much we’re willing to value things like size/shooting with our roster comps vs. things like ball handling (which, I’m of the opinion that size, athleticism, and shooting are much more important than ball handling as long as you have one guy who can do that (and backups who are good when he’s tired, which we do)).
Bliss sounds like he could play SG some but I’m not sure that’s the best fit for him longer term. If he can shoot then it probably will be his best route to play on this roster (or they’ll do something like play him at point and Warley off the ball which, again, not great).
I do like having both Ames and Warley on the roster because even though how they’re most effective (playing PG) is the same, the ways in which they do it are pretty different… just, knowing how things have gone, I’ll personally be shocked if we aren’t playing two of Ames/Warley/Bliss together quite often and I don’t think that will be in the team’s best interests.
I am very open to this rough vision, but it heavily relies on Bliss being a great shooter on some significant volume to make it work. Hopefully that’s the case. But it feels like there are a ton of eggs in that basket.
Also, Kihei on that team didn’t have that much usage if I remember correctly. He was a little more situational and like the last option on offense (well, besides Salt). Doubt that’ll be the case with Dai Dai, but he also should have a much higher ceiling so… maybe?
those are good points.
I do think Dai Dai has a way higher individual ceiling than Kihei. But like you and others its about how the pieces fit.
And I think during my previous moanings when the add was discussed, I think both Dai Dai and Bliss overlap a little too much but I think they can also co-exist.
I imagine (from what I know about Bliss, this opinion could change) that Bliss and Ames could co-exist much better than Warley and Ames.
Warley, Ames, McKneely as your 1-3 is my nightmare with Warley either as the primary distributor or as a perimeter player who teams cheat off of, Ames as a shoter less than ideal catch and shoot option if Warley is the point, and McKneely now likely getting pushed down/covered by longer players. Those three plus Saunders and Power 4-5 is a very real 5 that we could see often this year that keeps me up at night.
If we play Warley/Ames at 1 only, combinations of McKneely, Bliss (sometimes a 1 too but more likely playing 2 when one of the other two), Rohde, Sharma, Murray, Saunders at 2-3 (Saunders only playing 3), combinations of Saunders, Power, Cofie at 4, and combinations of Buchanan, Robinson, Cofie at 5 (just generally assuming no RS at this point which isn’t safe to do).
If we’re pretty disciplined about trotting the team out like that most of the time (accounting for the occasional “let’s try something wild in this matchup” stuff), then I think we’re going to be singing.
Absolutely. My preferred starting lineup would be DaiDai Bliss McKneely Saunders Buchanan (athletic front court to protect the guards helpside). You still get two playmakers but also some floor spacing
I would be open to Warley McKneely Taine Saunders Buchanan (would really rely on Warley’s playmaking). You get floor spacing and Warley’s defensive presence on perimeter.
as you said, I do fear we are heading towards Warley McKneely Dai Dai. Althoug Warley McKneely Bliss would be solid.