Can someone explain to me points off turnovers? How is it any different than the other team missing a shot and us getting the rebound. Let's say a team travels and we get it out of bounds, or a team misses a shot and it goes out of bounds, I don't see the difference but I keep hearing them talk about points off turnovers!
Can someone explain to me.....
- Thread starter Chekster1
- Start date
It really is more or less one of those window-dressing "advanced" analytical stats, but there can be things gleaned from it.
For example, if Iowa was outscored 14-0 in points off turnovers, that's something you can look back on as a reference to figure out what happened (especially if Iowa lost).
Why didn't Iowa score on those possessions? Why did the other team score? What caused the turnovers in the first place, and how can that all be corrected?
Of course, just because you're not scoring off turnovers doesn't mean you're doing something wrong, especially if you're a team that doesn't force many turnovers. Every team does things a little differently, and we all know what Iowa is and what they are not at this point.
With that said, a stat like that always shows that there's room for improvement.
And one thing, stemming from this stat, but not exclusive, that I would like to see us do more, is push the ball in transition (i.e. fastbreak points). It never ceases to amaze me how we can do this so well in the non-conference and against the weaker teams, but just about any team with a defensive pulse is able to get back and at least defend most, if not any, attempt we make at a transition game, and WE are suppose to be the "up and down" finesse team.........
That also reminds me that other stats can tie into a stat like POT, such as fastbreak points. You force a turnover at the top of the key, you naturally want to push the ball in transition, and score quickly (FBP). If you're not doing well in one, it's very possible you're not doing well in the other unless teams are getting caught napping on rebounds off their missed shots.................which Iowa will do oh lets say at least 4-6 times a game.
For example, if Iowa was outscored 14-0 in points off turnovers, that's something you can look back on as a reference to figure out what happened (especially if Iowa lost).
Why didn't Iowa score on those possessions? Why did the other team score? What caused the turnovers in the first place, and how can that all be corrected?
Of course, just because you're not scoring off turnovers doesn't mean you're doing something wrong, especially if you're a team that doesn't force many turnovers. Every team does things a little differently, and we all know what Iowa is and what they are not at this point.
With that said, a stat like that always shows that there's room for improvement.
And one thing, stemming from this stat, but not exclusive, that I would like to see us do more, is push the ball in transition (i.e. fastbreak points). It never ceases to amaze me how we can do this so well in the non-conference and against the weaker teams, but just about any team with a defensive pulse is able to get back and at least defend most, if not any, attempt we make at a transition game, and WE are suppose to be the "up and down" finesse team.........
That also reminds me that other stats can tie into a stat like POT, such as fastbreak points. You force a turnover at the top of the key, you naturally want to push the ball in transition, and score quickly (FBP). If you're not doing well in one, it's very possible you're not doing well in the other unless teams are getting caught napping on rebounds off their missed shots.................which Iowa will do oh lets say at least 4-6 times a game.
It is a flawed stat. Broadcasters often cite the points-off-turnovers stat without noting how many of those turnovers were live balls. Steals are live ball turnovers. All over turnovers are dead balls.
It is, at least to some extent, a measurement of the "emptiness" of a possession. Turn it over means you got no shot off for that possession. That would generally be considered worse that getting a shot off, even a bad shot. One way to look at the effectiveness of an offensive possession.
not saying its a perfect stat, but it holds meaning for sure.
When you take a shot, you have whatever % chance that your team shoots to get points.......when you turn it over you have 0% chance to get points.
If you are good defensively (and to some extent good in transition defense), you will give up less points after turnovers, thus negating that 0% chance you gave yourself to score with a stop.
A team that struggles defensively, like the Hawks unfortunately, better not turn the ball over a lot, because when you are trading buckets with a team you got a shot.......but if they are getting buckets after you cough it up......it's a pretty damning scenario.
When you take a shot, you have whatever % chance that your team shoots to get points.......when you turn it over you have 0% chance to get points.
If you are good defensively (and to some extent good in transition defense), you will give up less points after turnovers, thus negating that 0% chance you gave yourself to score with a stop.
A team that struggles defensively, like the Hawks unfortunately, better not turn the ball over a lot, because when you are trading buckets with a team you got a shot.......but if they are getting buckets after you cough it up......it's a pretty damning scenario.
OK I have a STUPID question that is off this topic. But if someone makes two free throws after being fouled- does someone get credit for an assist if said person makes both FTs (assuming it was an assist situation). I'm guessing the answer is no, but technically the person scored, so set me straight on this one please.
They do not get credit for the asssist. People talk about how Steve Nash would have a lot more assists when Stoudemire got fouled. Though you can say that about a lot of point guards.
His knees were shot but NYK gave him $100 million. He deserved to get paid but the 7 seconds or less Suns team were as fun to watch as anyone in recent NBA history.
I think points off "live ball" turnovers is a more useful stat. As in turnovers where the other team didn't have go side out and inbound. Live ball turnovers very often lead to fast breaks and easy points.
I do not want to hijack the OPs thread, but yeah Stoudamire deserved to get paid. But man, how easy did he have it just rebounding and having Nash throwing you ally oops all game?
Similar threads
