So after spending several hours over the last few days compiling the data in the previous post and composing its meandering narrative, I was laying on the couch this evening, catching up the latest issue of The Economist magazine, when the following random thought entered my head:
“Seems like MSU turns the ball over the most when they get bogged down in the half-court offense. I wonder if their turnover percentage is correlated to the pace they play a game at it?”
So I thought I’d check. Here’s what it looks like on a graph:
Indeed, MSU tends to turn the ball over less in higher-paced games. In terms of the larger world of basketball statistics, this is counterintuitive, as the academics say. Generally, the relationship should run the other way: the number of possession in a game will be naturally be higher when there are more turnovers, since a turnover ends a possession prematurely compared to if the team held on to the ball and got a shot off (hence the Big Ten Wonk’s “effective pace” stat).
To confirm this, I spot checked the data of other Big Ten teams and, indeed, the trendlines on their graphs have either (1) upward slopes or (2) less distinctly downward slopes than the trendline for MSU’s data above. (I also confirmed the trend holds for MSU’s conference-only stats. It’s not just a matter of being able to score more easily and turn the ball over less against weaker nonconference opponents.)
My conclusions:
1) MSU should push the ball more on offense. This makes intuitive sense, as two of our three top offensive players–Morgan and Lucas–are clearly better scorers in transition than in the half-court offense. Obviously, there’s some limit to this before it becomes counterproductive; there’s the risk of turning the ball over because you push the ball up the court too aggressively. But the data above indicate there’s also a risk of turning it over because you can’t execute your half-court offense.
2) Another way to increase pace is to create turnovers on defense. This may be difficult for MSU, since Izzo has always stressed forcing tough shots over creating turnovers. But it may be worth considering extending the defense a bit on the perimeter to disrupt passing, even if it costs a couple easy baskets per game.
3) Ultimately, creating transition baskets may be tough in conference play. The Big Ten plays at the slowest pace of any major conference in the country. Its coaches preach disciplined defense and not giving up easy baskets. But there’s a ray of hope, at least, that MSU’s offense will run more smoothly against faster-paced opponents in the NCAA tournament, as it did against NC State and Texas.
4) Reading The Economist makes you smarter.
Hmmm, interesting. what does the line look like if you get rid of the two outliers?
What is the r-squared value of the line? Certainly very intriguing.
always love when R-squared methods pop into college bball analysis. great stuff!
indeed, if you can finish an issue of the economist before the next one arrives, then it definitely makes you smarter
tempofreesuburbia.blogspot.com
I don’t actually read the articles. I just look at the pictures.
[...] 10, 2008 by kj In the continuing saga of exploring MSU’s struggles with turnovers, I put together a simple regression model to see if I could determine how significant the effect of [...]
[...] months is that MSU needs to do whatever it can to pick up the pace. Previously, we had found that MSU’s turnover percentage was actually lower when they’re playing at a faster pace–counter to what you’d normally expect for a [...]