turnovers?
- Thread starter GymRat
- Start date
Through 4 games, the Pirates rank just 303rd of 351 programs in offensive turnover percentage 58th in forcing them.
We're also amongst the weakest 3PT shooting teams in the nation, both in terms of rate taking them and of course making them.
We're also amongst the weakest 3PT shooting teams in the nation, both in terms of rate taking them and of course making them.
It does. Great site though because everything is quantifiable even though everything quantifiable isn't explained solely by numbers.
We are a young playground team right now (here's another KP one for you... We're 326th in his "experience" measure). It needs to be coached up because there are some talented pieces.
I think the predominant sentiment across all the fans is that there are in fact "some talented pieces" - we mostly rue the day that the sum of the parts is far less than the whole - and that matter rests in the hand of only one person.
Tonight's game against Ole Miss was the first time we had a significant, positive A:T ratio as a team (16:12). Not a coincidence. We got the ball moving around. Have to keep building from here.
Carrington in particular was great at 5:2. He had 5 assists all season coming into the game, so an important game for him from that perspective.
We have a lot of players who can handle the ball a bit and drive and finish, so we don't need to rely on a Hoosier's style of offense or create 3PT looks, but we still have to be at least proficient. We were that tonight.
Carrington in particular was great at 5:2. He had 5 assists all season coming into the game, so an important game for him from that perspective.
We have a lot of players who can handle the ball a bit and drive and finish, so we don't need to rely on a Hoosier's style of offense or create 3PT looks, but we still have to be at least proficient. We were that tonight.
Ish made two-lazy telegraphed passes( hasn't really played much) and at least two others turn overs were across court passes and picked off. Foolish turn overs which will be corrected as the season goes on.
Thank you for putting this important stat into the picture. The second half in particular showed a "working engine" quite a decent amount of the time on both sides of the ball.
My take on Whitehead and Carrington - I'd like to see them NOT be in the game at the same time. They run point differently and when they're in together, it looks (feels) like the "attack concept" is hobbled by two different thought processes. I think the attack is much more clear when either one or the other runs point.
Wish I had written more on this point I've been thinking about in the same posting above.
I think of Smith and Siva of Louisville - they both could run point separately - but they managed to fit together pretty well when needed. I think of Simmons and Simmons AND Richardson and Powell of our WBB - both pairs can work separately and together. But I do NOT think it is a given that 2 PG can blend together this way. I suspect there are more examples where multiple PG should be on different rotations for effectiveness.
Anyway, my insight (or whatever you might call it) surfaced when I saw Carrington have to run the point for the entire time Whitehead was out during the Bradley game. It's like he "got it" during that time. And then last night, when they were not on the floor together, and Whitehead was "getting it", I came to this thought about them - hopefully they will get much stronger individually over time.
I think of Smith and Siva of Louisville - they both could run point separately - but they managed to fit together pretty well when needed. I think of Simmons and Simmons AND Richardson and Powell of our WBB - both pairs can work separately and together. But I do NOT think it is a given that 2 PG can blend together this way. I suspect there are more examples where multiple PG should be on different rotations for effectiveness.
Anyway, my insight (or whatever you might call it) surfaced when I saw Carrington have to run the point for the entire time Whitehead was out during the Bradley game. It's like he "got it" during that time. And then last night, when they were not on the floor together, and Whitehead was "getting it", I came to this thought about them - hopefully they will get much stronger individually over time.
Not to compare, but the young kids who frustrated the hell out of me with inconsistent play ended up losing to UM on a Monday nite once upon a time. It is on the players to play better and smarter regardless of the coach.
That's what surprised me, 75, I think they may be better playing separately than together.
Yep - I understand - and perhaps I'm a seriously isolated opinion on this regard. I wanted to raise it for further discussion in coming games. If no one else sees what I'm seeing, I'll go back to the eye doctor. 
BP, I think these are really good points, but I also believe our backcourt optimizes when Whitehead and Carrington play proficiently together it's our best combination of talent. They need time. Yesterday Carrington did that. We'll see how that continues from here.
Carrington is a better slasher, driver, finisher, and playmaker than Gordon, so it compliments nicely when defenses have to chase Whitehead when he's off the ball.
Gordon is a stabilizer. Very valuable piece on this team because he can get the offense moving and should be able to prevent mistakes. He's a bigger, more physical guard than Carrington.
Carrington is a better slasher, driver, finisher, and playmaker than Gordon, so it compliments nicely when defenses have to chase Whitehead when he's off the ball.
Gordon is a stabilizer. Very valuable piece on this team because he can get the offense moving and should be able to prevent mistakes. He's a bigger, more physical guard than Carrington.
Similar threads
