What's new
By:

The "Official" How many Turnovers did Trey Burke have in this game thread.

dalamon said:
Lol @ 'literature'. Pls link me the academic journals of the NBA world. TIA.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting there aren't academic journal articles about the NBA? Searching "NBA" in the Journal of Sports Economics returns 146 results.
 
GVC said:
Are you suggesting there aren't academic journal articles about the NBA? Searching "NBA" in the Journal of Sports Economics returns 146 results.
Click to expand...

Comment was made in the context of player-analysis, and you should know that.



Pls elucidate as to how many of those "146" articles involve the analysis of players, performance-trends, and the like using box scores. If you can find a single published "literature" article involving turnover percentage by an academic journal, I'll pay you $20.
 
My point: the hilarity behind regarding box scores, and statistics as prevalent 'literature' as mentioned by Sirkickyass.



Hey guys. There is 'literature' regarding Jeremy Evans being one of the most accurate shooters in the NBA. We should funnel our offense around him.


Either way. I got finals to study for. Ta ta for now.
 
dalamon said:
Literature? What od you mean by 'literature', exactly? You mean statistics that can be interpreted 300 different ways by 300 different people?



Lol @ 'literature'. Pls link me the academic journals of the NBA world. TIA.
Click to expand...

You are aware that there are a large number of academic papers that are published yearly regarding the NBA and data analysis right? All you have to do is just look at the Sloan Sports Conference for any given year and you'll find a dozen plus. Several more are published in economics journals at various universities.

For example: here's a 30-minute presentation and accompanying research paper on "experience and winning" in the NBA that concludes (among other things) that there isn't a strong statistical relationship between individual player experience and actual playoff wins (again, a counterintuitive conclusion).

https://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=6125


You'll excuse me if I'm having problems taking you seriously if your contention is that no literature on basketball analysis exists. That's a position that is simply counter to reality.

As an example of someone who's a known statistics-oriented writer on this subject you can look at, for example, this article by John Hollinger from about four years ago.

https://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Predictions-090107

Writing about Russell Westbrook, OJ Mayo and Derrick Rose he says:

Westbrook also is the youngest of the three, the best defender and the only one who had to change positions upon arriving in the NBA. All of which suggests he's only scratching the surface of his potential -- as does the fact that he has a higher turnover ratio than the other two, which, in a paradoxical twist of logic, is actually a good thing for a rookie. Historically, those with high turnover rates have had much higher rates of improvement in subsequent seasons.
Click to expand...

One can confirm this prediction looking backwards by examining Mayo vs. Westbrook's improvement from the rookie year (we'll leave Rose aside for the moment given that the primary story of his career to date involves injury which is a factor that can't be ignored in his case, although it should be noted his career TOV% is essentially identical to his rookie TOV%).

Mayo hasn't substantially improved from his rookie season and his TO% remains essentially identical. (13.8% vs 13.4% for his career, with higher numbers in more recent seasons).

Westbrook is substantially better today than he was as a rookie and his TO% has declined in each full season he's been in the league (rookie year is 17.6% vs. career number of 15.4% and most recent season of 13.2%).

This isn't some crazy thing I just made up, although of course some portion of jazzfanz will always believe anything counterintuitive is.

Think of it like this: good decision making is something that can be taught, unlike height, speed, strength, or freakish leaping ability. Players with those natural gifts can cut down on TOs simply by learning how to play better. Players that come in already making near optimal decisions have already exhausted much of the easier improvement resources that are available to them. Hence, they are closer to the ceiling than the player that has not yet exhausted those resources.
 
dalamon said:
Comment was made in the context of player-analysis, and you should know that.



Pls elucidate as to how many of those "146" articles involve the analysis of players, performance-trends, and the like using box scores. If you can find a single published "literature" article involving turnover percentage by an academic journal, I'll pay you $20.
Click to expand...

https://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjjqsprt/v_3a6_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a3_3an_3a2.htm

Relative Importance of Performance Factors in Winning NBA Games in Regular Season versus Playoffs

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 2010, vol. 6, issue 3, pages 1-19

Specifically, we examined the contributions of overall efficiency (offensive and defensive ratings), along with the Four Factors (effective field goal percentage, turnover percentage, rebound percentage, and free throw rate) to winning games in the regular season and the playoffs, using a multiple linear regression and a logistic regression analysis.
Click to expand...
3 minutes of work. $20 please.
 
GVC said:
Google Scholar...

FWIW though, that article doesn't address whether a low rookie turnover rate has any bearing on development.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that, but all I had to do to redeem a $20 offer was "find a single published "literature" article involving turnover percentage by an academic journal."

I'd say it qualifies.
 
I understand the argument that because he is doing well at the things most people struggle with could potentially mean his overall potential is limited. However the same argument can be made that mastering some of the early test most rookie PG struggle with is a sign of unlimited potential. As those skill are likely to improve with more experience along with the other flaws in his game right now. And even if the TOV% doesn't improve one bit he's still well ahead of overwhelmingly majority of his peers.
 
Sirkickyass said:
My position was as follows: Low turnover rates as a rookie aren't a strong predictor of future improvement or NBA success.

A secondary position is that low turnover rates tend to correlate with less dramatic improvement in the future as there are fewer easily correctable mistakes to corral.

The list is evidence
Click to expand...
The list is evidence of nothing. You've got 10 players who are "similar" to Burke in 1 dimension. You could without a doubt construct a list of 10 players who are similar to Burke in some other attribute, and find players who made huge improvements over their respective careers.
 
For example:

There have been 16 rookie guards with an AST% over 30% and an assist-to-turnover ratio above 2.5 who played 60+ games. Among those 16:

John Stockton
Gary Payton
Chris Paul
Mark Jackson
Kevin Johnson
Tim Hardaway
Andre Miller
 
GVC said:
The list is evidence of nothing. You've got 10 players who are "similar" to Burke in 1 dimension. You could without a doubt construct a list of 10 players who are similar to Burke in some other attribute, and find players who made huge improvements over their respective careers.

For example:

There have been 16 rookie guards with an AST% over 30% and an assist-to-turnover ratio above 2.5 who played 60+ games. Among those 16:

John Stockton
Gary Payton
Chris Paul
Mark Jackson
Kevin Johnson
Tim Hardaway
Andre Miller
Click to expand...

Oh hey, now we have someone actually engaging. :)

Some context:

I picked TOV% because it was indicative of what the thread was actually about: heralding the mere absence of turnovers. That wasn't a contextless selection designed to make Trey Burke look bad. It was also the most relevant number to my larger point regarding prospects for future improvement and lack of turnovers.

Looking at assist% and A/TO might be relevant for another claim but it doesn't test the claim about lower turnover rates being correlated with low improvement levels because assist%/ A/TO and TOV% can be decoupled to provide mixed messages. For example if you had a very low turnover but low assist player you could have a A/TO ratio closer to 1.5 while still maintaining a low TOV%. Alternatively you could have insanely high Assist percentages but also high turnover percentages (this is essentially the case right now for Ricky Rubio).

I fully acknowledge that there may be other metrics for Burke that indicate he may have a high ceiling. However, the mere absence of turnovers is not one of them.

Do you disagree with that?
 
Sirkickyass said:
I fully acknowledge that there may be other metrics for Burke that indicate he may have a high ceiling. However, the mere absence of turnovers is not one of them.

Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
Among high(-ish) usage players (who don't really show up in your 10 player sample), I'd guess low turnover percentage is a better indicator of future success than high turnover percentage (all else equal). That is, a lot of low turnover players don't turn the ball over because they are being used as finishers, not creators (a distinction that is undoubtedly more indicative of future success).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top