Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If bad shots were to count as turnovers...

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If bad shots were to count as turnovers...

    who would lead the team in turnovers?

  • #2
    I guess you can describe a bad shot as a shot that was taken without trying to get the offense involved or trying to do too much.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by FadedCrown View Post
      who would lead the team in turnovers?

      What about bad shots that go in? Are they still considered bad shots at that point?

      Comment


      • FadedCrown
        FadedCrown commented
        Editing a comment
        I guess you can't count those as turnovers, it is like a deflected pass that goes straight out of bounds. Not a turnover but still a bad pass.

    • #4
      Bad shots aren't turnovers and it's one of the stupid comparison that always persists. Points scored by the team turning the ball over in the history of basketball: 0. Points scored by the team taking a bad shot in the history of the game: far too many to count.

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by ShockCrazy View Post
        Points scored by the team turning the ball over in the history of basketball: 0.
        This is actually negative number, WSU is the mastering the "Atomic Bomb" turnovers this year.

        Comment


        • #6
          Obviously MM and SHJ lead the team but they also lead in total shots taken by a wide margin.
          Bad shots hurt team chemistry. When some players bust their tails, dive for balls, etc only to
          see their effort wasted by a bad shot or careless turnover they will get frustrated quickly. Don't
          like making excuses for the guy but I think this may have something to do with ES' game. I think
          this is a kid who is used to having the ball in HIS hands more and the team depending on his play
          more. He is in a much different role now and I think it has had a negative effect on his play. I
          really believe when both he and Dez are relied on more to provide offense that your going to see
          BOTH these guys suddenly become great offensive players. So far this season I think both have
          been to content to sit back and watch the seniors do their thing. This will change next year and in
          a very positive way.

          Comment


          • ShockCrazy
            ShockCrazy commented
            Editing a comment
            ES is more than getting his looks... He's taking 8 shots a game, a clear 3rd. Hell that would be at least 3rd on any Shocker team(In 2016 that would be tied for the lead). And while I'm a big believer in ES and his future, he is singularly shooting the absolute worst on the team, it's not particularly close. And I think he will eventually get there. But if bad shots are from the seniors are bothering ANY of the newcomers they ought to look in the mirror at the quality of shots they take and the rate they are going in. And again I do believe in these players and the talent we have, we'll get there. And if Dex wants shots, they are there for the taking and I think everyone watching, on the team, and on the staff want him taking more. It's just about asserting himself.
            Last edited by ShockCrazy; January 8th, 2019, 10:07 AM.

        • #7
          It's ES. no question.

          Comment


          • pinstripers
            pinstripers commented
            Editing a comment
            He doesn't take BAD shots, he shoots badly
            Last edited by pinstripers; January 8th, 2019, 10:11 PM.

        • #8
          It sure ain't just SHJ or Markis. Several more, at different times.

          Comment


          • pinstripers
            pinstripers commented
            Editing a comment
            those two take 90% of the bad shots

        • #9
          The bottom line is that we are not a good shooting team. 41.4% overall (12th in the AAC), 30.7% from 3 (11th in the AAC) and 67.2% from the free throw line (9th in the AAC).

          Some of that is due to some forced shots (some of which are to beat the shot clock), some due to not running the offense very well or to much one-on-one but a lot of it has to do with just not making good shots.

          If taking and missing a bad shot is a turnover why isn't taking and missing a good shot a turnover as well. This team does quite a bit of both.

          Comment


          • FadedCrown
            FadedCrown commented
            Editing a comment
            Because missing a good shot means the offense used it's possession to get a good look. Bad shots are just not moving the ball around and/or unable to set up good looks.

          • 1972Shocker
            1972Shocker commented
            Editing a comment
            Missing a good shot may or may not mean the offense used it's possession to get a good look. But that isn't the question you posed. You wanted to know if an ill-advised shot that is missed should be counted as a turnover.

            There is no question you want to take as many "good" shots as you can get and minimize the "bad" shots. That is pretty obvious. However, as far your question goes the impact of missing a shot is the same whether it is a good shot or a bad shot. You should have less "shooting turnovers" if you take good shots. The question is are our shooting percentages so bad because we are taking bad shots are because we are bad shooters. I as I mentioned this team does quite a bit of both.

            The bottom line is that we need to maximize the good looks but that is only half the battle. You still have to make them.

          • OregonShocker
            OregonShocker commented
            Editing a comment
            Maximizing the good looks often involves taking higher percentage shots. We need more points in the paint. And "drunk man falling out of a tree" heaves towards the basket when driving the lane isn't a high percentage shot.

        • #10
          1972, agree to disagree. Bad shots like MM dipsy-doodling and falling down results in at least a five on four for the other team. Quick 3-pointers taken often result in fast break opportunities for the opposition. The bad shots may be worse than the dead ball turnover. Good shots, MM passing to the outside shooter or SHJ declining that quick shot and working the offense should not often result in numerical personnel advantages for the opposition in transition.
          "I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13
          ---------------------------------------
          Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:
          "We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".

          A physician called into a radio show and said:
          "That's the definition of a stool sample."

          Comment


          • #11
            When his assistant coaches left the nest to start coaching teams of their own, Coach Wooten said the following:

            1. If you recruit 2 star and lower players, this is how you'll spend your time:
            a. Too much time teaching and coaching
            b. Too many substitutions as you try to figure out who can play (Will not learn to play cohesively)
            c. Less time for recruiting
            d. Less wins

            2. If you recruit 3 to 5 star players, this is how you'll spend your time:
            a. Less time teaching and coaching
            b. Fewer substitutions - pick the best 5 players and let them learn to play together cohesively
            c. More time for recruiting
            d. More wins

            Note: If you're playing against good competition and you're not successful doing #2, and you revert to #1, you're probably going to get yourself in trouble, and you may find yourself looking for a different profession.

            Comment


          • #12
            Originally posted by Mary Johnson View Post
            When his assistant coaches left the nest to start coaching teams of their own, Coach Wooten said the following:

            1. If you recruit 2 star and lower players, this is how you'll spend your time:
            a. Too much time teaching and coaching
            b. Too many substitutions as you try to figure out who can play (Will not learn to play cohesively)
            c. Less time for recruiting
            d. Less wins

            2. If you recruit 3 to 5 star players, this is how you'll spend your time:
            a. Less time teaching and coaching
            b. Fewer substitutions - pick the best 5 players and let them learn to play together cohesively
            c. More time for recruiting
            d. More wins

            Note: If you're playing against good competition and you're not successful doing #2, and you revert to #1, you're probably going to get yourself in trouble, and you may find yourself looking for a different profession.
            We got a lot of 3 stars and 4 stars.

            Wtf is your point Mary?
            Deuces Valley.
            ... No really, deuces.
            ________________
            "Enjoy the ride."

            - a smart man

            Comment


            • #13
              Coach Wooten? Who?

              Comment


              • #14
                Senior leadership taking bad shots is not good for the team....did coach Wooden ever say that?

                Comment


                • #15
                  *EDIT* Moved to my new thread: Trends in Shocker Recruiting
                  Last edited by C0|dB|00ded; January 8th, 2019, 10:04 PM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X