{"id":88,"date":"2015-09-28T10:26:33","date_gmt":"2015-09-28T16:26:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/67.227.157.91\/~kenpom\/wp_blog\/offense-vs-defense-turnover-percentage\/"},"modified":"2016-05-07T22:46:47","modified_gmt":"2016-05-08T04:46:47","slug":"offense-vs-defense-turnover-percentage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/offense-vs-defense-turnover-percentage\/","title":{"rendered":"Offense vs. Defense: Turnover percentage"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is part of a series of posts examining whether offense or defense has more control of various aspects of a typical college basketball game. The introduction is here<\/a>. A description of the methodology is here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

In the last post, I looked at the \u201cbattlefield\u201d of college basketball which was inside the 3-point arc. It\u2019s not the only stat that is virtually an even struggle between the offense and defense. Turnovers are under 51% influence of the defense. Turnovers can be considered another battlefield stat, although the location of this battle is more virtual rather than a particular place on the floor. <\/p>\n

Given that we\u2019re separating turnovers into steals and non-steals in other pieces in this series, it doesn\u2019t make much sense to get too deep with the analysis here. Just know that your team\u2019s bad turnover night was, as a default, equal part bad offense and good defense. Maybe it\u2019s best to blast out trivia at this point. <\/p>\n

Here is the top ten of low turnover coaches:<\/p>\n

 1 Bo Ryan         16.0%\n 2 Mike Brey       16.7 \n 3 John Beilein    16.9\n 4 Dave Rose       17.4\n 5 Mike Anderson   17.6\n 6 Don Maestri     17.7\n 7 Andy Kennedy    17.7\n 8 Bob Huggins     17.9\n 9 Mike Krzyzewski 17.9\n10 Lon Kruger      17.9\n\n<\/pre>\n
It\u2019s no surprise that Bo Ryan<\/a> tops the list but extra credit to Mike Anderson and Dave Rose who run uptempo systems that will never be considered disciplined because of the fascination with counting stats.<\/p>\n
Ryan is the king of ball security, but perhaps he is waiting to retire until he sees his team play a perfect no-turnover game. According to my database, such a game has happened once since 2002 in a game involving two D-I opponents. <\/p>\n
It took place on February 19, 2009 when Fairfield had a clean sheet in a game at Marist<\/a>. The interesting thing is that Fairfield lost 75-66 and it wasn\u2019t even that close, with the Stags trailing by as many as 20 in the second half. Fairfield was then coached by Ed Cooley, whose teams haven\u2019t been exceptional in taking care of the ball. But on one magical night, against a defense that didn\u2019t force many turnovers, it all came together in a way that has made Bo Ryan envious ever since.<\/p>\n
Here are the ten coaches whose teams have forced the most turnovers:<\/p>\n
 1 Mike Anderson   25.3%\n 2 Vann Pettaway   25.0 \n 3 Bobby Braswell  24.1 \n 4 Joe Scott       23.7\n 5 Horace Broadnax 23.6\n 6 Ron Everhart    23.6\n 7 Greg Jackson    23.2\n 8 Rick Pitino     23.1\n 9 Jeff Neubauer   23.1\n10 Danny Kaspar    23.1\n\n<\/pre>\n
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this list is that because of the even-handed nature of turnover rate, a coach can look good if he\u2019s regularly playing teams that aren\u2019t so good at taking care of the ball. That explains Alabama State\u2019s Vann Pettaway’s location on this list. He turned in ten seasons in my database in the notoriously turnover-happy SWAC. His defenses were probably good at forcing turnovers, but they got a boost from the opposition as well.<\/p>\n
And maybe we ought to look at Bo Ryan\u2019s status in this light as well. Big Ten defenses aren\u2019t all that interested in forcing turnovers and to some extent all of its coaches benefit from this on the offensive end. John Beilein ranks third on the offensive list, and not shown were Thad Matta (11th), Matt Painter (15th) and Bill Carmody (16th). <\/p>\n
Last season, three of its 14 teams ranked in the top 100 of defensive turnover percentage while seven teams ranked in the bottom 100. Ryan may still rank as the best in a schedule-adjusted version of turnover percentage, but he\u2019d probably be closer to the pack if someone did the calculations. <\/p>\n
That\u2019s the scoop on turnover percentage and here\u2019s the data on it by season. <\/p>\n
Year  %Offense  HCA<\/u>\n2015     45    -0.7%\n2014     48    -0.7%\n2013     40    -0.9%\n2012     44    -0.7%\n2011     46    -0.8%\n2010     53    -0.9%\n2009     51    -0.9%\n2008     51    -0.9%\n2007     56    -0.9%\n2006     54    -1.0%<\/u>\nAVG      49    -0.7%\n\n<\/pre>\n
There are only three more stats to go. Look forward to an exciting trilogy subtitled Hooray for Defense!<\/em> <\/p>\n
Offensive Spectrum – Ordered by pct of offensive \u201ccontrol\u201d<\/u><\/p>\n
FT%<\/a>  98%  (HCA=+0.5%, r(off)=.19, r(def)=.04)\nAPL<\/a>  86%  (HCA=-0.1s, r(off)=.55, r(def)=.23)\n3P%<\/a>  83%  (HCA=+0.7%, r(off)=.12, r(def)=.06)\nOR%<\/a>  73%  (HCA=+1.1%, r(off)=.23, r(def)=.08)\n3PA%<\/a> 71%  (HCA=0.0%,  r(off)=.52, r(def)=.33)\nA%<\/a>   71%  (HCA=+2.6%, r(off)=.32, r(def)=.21)\nPPP<\/a>  64%  (HCA=+3.7,  r(off)=.51, r(def)=.36)\nNST%<\/a> 59%  (HCA=-0.4%, r(off)=.24, r(def)=.20)\n2P%<\/a>  50%  (HCA=+1.4%, r(off)=.26, r(def)=.25)\nTO%  49%  (HCA=-0.7%, r(off)=.31, r(def)=.30)\n???  36%\n???  30%\n???  15%\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is part of a series of posts examining whether offense or defense has more control of various aspects of a typical college basketball game. The introduction is here. A description of the methodology is here. In the last post, I looked at the \u201cbattlefield\u201d of college basketball which was inside the 3-point arc. It\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[35],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=88"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1065,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88\/revisions\/1065"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}