Wait, when is the 4 tpg relevant? If you average it through the regular season? Through the playoffs? In the finals? Lol
GSW won the last two championships ranked #28 in team TOV% and #22. Offenses like MDA's (especially with increase of ISO against switches) concentrates USG into two players and thus turnovers into those two players. With this offense, you have to look at team TOV% like the coach does. For instance, Gordon has his lowest TOV% (by far) of his entire career this year. Did Gordon all of a sudden become much more careful, or is this a sign the offense has an element of transfering turnovers from role players to the two primary playmakers more than other types of offenses like Motion? bottomline: right now (despite our sloppiness v last year) our Team TOV% is better than GSW, TOR (#1 seed), Bucks (#2 seed), 76ers (#3 seed), Lakers (Lebron), and Utah (Rubio). It's not our main problem, or even a Top 3 problem.
Lebron 15-16: Round 1 - 3.3 tpg (Sweep) Round 2 - 4.3 tpg (Sweep) ECF - 2.3 tpg (4-2) NBA Finals - 4.4 tpg (4-3) I don't understand why averaging 4+ tpg restricts a player from winning a championship altogether, but not if they do it in the ACTUAL finals? Curry 2015 finals - 4.7 tpg Jordan 1992 finals - 4.0 tpg So it doesn't matter how much you average in the finals series, just as long as your regular season and playoff average is less than 4 tpg? And by less, it doesn't matter if you're at 3.8 or 3.9 tpg, just gotta meet that threshold and you're now capable of winning?
Rockets ranked 12th in TOV% last year. Are now 17th, probably peak for the season, considering. All Recent NBA Champions GSW 28th GSW 22nd CLE 13th GSW 14th SAS 12th MIA 13th MIA 24th DAL 22nd
The real question is: when is it irrelevant? The entire rest of the team averages 9 TO's across 13 players. Paul averages 3.2 and Harden 5.8. When you look at how 99% of our offense is created through Harden and Paul, which ends up dramatically reducing the need for anyone else to create plays (i.e. accumulate TO's), what's the problem exactly? It is balancing itself out to the degree that we are in the same boat as all contenders (credit @heypartner for those stats). I don't understand the obsession people have with Harden's TO's. If you handle the ball the whole time you're on the floor and take a lot of shots, you will average 4+ TO's, there is no exception to that rule.
Gordon should not be a primary ball handler, he can handle the rock but his assist rate suggests he is just a secondary passer throughout his career. He is used as a PG at times because we did not have a real PG on the bench. He is a medium sized SG. As you stated, the only Turnovers that are relevant are coming from the two big hoopers JH and CP.
That is exactly why GSW was struggling last year. They do alot of things to negate those turnovers but make no mistake, they would be much better if they had Houston's low Turnover rate last year.
They got to the point where Turnovers do not faze them in 98% of cases. It's like they control all classic elements except that 1. Fire, Water, Air and Aether. They are missing Earth. They still control the other ones.
Do you think the advanced stats the teams have indicate what "zone" the turnovers happen in? I would assume a backcourt turnover would be much worse then a turnover by a big man under the basket, but who know. The Heat were 24th in TOV %s the first year they won the championship with Lebron, 13th the second year. The Spurs were 12th in 13/14. The Mavericks were 21st in 10/11. The Lakers were 5th in 09/10 and 5th in 0809. The Celtics were 29th in 08/09. Of course these are just single teams - the champions, but just single teams. I assume there isn't a strong correlation here. The above random pull-outs make it seem like it isn't highly correlated (being GREAT and being great at ball protection). But again, it might be about where you're turning the ball over. For another thread, but will add in spoiler Spoiler eFG% is more something that, both offensively (the team's own) and defensively (the other team's) seems to correlate much more highly... as would be expected. Not just GSW, but most of the past champions. So the GSW 73 win team was 1st in offensive eFG% and 2nd in defensive eFG%. The implication being, for the Warriors, or whomever, it's ok to turn the ball over a bit if (i) you have an offensive system and players that are creating those turnovers but is otherwise very efficient ("sure, we might have higher than average turnovers, but that's because of the way we play. We can find styles to lower our turnovers, but it will also lower our offensive efficiency), and (ii) you have a defensive system that limits points off turnovers (probably more important than the turnovers themselves, hence my question about "zones" where turnover occurs) and a defense overall that limits opponent efficiency even in the face of those turnovers. The 73 win Warrior team as you note was 22nd in TOV%. Similarly, they were 21st in opponent points off turnovers at 16.6 a game. The best team was the Spurs, only allowing 13.5 points a game. So we're effectively talking one 3 pointer, 1.5 twos or an and-one of difference. Relevant to this conversation about turnovers by one player or the team as a whole, I'm sure DM and other front offices have reams and reams of data on correlations - turnovers, points off turnovers, defensive rebounding, opponents second chance points, shooting efficiencies, etc, etc, etc. There's lots of levers that lead to higher offensive eFG% and lower defensive eFG%, and I suspect many different ways to come to the same net rating. By no means do I think just because a number is above a certain level it would preclude a team from winning a championship. But I absolutely recognize Harden can and should eliminate some of those common turnovers we see where it goes straight to a fast break bucket for the other squad. It's interesting the Rockets are so bad at defensive rebounding this year so far - 2nd to last in def reb %.... but middle of the pack in second chance points allowed (17th). They're middle of the pack (17th) in opponents points off turnovers as well. They're solid in opponent fast break points (2nd), probably due to their overall slower pace (I think 28th in pace). They're bad at points in the paint (24th). 6th in eFG% so far, but 21st in defensive eFG%. To me, it'd be nice if they could get better at one or both of the opponents second chance points or points off turnovers. They can't afford to be bad at both, and they're probably worse at both then it seems again because of their slow pace. But they just obviously need to shore up defense overall. It screams tall 3&D wing to me - helps defense, doesn't hurt offensive eFG% and helps rebounding, and another big, which also helps rebounding, and theoretically improves defensive eFG% and lowering points in the paint. /random rumblings
LOL Very back to me when a player averages over 4.1 turnovers a game and wins the championship. And my prediction is that one or more of these will have happened. Either 1. His team will have made a major acquisition during the season that caused his turnovers to be reduced significantly. Or/And 2. His team will beat a team in the playoffs/finals that suffers a significant injury/suspension of one of their best players. Or/And 3. There is a major rule change to the game which decreases the significance of individual turnovers. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Get back to me when it happens.
