?!?!? Everything Sweet Lou 4 2 has posted implies that you must keep your TOs low in order to be a great team. 1. "The assertion that you think a team cannot be great while turning the ball over." implies you need to keep your turnovers low 2. "low turnovers is necessary for success" implies you need to keep your turnovers low 3. "see, turnovers kill you." implies you need to keep your turnovers low Where's the contradiction? I don't see it.
I think what he means is that Sweet Lou used OKC as an example of a low turnover team that was successful enough to reach the finals but LOST to Miami, yet in the same vein, talks about the Pacers being killed by TO which was why they lost to Miami in 7. I would think that the Pacers pushing the Heat to 7 simply means it was a great series that could have gone either way; and turnovers were of course a factor, but nowhere near being the major, and only factor as Sweet Lou infers. In fact, throughout the playoffs, Miami was 7th in least turnovers among the playoff teams, which is somewhere in the middle of the pack among the 16 teams. In the regular season, Toronto and Charlotte has less turnovers per game than the Heat. It probably shows that teams commit more TOs when they are aggressive and play a take it to you type of game, and it does not necessarily translate into wins or losses in the long run and in a way more important than the other facets of the game. I would think if your offense is top 10, your defense is top 10, and you've got guys willing to lay down for a common goal, turnovers can take a back seat to effort. I'd rather the Rockets be lumped in with the Heat for TO numbers than with the Raptors or Bobcats.
imagineddragons, thx for your explanation. btw, I agree with you 100% on the relative importance/non-importance of TO's. Unfortunately, in a close series, it's actually easy to point to almost any deficiency as the cause for a loss.
All I gotta say is we've been playing our C game and still winning. Once we start putting it together, it's gonna be on and cracking~ The league is definitely on notice and they better get their licks in now cuz a month from now, noones gonna stop us.
I understand, but I think it was awfully worded by meh. He wasn't pointing out a bunch of teams that were high TO therefore good, he was stating that low turnovers =/= to success. So he used OKC & Boston's low TO in direct contradiction to Indy's high TO vs Miami yet they all lost to Miami. Therefore the better team finds a way to win in spite of the TOs, not as big a factor as we are making it. I believe, the Rocket's frantic pace + not the surest handed centers is going to lead to A LOT of turnovers, so it can be cured a bit, but I doubt it will be completely solved. We'll be a bottom 10 team, likely bottom 5 in the NBA in TOs, but we'll be a top 5 (possible #1) team in Orebs, which should equalize itself out.
This is not an encouraging observation but it is kneejerk Howard does not play PnR defense at all.. He just sits there, the game against the Jazz (and this was a point made by the Jazz commentators) caused so many open shots off the screen because Howard wouldn't show.. even with Asik in there to fill the key as he leaves it. Surely he is mobile enough to adapt to PnR defense rotations (if Asik can, he certainly can) A sign of things to come? An Achilles heel? I hope not
Along the lines of early kneejerk observation, I really don't like the Asik/Howard combo. They have so far proven to be ineffective against quicker teams and leads our twin towers to early trouble. We've played against weak teams thus far so the issue is not so glaring but still noticeable. If you start playing against teams with elite team offense like the Miami, Clippers, Oklahoma and Pacers, this could be trouble. From an offensive standpoint, Asik and Howard are very limited. You get your putbacks, dunks and layups. They both have zero range outside of the pain. We would have trouble against a zone defense. This will result in tons of turnovers....as already shown by both Howard and Asik. In terms of defense, teams that can shoot from the outside will kill us as both are unwilling to step outside of the paint. They're both too slow to switch and have trouble guarding PnRs. The strategy to beat us would be either drive and pop or PnR. Against, once we start playing against the elite teams this will become painfully obvious.
OKC and Miami met in the finals and were the of the best teams at protecting the ball. That's why they both made it to the finals. Indiana lost to Miami and didn't make it to the finals because it turned the ball over like crazy. If they protected the ball they would be the ones advancing to the finals. I am not sure where the contradiction is!
I agree and see the point but I'm sure the fact that the two teams combined to have such a collection of Best-in-the-NBA (Durant, Westbrook, Harden; James, Wade, Bosh) had a little more to do with it. But yes, turnovers are a killer and I envy those teams that manage to keep them low. Maybe when our team's chemistry really gels this will happen too, but it will involve Lin not throwing away the ball when he dribbles into the teeth of the D and Harden not throwing lazy cross-courts after a hard night of Hennessey and hookers.
OKC, among lots of teams in history, had a very high turnover percentage during the regular season and later went on to play-off success. So you agree that worrying about turnovers during the regular season is dumb, right?
I wouldn't draw that conclusion. It simply means that at some point you have to cut down on the TO's. How many teams did what OKC did and managed to protect the ball come playoff time? Also we don't know if OKC got better during the season and so it really wasnt' a drop off but just looked that way since the start of the season might have been awful. TO's are just one factor in a game. But they are key because not only do they cost you a possession without a shot, but they also tend to lead to efficient scoring opportunities for the other team (I.e. fast break points). You can talk about low turnover teams not winning, and that a high over team ALMOST beat Miami and say - see turnovers aren't important. But you can pick any one stat and make the same ridiculous case. My point is that championship teams are generally very good at protecting the ball. You look at any champion in recent memory and they all generate turnovers at less than 14 per 100 possessions. In fact many do it at less than 13. High turnover teams do not win rings. That is my point.
