Is it just rebounding and turnovers?

[SCBoiler1]

In Painter's post game interview he made a point of quoting Purdue's record over the years when Purdue doesn't turn the ball over and wins the rebounding battle. On the surface that sounds fair and would seem to make sense but looking at the stats from the three losses this year it doesn't seem so simple.

Purdue dominated the glass in two of the three losses:
Ohio State +14
Nebraska +4
Northwestern +21

Purdue did have more than their average turnovers (11.6) in the three losses:
Ohio State 14
Nebraska 13
Northwestern 17

But, look at the turnovers in some of our biggest wins:
Gonzaga 13
Tennessee 15
Marquette 14
Arizona 12
Illinois 12

Obviously turning the ball over isn't a good thing and of course dominating the boards for this team is important but I'm not sure it's as simple as just taking care of the ball.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

In Painter's post game interview he made a point of quoting Purdue's record over the years when Purdue doesn't turn the ball over and wins the rebounding battle. On the surface that sounds fair and would seem to make sense but looking at the stats from the three losses this year it doesn't seem so simple.

Purdue dominated the glass in two of the three losses:
Ohio State +14
Nebraska +4
Northwestern +21

Purdue did have more than their average turnovers (11.6) in the three losses:
Ohio State 14
Nebraska 13
Northwestern 17

But, look at the turnovers in some of our biggest wins:
Gonzaga 13
Tennessee 15
Marquette 14
Arizona 12
Illinois 12

Obviously turning the ball over isn't a good thing and of course dominating the boards for this team is important but I'm not sure it's as simple as just taking care of the ball.

These are only 2 of the 4 factors and analytics show the effective field goal percentage is the most important factor, but I think that Painter views turnovers and rebounds as the effort and discipline factors that are most in Purdue’s control. Shooting will be up and down, but if Purdue limits its turnovers and dominates the boards, I like its chances against anyone.

 

[Boiler Buck]

In Painter's post game interview he made a point of quoting Purdue's record over the years when Purdue doesn't turn the ball over and wins the rebounding battle. On the surface that sounds fair and would seem to make sense but looking at the stats from the three losses this year it doesn't seem so simple.

Purdue dominated the glass in two of the three losses:
Ohio State +14
Nebraska +4
Northwestern +21

Purdue did have more than their average turnovers (11.6) in the three losses:
Ohio State 14
Nebraska 13
Northwestern 17

But, look at the turnovers in some of our biggest wins:
Gonzaga 13
Tennessee 15
Marquette 14
Arizona 12
Illinois 12

Obviously turning the ball over isn't a good thing and of course dominating the boards for this team is important but I'm not sure it's as simple as just taking care of the ball.

Just coach talk. Gotta say something I guess.

But as your post shows it's not just R & TOs. There are other factors that go into a good offense. Most of which were missing vs OSU.

This team is designed for scoring. When not getting 40 pt halves, it leaves the door open. Two of those in a row is a disaster; as it was vs OSU.

One thing for sure we were sloppy with the ball early this season. For the most part that has been trending better.

 

[pboiler18]

3 point percentage and attempts.

Biggest difference in the 3 losses, IMo.

Have to shoot and make the 3 to have a chance in todays game. If not, a team gets hot from 3 and blows you out (like Neb.). Or gets hot from 3 as the equalizer for poor rebounding (NU). Or hits a few more than you do on the same overall percentage in a close game (OSU).

I don’t think it’s any more complex than that.

 

[Boiler Buck]

3 point percentage and attempts.

Biggest difference in the 3 losses, IMo.

Have to shoot and make the 3 to have a chance in todays game. If not, a team gets hot from 3 and blows you out (like Neb.). Or gets hot from 3 as the equalizer for poor rebounding (NU). Or hits a few more than you do on the same overall percentage in a close game (OSU).

I don’t think it’s any more complex than that.

Yep. For sure.

But even hitting 2-4 more two pointers would have helped via OSU.

 

[pboiler18]

Yep. For sure.

But even hitting 2-4 more two pointers would have helped via OSU.

We also went perfect from the line on 20 attempts. Pretty mind boggling, especially when we were in the 50s and 60s percentage wise in several previous games.

I think it’s another feather in the “Play Colvin” camp though. If he can come in and be 3/7 or something like that in a game it help immensely and is another option from the pick and roll to keep the offense from stagnating.

 

[Dryfly88]

In Painter's post game interview he made a point of quoting Purdue's record over the years when Purdue doesn't turn the ball over and wins the rebounding battle. On the surface that sounds fair and would seem to make sense but looking at the stats from the three losses this year it doesn't seem so simple.

Purdue dominated the glass in two of the three losses:
Ohio State +14
Nebraska +4
Northwestern +21

Purdue did have more than their average turnovers (11.6) in the three losses:
Ohio State 14
Nebraska 13
Northwestern 17

But, look at the turnovers in some of our biggest wins:
Gonzaga 13
Tennessee 15
Marquette 14
Arizona 12
Illinois 12

Obviously turning the ball over isn't a good thing and of course dominating the boards for this team is important but I'm not sure it's as simple as just taking care of the ball.

I don't have the time/desire to look it up, but I'm guessing there were more possessions in those non-conference games so the almost equal number of TO's doesn't have as big of impact as the conference games which are slower/fewer possessions.

 

[bonefish1]

We also went perfect from the line on 20 attempts. Pretty mind boggling, especially when we were in the 50s and 60s percentage wise in several previous games.

I think it’s another feather in the “Play Colvin” camp though. If he can come in and be 3/7 or something like that in a game it help immensely and is another option from the pick and roll to keep the offense from stagnating.

agree. I think the trade off of what you can potentially get from Colvin offensively in 15-20 minutes far outweighs what you get from Morton defensively in that same time frame.
But, Painter doesn't see it that way. I think he's more worried about mistakes Colvin will make that Morton won't and hopes the other 4 players can pick up the offense that Morton doesn't bring.
Kind of frustrating that we're coming down the stretch and an offensive weapon like Colvin is left on the bench the majority of the time.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

agree. I think the trade off of what you can potentially get from Colvin offensively in 15-20 minutes far outweighs what you get from Morton defensively in that same time frame.
But, Painter doesn't see it that way. I think he's more worried about mistakes Colvin will make that Morton won't and hopes the other 4 players can pick up the offense that Morton doesn't bring.
Kind of frustrating that we're coming down the stretch and an offensive weapon like Colvin is left on the bench the majority of the time.

Painter tried it in the last two games and in the 9:32 that Colvin played, Purdue was outscored by a total of 22 points. I recognize that +- is not a great stat to apply to small samples and what happened in those stretches was not all Colvin’s fault, but I also don’t think that it is realistic to say the the problems in the past two games will all go away by giving Colvin more minutes.

 

[KentuckyBoiler]

We cannot hit our 3s. When we do that, it opens up the middle and makes the offense run smoother.

Jones can create and so can Smith. However, Loyer is a spot up shooter. The last 4 games he is probably hitting 20% with most of those being wide open shots. If he cannot shoot 3s, then he shouldn't be out there on the court. He is slow, so he is a liability on defense with quick physical guards.

We had been bad at FTs too, but last game we were hitting those.

 

[Wolegib]

I look back at Jordan in the NBA. He was 6’6. the majority of his games he played shooting guard. And at time the average height of other shooting guards was 6’1 to 6’4. This created a height mismatch and made it a lot easier for him to take a shot. When you have a guard who is 6’0 and being defended by guards who are 6’5, it’s harder to get an open shot. The same is true if you are playing the 3 and you are a 6-4 guard being guarded by someone who is 6’7 - 6’8.

It’s the same on defense. It’s hard to prevent someone from shooting the three if you are only 6’0. You can put your hands up, but they shoot right over you.

It can be done, but it takes a special player. This could be why Zpurdue has problems against teams with tall guards.

I also remember Kareem. He was only 7’2. But every time he had the ball it was in his hand and his hand and the ball were always 3 feet above his head. And nobody ever was able to seat the ball out of his hand. He also had giant hands.

 

[DwaynePurvis00]

I look back at Jordan in the NBA. He was 6’6. the majority of his games he played shooting guard. And at time the average height of other shooting guards was 6’1 to 6’4. This created a height mismatch and made it a lot easier for him to take a shot. When you have a guard who is 6’0 and being defended by guards who are 6’5, it’s harder to get an open shot. The same is true if you are playing the 3 and you are a 6-4 guard being guarded by someone who is 6’7 - 6’8.

It’s the same on defense. It’s hard to prevent someone from shooting the three if you are only 6’0. You can put your hands up, but they shoot right over you.

It can be done, but it takes a special player. This could be why Zpurdue has problems against teams with tall guards.

I also remember Kareem. He was only 7’2. But every time he had the ball it was in his hand and his hand and the ball were always 3 feet above his head. And nobody ever was able to seat the ball out of his hand. He also had giant hands.

Thornton (6’2) a special player then since he was hitting shots over edey (7’4)?

Also, plenty of guys guarded Jordan that were similar to his height or taller…not sure the avg guy was 6’1-6’4…but even if youre 6’4, the 6’6 guy doesn’t have that much of an advantage of shooting over you guarding you because of height. It’d be more so due to wing span.

 

[Wolegib]

When I was referring to Jordan, I said the average shooting guard, Not the famous ones and not the all stars. Jordan didn’t play against all stars every single game.

Guys like Isiah Thomas and Iverson were not exactly very tall.

I have to believe Jordan’s height and wing span compared to the players guarding him were factors to his greatness. The same applied to Clyde Drexler.

And I believe you could draw a comparison To the problems Purdue’s shorter guards have experienced playing against taller guards.

 

[Gman544]

When I was referring to Jordan, I said the average shooting guard, Not the famous ones and not the all stars. Jordan didn’t play against all stars every single game.

Guys like Isiah Thomas and Iverson were not exactly very tall.

I have to believe Jordan’s height and wing span compared to the players guarding him were factors to his greatness. The same applied to Clyde Drexler.

And I believe you could draw a comparison To the problems Purdue’s shorter guards have experienced playing against taller guards.

Isiah was not a shooting guard, Joe Dumars was and was six three. Iverson was a shooting guard but his point guard Eric Snow was taller, six three and defended shooting guards but he was a good defender. But point taken. Purdue has trouble when guards are tall, athletic and strong. UConn guards are tall averaging about six five. Creighton has taller guards and matched up better than Purdue would. Jordan was great because he was so much better than everyone else. Height of the opponent did not bother him.

 

[02BoilerUp]

agree. I think the trade off of what you can potentially get from Colvin offensively in 15-20 minutes far outweighs what you get from Morton defensively in that same time frame.
But, Painter doesn't see it that way. I think he's more worried about mistakes Colvin will make that Morton won't and hopes the other 4 players can pick up the offense that Morton doesn't bring.
Kind of frustrating that we're coming down the stretch and an offensive weapon like Colvin is left on the bench the majority of the time.

I think that is the main argument I've had and how I've viewed it the past month or so. Loyer has been off way more than he has been on and Morton D just doesn't outweigh what Colvin can do on O, imo. There have been several games where it didn't really matter because 3 guys were playing well enough offensively to overshadow this issue, but you could still see the issue in the background.

 

[02BoilerUp]

We cannot hit our 3s. When we do that, it opens up the middle and makes the offense run smoother.

Jones can create and so can Smith. However, Loyer is a spot up shooter. The last 4 games he is probably hitting 20% with most of those being wide open shots. If he cannot shoot 3s, then he shouldn't be out there on the court. He is slow, so he is a liability on defense with quick physical guards.

We had been bad at FTs too, but last game we were hitting those.

I agree. Most have been wide open looks for Loyer. As you said, also a liability on D and typically doesn't rebound or accumulate assists or steals either.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

We cannot hit our 3s. When we do that, it opens up the middle and makes the offense run smoother.

Jones can create and so can Smith. However, Loyer is a spot up shooter. The last 4 games he is probably hitting 20% with most of those being wide open shots. If he cannot shoot 3s, then he shouldn't be out there on the court. He is slow, so he is a liability on defense with quick physical guards.

We had been bad at FTs too, but last game we were hitting those.

No team is going to be hot from 3 every game, especially on the road. Purdue was 3 for 9 from 3 against OSU, which isn’t terrible.

I totally agree that it is hard to win when the shots aren’t falling. (UConn going 3 for 16 against Creighton last night is a good example). But, Purdue is a 40% shooting team from 3 on the year. It doesn’t get much better than that. It’s really not a valid criticism, IMO, to say that Purdue should shoot better from 3. Purdue isn’t a high volume team from 3, but Purdue forces defenses to defend the three and shoots them at a rate that it is possible to overcome a bad shooting game.

Bottom line is that I agree that Painter is right to focus on turnovers. Missed shots lead to rebound opportunities. Turnovers often lead to transition buckets. This Purdue offense is going to be tough for anyone to contend with if they don’t turn it over.

 

[tjreese]

In Painter's post game interview he made a point of quoting Purdue's record over the years when Purdue doesn't turn the ball over and wins the rebounding battle. On the surface that sounds fair and would seem to make sense but looking at the stats from the three losses this year it doesn't seem so simple.

Purdue dominated the glass in two of the three losses:
Ohio State +14
Nebraska +4
Northwestern +21

Purdue did have more than their average turnovers (11.6) in the three losses:
Ohio State 14
Nebraska 13
Northwestern 17

But, look at the turnovers in some of our biggest wins:
Gonzaga 13
Tennessee 15
Marquette 14
Arizona 12
Illinois 12

Obviously turning the ball over isn't a good thing and of course dominating the boards for this team is important but I'm not sure it's as simple as just taking care of the ball.

Early season games many times have teams a little behind offensively and a little less behind defensively. Matt has a lot of sets already known and Zach no matter the situation is good if he has the ball deep. I'm unsure how reliable comparing pre conference is with team stats the rest of the year, because I believe that very easily can be a different population. It may not, just a hunch. any team that goes crazy behind the arc can beat a better team that doesn't...whether UConn or Purdue.

Where I differ than most that go to analytics on the whole is a reluctance (not saying it is wrong) to just assume all data is of a homogeneous population rather than made of of many different populations. I showed this with a bimodal curve in a thread about Fletcher being hot and cold. So, if a multiple regression was studied with variables typically mentioned it would be interesting to see the final prediction and its standard errors for use. If the model predicted well, we would still see that correlations between the variables might not be so strong...or find that each has a different weight or value in that model...perhaps as Matt has suggested. When teams go crazy behind the arc, that almost always is not the norm for that team...and who is to say the opposition shooting well doesn't also have different populations in its data that was reflected in its shooting? Lastly, you hope the predictability makes sense because you can't repeat, let alone replicate the data. There will be an out liar here and there, but if Purdue shoots well with good rebounding and few turnovers Purdue will be hard to beat IMO...and that is with average D

 

[BoilerInChiTown]

agree. I think the trade off of what you can potentially get from Colvin offensively in 15-20 minutes far outweighs what you get from Morton defensively in that same time frame.
But, Painter doesn't see it that way. I think he's more worried about mistakes Colvin will make that Morton won't and hopes the other 4 players can pick up the offense that Morton doesn't bring.
Kind of frustrating that we're coming down the stretch and an offensive weapon like Colvin is left on the bench the majority of the time.

Playing Morton only works with Loyer, if Loyer is playing well offensively. If Loyer isn't playing well offensively and you have Morton in there at the same time, we're basically playing 3v5. The results are what you see vs OSU.
What the Painter can't do no wrong crowd gets wrong is that Loyer is just as bad defensively as Colvin at this point in their career. At least if Colvin is hitting shots we are NO WORST THEN 4v5, which still is better than 3v5.

I hope Painter try and change up it up a bit and have more Heide and Colvin and less Loyer and Morton. This should help us in March at the very least where it really matter unless we want a repeat of the last couple of years and be known forever as chokers...