The triple double countdown... - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 03-31-2010, 11:10 PM

I'd be curious to see how many players in the last 30 years have retired averaging more than 20 a game with less than 2 TO's per game.

LonghornDub · 03-31-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Yeah, if you move it from 6 to 5,
Garnett 119
Dirk 57
Webber 129
Malone 259
Duncan 137
Barkley 195

Murph, I've got a question. How do you research a stat like this? Is this your own work compiled from a particular source that you like (basketball-reference, etc.), or is there some resource through which you can easily pull stats like this?

chumdawg · 03-31-2010, 11:11 PM

What do Dirk's turnovers look like year to year? I would expect to see a higher rate in the period between Nash and Kidd than before or after.

Dirk's low turnover numbers probably benefited a goodly amount from playing in Nellie's system for so long. Nellie was big on keeping turnovers to a minimum.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2010, 11:23 PM

Dirk's at 1.8 this year. His career average is 1.9.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2010, 11:24 PM

For a career, there are 2 guys that have averaged more than 20 a game while turning it over less than 2 times per game.

Dirk and Michael Redd.

Redd will drop off that list as his career goes on.. His scoring average is at 20.3. I can't see it staying above 20 throughout the duration of his career.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2010, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Murph, I've got a question. How do you research a stat like this? Is this your own work compiled from a particular source that you like (basketball-reference, etc.), or is there some resource through which you can easily pull stats like this?

Some of it is relatively easy to find on basketball-reference.com. Alot of it is just compiling numbers from various sites. But yeah, my favorite is basketball-reference.com. Sometimes their search functions can quickly help you find what you want.. And other times, you may have to weed through 50-60 players to see what their career TO per game rate is to get your list.

About 10 years ago or so, I had never heard of the point per TO stat.. I was just curious so I decided to do a little research to see where Dirk stood in comparison to other players around the league. And yeah, it was a ridiculous amount of grunt work at the time.. You still don't see the point per TO stat used all that often, but I see it from time to time.

LonghornDub · 03-31-2010, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Some of it is relatively easy to find on basketball-reference.com. Alot of it is just compiling numbers from various sites. But yeah, my favorite is basketball-reference.com. Sometimes their search functions can quickly help you find what you want.. And other times, you may have to weed through 50-60 players to see what their career TO per game rate is to get your list.

About 10 years ago or so, I had never heard of the point per TO stat.. I was just curious so I decided to do a little research to see where Dirk stood in comparison to other players around the league. And yeah, it was a ridiculous amount of grunt work at the time.. You still don't see the point per TO stat used all that often, but I see it from time to time.

I hardly ever hear it cited, but I think it's interesting and I'm glad you did the legwork on it back in the day. Very cool and informative stuff.

jthig32 · 04-01-2010, 07:06 AM

Turnover rate is a Hollinger stat that I like. It measures the percent of a player's possessions that end in a turnover. Dirk's tied for 14th in the league in that category, and he is, by a mile, the most prolific offensive player of anyone in the top 25 or so.

Most of the top 25 are either guys that don't provide much offense at all, or guys that basically catch and shoot.

Quote:

What do Dirk's turnovers look like year to year? I would expect to see a higher rate in the period between Nash and Kidd than before or after.

This is a good observation. Dirk's seasons with Kidd or Nash all have a TO rate around 7%. All of the seasons in between the rate goes up to around 8% except for his MVP season, where it was around 7%.

Murphy3 · 04-02-2010, 06:43 PM

I'll be honest when I say that I really don't look at too much of Hollinger's stuff. Sure, I look at some of it, but the guy is a bit lost with his numbers at times. Sometimes his numbers replace common sense. You've got to have both. At some point along the way, he became too obsessed with his numbers and obsessed with justifying his numbers. He lost some validity with me.

tcat075 · 04-02-2010, 08:25 PM

I think that his simple numbers, such as turnover rate, which is easy to understand, can be very useful. Once he starts getting into PER and stuff...I just don't totally buy that stuff. Its complementary for me, at the very most. If I think some player is good, and he happens to be rated high by Hollinger too, great! Icing on the cake. But if his stats disagree with my observations and some of the more basic stats? Well...f him.

jthig32 · 04-02-2010, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I'll be honest when I say that I really don't look at too much of Hollinger's stuff. Sure, I look at some of it, but the guy is a bit lost with his numbers at times. Sometimes his numbers replace common sense. You've got to have both. At some point along the way, he became too obsessed with his numbers and obsessed with justifying his numbers. He lost some validity with me.

Turnover rate is pretty straight forward.

Murphy3 · 04-03-2010, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Turnover rate is pretty straight forward.

Oh, I completely agree. I'm just saying that I don't necessarily read alot of Hollinger stuff anymore, and I don't completely buy into some of his statistical measurements.

Hitman · 04-03-2010, 02:13 PM

I actually like Hollinger, because he provides a fact based point of view. Most basketball analysts, from Tim Legler to Kenny Smith to Chris Webber to Stephen A Smith, provide nothing but babble.

I don't agree with him on everything, but he is very straightforward in that he is providing a completely statistical based point of view. A few years ago when the Mavs were the #1 team in the league

and Hollinger claimed that the Spurs were actually the #1 team in the West- everyone around here went ballistic at him.

But he turned out to be very correct.

I have been paying much more attention to things like PER and point differential ever since.

Back to the topic of triple doubles- major props to David Lee who went for 37 points, 20 rebounds and 10 assists last night.

Murphy3 · 04-03-2010, 04:17 PM

Well, I can't say that I like Legler, Webber or Stephen A. Smith all that much. The thing that annoys me the most is when the former players get on there and do absolutely no research and just shoot from the hip.. especially when it's coming from guys that probably couldn't survive in the real world because they are flat out too dumb.. they just happened to be really good at playing a game.

I guess you can say that I don't make it a point to read anyone's work at this point. I trust my own opinion. Sure, I'll read basketball stuff on a very regular basis..but I don't make it a point at all to read/listen to anyone's stuff consistently. I find most of them either too dumb to pay attention to or too in love with their own opinion. Yes, I know that this is not the case with all NBA sports writers or talking heads, but it is so much more of an issue in the NBA than in other professional leagues.

Murphy3 · 01-29-2016, 02:59 PM

bump