Welcome to the shot-volume party, Wildcats. (NBC Sports)
Last year I cooked up a way of measuring how well teams combine taking care of the ball and getting second chances. I called it a shot volume index, North Carolina led the (major-conference) nation in said measure, and the Tar Heels won a national title. Woo-hoo! Analytic perfection!
Well, not really. UNC is again leading 74 other major-conference teams in terms of shot volume, but, unless the Heels start more closely resembling last year’s team on defense, a repeat is unlikely (though not impossible). No, what I like about measures like this one (there were other trusty metrics for this kind of thing already in place before I came along with mine) is how they show there’s more than one way to generate shots.
More specifically, there are two ways, as seen at the top of this season’s leaderboard.
Shot volume index (SVI)
Through games of February 12
Major-conference games only
TO% OR% SVI 1. North Carolina 16.1 41.0 102.8 2. Villanova 12.9 28.4 100.7 3. Duke 17.2 37.4 99.8 4. Ole Miss 15.9 32.9 99.8
The Heels are doing their “very good turnover rate and insane offensive rebounding” thing, like they always do. But look at the new leaf Villanova has turned over. Until this season, the Wildcats were too cool for shot volume, but now Jay Wright’s guys are doing the “insane turnover rate and normal-to-meh offensive rebounding” thing.
That’s a very good thing to do, as shown most memorably by Wisconsin in 2015. Since turnovers are way more important to shot volume than offensive boards (you can’t rebound your miss if you’ve already coughed up the ball), you can generate a UNC-like shot volume with nowhere near the Chapel Hill-variety emphasis on the offensive glass. Shot volume is small-c catholic on how you get the job done, it just measures results.
The other thing I like about measures like this one is how they reveal strange bedfellows. Basketball never fails to offer the striking spectacle of coaches consciously deflating their team’s shot volume, so it’s interesting to see a team like, say, Creighton, serenely saying no thanks to scoring chances while fellow low-volume comrade Missouri, fighting for a bid, would love to climb out of the Bluejay shot desert.
TO% OR% SVI 70. Creighton 16.8 18.2 91.5 71. Missouri 21.0 28.2 91.2
Virginia Tech does the same thing as Creighton, of course, and, thanks to the Hokies last year, we know just how much of a drag this exerts on your offense. Buzz Williams’ guys recorded the best shooting from the floor of any team in ACC play in at least a decade last season, and that netted Virginia Tech bragging rights as the league’s No. 7 per-possession offense in 2017.
Will saying “Yes, please!” to a hard scoring ceiling in the neighborhood of 1.10 points per trip work out better for great-shooting-slash-offensive-boards-steal-our-soul teams like the Hokies and Creighton this season? (Insert Kent Brockman voice:) Only time will tell.
Lastly, a word on this season’s No. 75-ranked team in shot volume. When you fall into the uncanny valley where your offensive rebound rate’s actually lower than your turnover rate, you do have a shot (har!) at making history. A shot, yes, but the record here, incredibly, is 84.4, by Texas Tech in 2012. That will be tough to beat.
Here’s the complete roster of shot volumes in major-conference play, with pithy category titles at plus and minus one standard deviation.
Shot volume index (SVI)
Through games of February 12
Major-conference games only
Gluttonous TO% OR% SVI 1. North Carolina 16.1 41.0 102.8 2. Villanova 12.9 28.4 100.7 3. Duke 17.2 37.4 99.8 4. Ole Miss 15.9 32.9 99.8 5. Florida State 16.2 34.2 99.5 6. USC 14.4 29.5 99.5 7. TCU 16.8 34.9 99.1 8. Notre Dame 16.7 34.0 98.8 9. Arizona State 14.1 27.1 98.7 10. Auburn 15.7 30.8 98.6 11. West Virginia 18.1 36.9 98.5 Normal TO% OR% SVI 12. Florida 14.5 27.2 98.3 13. Virginia 14.2 26.3 98.2 14. Iowa State 16.9 33.2 98.2 15. NC State 16.8 32.5 98.0 16. Michigan 13.9 25.0 97.9 17. Ohio State 15.5 28.6 97.8 18. Purdue 14.3 25.4 97.7 19. South Carolina 17.4 33.4 97.7 20. Butler 14.3 25.2 97.6 21. UCLA 15.2 27.5 97.6 22. Arizona 17.5 32.7 97.3 23. Tennessee 16.8 30.6 97.2 24. Providence 16.4 29.2 97.0 25. Miami 16.9 30.2 96.9 26. Mississippi State 17.3 31.3 96.9 27. Indiana 16.6 29.0 96.7 28. Minnesota 15.7 26.7 96.7 29. Xavier 16.7 28.7 96.4 30. Iowa 18.5 33.2 96.4 31. Nebraska 15.8 26.5 96.4 32. Seton Hall 17.5 30.5 96.3 33. Penn State 16.8 28.2 96.1 34. Kansas 16.9 28.3 96.0 35. Texas A&M 19.1 34.0 96.0 36. Baylor 20.0 36.3 95.9 37. Kentucky 18.4 31.8 95.8 38. Oklahoma State 19.2 33.6 95.7 39. Texas 17.9 30.1 95.7 (average, huzzah) 40. Marquette 16.5 26.3 95.6 41. Rutgers 18.0 29.8 95.4 42. Michigan State 18.5 30.6 95.2 43. Northwestern 18.5 30.6 95.2 44. Arkansas 17.4 27.8 95.2 45. Syracuse 18.3 29.9 95.1 46. Texas Tech 18.9 31.4 95.1 47. Stanford 18.7 31.0 95.1 48. Clemson 17.1 26.6 95.0 49. LSU 16.3 24.7 95.0 50. Louisville 16.5 24.9 94.9 51. Oregon State 19.3 32.0 94.9 52. Georgia 19.9 33.3 94.7 53. St. John's 14.9 20.4 94.6 54. Maryland 17.8 27.5 94.6 55. Wake Forest 18.6 29.4 94.5 56. Oklahoma 19.3 31.2 94.5 57. Cal 21.0 35.8 94.5 58. Georgia Tech 19.1 29.8 94.1 59. Vanderbilt 17.7 25.9 94.0 60. Wisconsin 18.6 28.0 93.9 61. Utah 16.9 23.5 93.8 62. Oregon 18.0 26.1 93.7 63. Illinois 20.4 31.8 93.5 64. Washington 19.8 29.5 93.2 Starving TO% OR% SVI 65. Virginia Tech 16.2 19.4 92.7 66. Alabama 20.1 28.8 92.5 67. DePaul 21.8 33.0 92.4 68. Boston College 18.1 22.1 91.8 69. Kansas State 18.9 23.5 91.6 70. Creighton 16.8 18.2 91.5 71. Missouri 21.0 28.2 91.2 72. Colorado 20.7 27.2 91.1 73. Georgetown 22.2 30.4 90.8 74. Washington State 21.4 25.5 89.6 75. Pitt 22.4 21.8 86.9
John Gasaway 