Generating a very high number of shot attempts is fun! (Photo: J.D. Lyon Jr.)
The story so far. 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. Boom! Analytic perfection!
Well, not really. UNC looked really good retroactively on the same measure in 2016, after all, and a fat lot of good that did them in the 40th minute of that year’s national championship game.
Speaking of the Heels, they are No. 1 again in the 2018 rankings, and this time they won going away.
Shot volume index (SVI)
Turnover percentage, offensive rebound percentage, and shot volume
Major-conference games only
TO% OR% SVI 1. North Carolina 16.2 40.5 102.4 2. West Virginia 16.9 36.4 99.7 3. Florida 13.8 27.8 99.4
Year after year, the men in Chapel Hill put a nice floor under their offense, one that can come in very handy on bad shooting nights. Then again, you don’t have to be an insanely great offensive rebounding team to do so. Look at Mike White’s Florida Gators, slightly below-average on the offensive glass and generating a very high number of shots anyway.
The other thing I like about this metric is the illustrative examples of strange stylistic bedfellows. For example, you’ll hear during the tournament that Duke is a swaggering beast of offensive rebounding might, and, sure enough, the Blue Devils do fit that description perfectly. But did you know that, with all those spectacular offensive boards, Mike Krzyzewski is merely equaling what a certain Big Ten coach is already doing with his less eye-catching yet highly effective low-turnover ways?
TO% OR% SVI 12. Duke 18.3 36.4 98.0 13. Michigan 13.6 24.5 98.0
So, yes, this can be a nifty item at times. Still, in NCAA bracket terms, let’s keep things in perspective. With said item we’re talking about exactly one half (shot volume) of one half (offense) of the game. Defense and shooting accuracy matter too, it’s just that everyone already measures and talks about that stuff. This is the 25 percent of the sport that gets maybe five or 10 percent of the conversation.
I don’t suppose North Carolina or West Virginia is a sure thing to win the national championship because they generate a lot of shot attempts. But I will admit to hesitating with taking teams too far in my bracket if they rank fairly low on this measure. You will notice, for example, that no fewer than four tournament teams are shown here as being more than one standard deviation worse than the pack on shot volume. You’ve been warned.
Here’s the complete roster of shot volumes in major-conference play, with pithy category titles at plus and minus one standard deviation. Enjoy the tournament!
Shot volume index (SVI)
Major-conference games only
Gluttonous TO% OR% SVI 1. North Carolina 16.2 40.5 102.4 2. West Virginia 16.9 36.4 99.7 3. Florida 13.8 27.8 99.4 4. Ole Miss 15.3 31.7 99.4 5. USC 13.9 27.9 99.3 6. Notre Dame 16.3 33.2 99.0 7. TCU 17.2 35.2 98.8 8. Auburn 15.8 30.9 98.5 9. Virginia 14.3 26.7 98.3 Normal TO% OR% SVI 10. Villanova 13.8 25.2 98.1 11. Arizona State 14.4 26.3 98.0 12. Duke 18.3 36.4 98.0 13. Michigan 13.6 24.5 98.0 14. Florida State 16.7 31.6 97.8 15. Seton Hall 16.6 31.4 97.8 16. UCLA 15.7 28.9 97.7 17. Kentucky 18.0 34.5 97.5 18. Ohio State 16.2 29.7 97.5 19. Butler 14.6 25.6 97.4 20. NC State 16.9 31.2 97.3 21. Purdue 14.5 25.2 97.3 22. Iowa State 16.7 30.3 97.2 23. Arkansas 16.4 29.0 96.9 24. Miami 16.6 29.5 96.9 25. Oregon 16.4 28.9 96.9 26. Nebraska 16.3 28.4 96.8 27. Tennessee 16.7 29.3 96.7 28. Baylor 19.7 36.9 96.6 29. Texas A&M 18.2 32.9 96.6 30. Arizona 18.8 34.2 96.4 31. Kansas 16.7 28.7 96.4 32. Oklahoma State 18.5 33.3 96.4 33. South Carolina 18.3 32.8 96.4 34. Iowa 18.8 33.8 96.3 35. Minnesota 15.9 26.5 96.3 36. Xavier 17.1 29.4 96.2 37. Mississippi State 17.3 29.4 96.0 38. Providence 17.0 28.6 96.0 39. Texas Tech 18.7 32.9 96.0 40. Michigan State 18.5 32.1 95.9 41. Penn State 17.1 28.3 95.8 (average, huzzah) 42. Wake Forest 17.8 30.1 95.8 43. Texas 17.7 29.6 95.7 44. Stanford 19.1 33.0 95.6 45. Wisconsin 17.4 28.4 95.5 46. Indiana 17.7 29.0 95.4 47. Rutgers 18.1 30.1 95.4 48. LSU 16.2 25.1 95.3 49. Marquette 17.1 26.7 95.1 50. Georgia 19.9 34.2 95.1 51. Illinois 18.4 30.0 95.0 52. Northwestern 18.5 30.2 95.0 53. Syracuse 18.9 31.2 95.0 54. Oklahoma 17.9 28.3 94.9 55. Vanderbilt 17.4 27.1 94.9 56. Maryland 17.8 27.5 94.6 57. Oregon State 19.1 30.8 94.6 58. Cal 20.5 34.4 94.5 59. Clemson 17.8 27.3 94.5 60. Louisville 17.2 25.8 94.5 61. Georgia Tech 19.2 30.3 94.2 62. Boston College 17.8 25.5 93.7 63. Utah 17.1 23.8 93.7 64. Virginia Tech 16.3 21.3 93.5 65. Washington 19.0 28.2 93.5 Starving TO% OR% SVI 66. St. John's 16.2 19.6 92.8 67. Creighton 16.0 18.8 92.7 68. DePaul 21.5 32.8 92.6 69. Kansas State 18.4 24.2 92.4 70. Alabama 20.6 28.8 92.0 71. Colorado 20.8 29.1 91.9 72. Georgetown 21.0 29.0 91.6 73. Washington State 19.8 26.0 91.6 74. Missouri 20.4 27.3 91.5 75. Pitt 21.2 20.4 87.6
John Gasaway 