Jack Salt says this taking more shots than your opponent stuff really works. (Matt Riley/UVA Media Relations)
There are exciting developments afoot in the fast-paced, glamorous, and paparazzi-laden world of shot-volume studies.
Ever since the appearance of the shot volume index (SVI) a couple years back, the metric’s been dominated by one team: North Carolina. This hegemony has led casual fans and, yes, even texting coaches to infer something like the following:
Great. Want to put up a lot of shots? Be a storied program with six national titles and incredible athletes who form possibly the best offensive rebounding collective in the history of the sport. Hey, thanks, John! I’ll be sure to put that on my whiteboard tomorrow!
O, how the mighty have fallen….
Shot volume index (SVI)
Turnover percentage, offensive rebound percentage, and shot volume
Major-conference games only, through January 27
TO% OR% SVI 1. Virginia 13.0 30.0 101.6 2. Purdue 16.0 35.3 100.6 3. Tennessee 15.5 31.9 99.6 4. Arizona 15.3 31.1 99.5 5. Alabama 17.2 34.7 98.9 6. Duke 17.3 34.2 98.6 7. Baylor 19.4 39.9 98.6
The UNC legacy notwithstanding, getting more shots is about way more than just second chances. Actually, it’s mostly about first chances. You can’t get an offensive board if you’ve already committed a turnover.
Virginia was a normal offense in terms of turnovers in its first two ACC games. In the five games since, however: 11.3 TO%.
Think Wisconsin 2015.
— John Gasaway (@JohnGasaway) January 26, 2019
So, right, let’s go ahead and compare these two straight up….
The Wisconsin school of thought
Effective FG percentage and points per possession, conference games only
eFG% TO% OR% SVI PPP Wisconsin 2015 54.3 11.8 32.2 104.1 1.20 Virginia 2019 56.1 13.0 30.0 101.6 1.19
We invest significant effort in parsing out the drop in expected scoring values between this catch-and-shoot three and that transition pull-up three, and rightfully so. But, being the savvy customer that he is, Tony Bennett’s also mindful of the fact that the largest drop of all, by far, is from any shot attempt, even the longest and dumbest two off the dribble, to no shot attempt.
As always, one of the most interesting nuggets coughed up by this SVI thing is how the hoops gods don’t care one whit how you get the job done. Some coaches hate offensive boards. Others hate turnovers. Both approaches can land you in exactly the same spot in terms of shot attempts.
TO% OR% SVI 24. Wake Forest 19.8 36.0 96.4 25. St. John's 13.7 20.7 96.3
While we’re on the subject of letting a thousand styles bloom, it turns out that in 2019 there are a few programs that elect to deemphasize offensive rebounding.
Red light on the offensive glass
Lowest offensive-to-defensive rebound ratios
Major-conference games only, through January 27
OR% DR% ratio Northwestern 19.4 73.6 0.26 Wisconsin 20.1 70.7 0.28 Creighton 21.3 74.8 0.28
True, the Bluejays’ situation is a bit different, inasmuch as they’re one of the most perimeter-oriented offenses ever glimpsed in major-conference play. All that floor spacing isn’t terribly conducive to offensive boards, duly noted.
Conversely, what’s interesting about the Wildcats and Badgers is that they’re pretty normal in terms of how many threes they’re trying. They just don’t care for offensive rebounds.
As it happens, Northwestern doesn’t shoot all that well anyway. In Wisconsin’s case, however, this relative lack of second chances forms a partial explanation for why really good shooting isn’t producing the same number of points as what similar levels of accuracy are netting elsewhere….
Ranked by shooting
Major-conference games only, through January 27
eFG% SVI PPP Wisconsin 53.7 93.7 1.02 Auburn 53.1 97.2 1.12 North Carolina 52.6 96.7 1.11 Iowa 52.4 97.5 1.11 Purdue 51.2 100.6 1.11
Emphasis on the word “partial.” Also price in the fact that the Badgers seldom shoot free throws, and, when they do, it’s often a 49 percent foul shooter who’s at the line. Rarely has 51 percent shooting on twos and 40 percent accuracy on threes resulted in so few points on the board.
Lastly, it’s only January, but let the record show that 2019’s current last-place team for shot volume is setting a pace for point-producing paucity that can only be pegged as portentous in proportion to the paradigmatic paltry performances of the past.
Lowest shot volumes, 2011-18
Major-conference games only
TO% OR% SVI Texas Tech 2012 26.2 25.6 84.4 Arizona State 2012 26.4 27.9 85.1 Mississippi State 2013 24.7 25.8 86.2
Here’s the complete roster of 2019 shot volumes in major-conference play, with pithy category titles at plus and minus one standard deviation.
Shot volume index (SVI)
Major-conference games only, through January 27
Gluttonous TO% OR% SVI 1. Virginia 13.0 30.0 101.6 2. Purdue 16.0 35.3 100.6 3. Tennessee 15.5 31.9 99.6 4. Arizona 15.3 31.1 99.5 5. Alabama 17.2 34.7 98.9 6. Duke 17.3 34.2 98.6 7. Baylor 19.4 39.9 98.6 8. Xavier 16.5 31.9 98.4 9. LSU 17.6 34.1 98.2 10. Notre Dame 15.5 28.8 98.2 11. Providence 17.3 33.1 98.1 12. Michigan State 19.0 37.5 98.0 Normal TO% OR% SVI 13. NC State 18.7 36.0 97.7 14. Iowa 16.7 30.4 97.5 15. Michigan 14.8 24.5 97.4 16. Florida State 17.6 32.0 97.2 17. Nebraska 15.7 27.3 97.2 18. Auburn 18.5 34.2 97.1 19. Louisville 17.7 31.8 97.0 20. Villanova 16.0 27.5 97.0 21. North Carolina 19.4 35.5 96.7 22. Oklahoma State 17.4 30.2 96.6 23. USC 15.3 25.0 96.6 24. Wake Forest 19.8 36.0 96.4 25. St. John's 13.7 20.7 96.3 26. Minnesota 17.2 29.1 96.3 27. Oregon 18.0 30.5 96.0 28. Kentucky 18.8 32.5 96.0 29. Oklahoma 16.8 27.4 96.0 30. Texas 17.4 28.9 96.0 31. Butler 16.3 26.0 95.9 32. Virginia Tech 16.8 26.7 95.7 33. Rutgers 17.8 29.3 95.7 34. Kansas State 17.6 28.6 95.6 35. Arizona State 19.2 32.6 95.6 36. Florida 19.3 32.6 95.5 37. Iowa State 15.4 22.3 95.2 38. West Virginia 21.1 36.5 95.1 (average, huzzah) 39. Miami 17.1 25.7 94.9 40. Ole Miss 19.8 32.7 94.9 41. DePaul 19.4 31.3 94.8 42. Georgetown 18.1 28.1 94.8 43. Penn State 18.4 28.8 94.8 44. Cal 16.2 23.4 94.8 45. Colorado 19.0 30.3 94.8 46. Mississippi State 19.5 31.6 94.8 47. South Carolina 20.0 33.0 94.8 48. Illinois 19.2 30.5 94.6 49. Texas A&M 17.3 25.7 94.6 50. Oregon State 18.5 28.4 94.5 51. Boston College 16.4 23.0 94.4 52. Syracuse 19.0 28.5 94.0 53. TCU 20.8 33.0 93.9 54. Indiana 18.0 25.6 93.8 55. Arkansas 20.2 31.2 93.8 56. Wisconsin 15.8 20.1 93.7 57. Vanderbilt 18.6 26.6 93.5 58. Maryland 21.3 33.4 93.4 59. Northwestern 16.0 19.4 93.1 60. Pitt 20.4 29.7 92.9 61. Kansas 19.7 28.0 92.9 62. Marquette 17.8 23.3 92.9 63. Ohio State 20.3 29.5 92.9 64. Creighton 17.1 21.3 92.8 65. UCLA 22.2 34.1 92.7 66. Washington 19.5 26.7 92.6 Starving TO% OR% SVI 67. Clemson 19.3 25.0 92.0 68. Utah 20.7 27.9 91.7 69. Seton Hall 20.9 28.2 91.6 70. Georgia 22.5 31.8 91.3 71. Stanford 21.8 27.3 90.2 72. Washington State 19.9 22.5 90.2 73. Texas Tech 20.2 21.4 89.4 74. Missouri 23.6 27.9 88.4 75. Georgia Tech 24.2 22.4 85.3 AVG 18.3 29.3 95.1
John Gasaway 