Lady Vols - Ball Security

[Hbg]

Well I'll admit I forgot about the game but it looks like I didn't miss anything. 18 TOs to 8 assists, whipped on rebounds, and shot 14% on 3s. I imagine it was hard to watch.

YES!!!! Finally people on here see the same thing I do

 

[madtownvol]

Deleted

 

[cwbytruckers]

Great post (the second one). Pat Summitt was great enough that we don't have to view her thru comically orange tinted glasses. In fact, that's a bit of an insult to her legacy. The truth about her will do just fine, thank you.

Once again, the notion that KJH has no desire to fix the problem is ridiculous. Can't (yet) is way different from won't. I assure you its being worked on. Both in practice and in recruiting.

What I meant by my post is that Pat would rip them a new one before they sat down. KH just doesnt show the same fire regarding turnovers. She may in practice behind closed doors. But not on the sidelines.

 

[creekdipper]

Armchair point-guarding here, but the trick imo is to build ball security into "muscle memory" through a combination of practice techniques:

1) Practice daily vs pressure defense including double-terms, trapping, breaking press, four-on-five, etc.

2) Sprints or lines for taking ball to sidelines or corners. Same for picking up dribble and getting trapped. Same for teammates not coming to help the double-team.

3) Sprints (or stairs at end of practice) for unforced turnovers due to telegraphed passes, passes to covered teammates, trying to pass over taller defenders instead of bounce pass, etc.

4) Ball handling drills including fast break dtills designed to eliminate dribbling off feet, thighs, legs, or just losing handle.

Note: Probably all of the above or some variation is already being done daily. Decades of game and practice experience, coaching clinics, coaching resources, and observation of successful teams make it no secret how to correct errors if athletes are willing and able to fix mistakes.

 

[papatomany]

Great post (the second one). Pat Summitt was great enough that we don't have to view her thru comically orange tinted glasses. In fact, that's a bit of an insult to her legacy. The truth about her will do just fine, thank you.

Once again, the notion that KJH has no desire to fix the problem is ridiculous. Can't (yet) is way different from won't. I assure you its being worked on. Both in practice and in recruiting.

Agreed. John Wooden said something to the effect of, "If you're not making mistakes, you're not giving effort." (I'm sure the quote was something more, well, Woodenian, but you get the idea.) As a for instance, I think Pat would've been fine with most of Rae's turnovers. They usually happen because she's full throttle all the time.

I'll say again that turnovers are going to happen in Kellie's system. They always have. To be a team that is regularly in the top 50 or even the top 100 in ball security would require her to coach differently and recruit differently. Different coaches emphasize different things.

Now, ball security could certainly be improved in her system; and this has happened on occasion: her last four years at Missouri State her teams ranked 64th, 197th, 24th, and 86th; but it was at the expense of assists, where they ranked 226th, 284th, 254th, and 188th. In other words, they slowed it down to a crawl. Outside of this, her teams have ranked inside the top 200 only twice. On average, her teams have ranked 192nd in turnovers. By comparison, Holly's teams had an average ranking of 144.

Interestingly, Missouri State the last two years (without Kellie) have ranked 73rd and 31st in assists/game, and 8th and 34th in turnovers/ game, while winning the conference both years. More indication that Kellie's style invites turnovers.

Also, take the two years before Holly's lame duck final year for example: 90th in assists/ 38th in turnovers followed by 38th in assists/ 225th in turnovers. Increase in pace got easier baskets but turned the ball over more.

 

[papatomany]

Holly has a coaching history but it's not one to remember? She was a good recruiter I giver her that but there was no semblance of coaching there. When your media response after games is "I don't know' your in trouble. You would think Kelly would address TO's when they are directly responsible for most of your losses but she seems not to make it a priority for some reason.

I didn't want to bite on this, since the thread is about ball security, but a couple of things here are simply false. I ran across at least 3 times (and I bet there are bunches more) of Pat throwing up her hands and saying, "I don't know... you'll have to ask the players," at a press conference, completely exasperated.

Secondly, Holly did coach. The team was WAY more emotional under Holly than they are now, and she emphasized that; which led to some very high energy comebacks, but also to very heart wrenching losses. Secondly, her specialty was finding ways to push the pace. She was very very good at knowing when to throw the trap or press at somebody to get us a 12-0 run. What she was poor at was end game stuff. Consequently, way too many close losses.

 

[madtownvol]

Agreed. John Wooden said something to the effect of, "If you're not making mistakes, you're not giving effort." (I'm sure the quote was something more, well, Woodenian, but you get the idea.) As a for instance, I think Pat would've been fine with most of Rae's turnovers. They usually happen because she's full throttle all the time.

I'll say again that turnovers are going to happen in Kellie's system. They always have. To be a team that is regularly in the top 50 or even the top 100 in ball security would require her to coach differently and recruit differently. Different coaches emphasize different things.

Now, ball security could certainly be improved in her system; and this has happened on occasion: her last four years at Missouri State her teams ranked 64th, 197th, 24th, and 86th; but it was at the expense of assists, where they ranked 226th, 284th, 254th, and 188th. In other words, they slowed it down to a crawl. Outside of this, her teams have ranked inside the top 200 only twice. On average, her teams have ranked 192nd in turnovers. By comparison, Holly's teams had an average ranking of 144.

Interestingly, Missouri State the last two years (without Kellie) have ranked 73rd and 31st in assists/game, and 8th and 34th in turnovers/ game, while winning the conference both years. More indication that Kellie's style invites turnovers.

Also, take the two years before Holly's lame duck final year for example: 90th in assists/ 38th in turnovers followed by 38th in assists/ 225th in turnovers. Increase in pace got easier baskets but turned the ball over more.

I agree with your take but with a few caveats.

I think we have TOs you can live with: trying to make a pass on a fast break and related type of miscues that come from playing aggressively.

Whereas Holly wanted to have a run and gun offense, which creates more possessions along with more TOs, Kellie runs more of a half-court oriented set. So, we have too look at what is causing these TOs, it is generally not miscues on fast breaks.

Forcing the ball into a double covered post was one big source earlier in the season but that has improved. I also think our guards sometimes give up their dribble to early and then get trapped by a swarming defense (as per Georgia, Ole Miss and SC). Sometimes the LV turn the ball over because they pass on a good shot, trying to a get a great one which leads to an interception or charge call in the lane.

Then we have TOs that you can't live (win) with that are due to ill-advised passes that lead to transition buckets (if the LVs cut those down, there record would include 3 or maybe more wins).

And there are also TOs that come from the team not handing the press well, The LVs have gotten better on that dimension as the season has gone on but it remains a vulnerability.

On balance, the LVs losses have often correlated with too many TOs that are in the latter category.

 

[Coach Jumper]

What I meant by my post is that Pat would rip them a new one before they sat down. KH just doesnt show the same fire regarding turnovers. She may in practice behind closed doors. But not on the sidelines.

On the sidelines is where it counts,,,message given and seen

 

[Rickster]

What I meant by my post is that Pat would rip them a new one before they sat down. KH just doesnt show the same fire regarding turnovers. She may in practice behind closed doors. But not on the sidelines.

Todays young women athletes are different than when Pat coached. I get what you're saying but Kellie does not have the record to pull it off. To get away with what Pat did, you kinda got to be Pat and have been Pat for long enough to get a reputation. No one has ever liked to be dressed down in public and people of an earlier era were much more tolerant of public criticism. Today, jump on someone and they are done with you.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Todays young women athletes are different than when Pat coached. I get what you're saying but Kellie does not have the record to pull it off. To get away with what Pat did, you kinda got to be Pat and have been Pat for long enough to get a reputation. No one has ever liked to be dressed down in public and people of an earlier era were much more tolerant of public criticism. Today, jump on someone and they are done with you.

A whisper is just as effective as a shout

 

[glv98]

On the sidelines is where it counts,,,message given and seen

Why is it important for anyone besides the player involved to "see" the message being given? Coach theatre is old school and not
effective in and of itself. I like that KJH's most effective coaching occurs behind the scenes. Does not mean it doesn't occur or isn't effective bc you and I don't see it.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Why is it important for anyone besides the player involved to "see" the message being given? Coach theatre is old school and not
effective in and of itself. I like that KJH's most effective coaching occurs behind the scenes. Does not mean it doesn't occur or isn't effective bc you and I don't see it.

The player gets the message if it is delivered with good timing,,,If they half-trot down the court and have a couple of turnovers, and then have a couple of good passes and then disappear for a quarter, then show up like superman at the end (sounds vaguely familiar),,,The message gets lost in the outcome.

You call it old school, I call it coaching the players while in the game, not after it

And, its not important that we see it, it is important that the player knows it WILL come if earned.
If you don't think coaching is a little bit "theater",,,,you've never done it
We coaches play to the players, refs, fans, other coaches, other teams,,,we are actors, squared

and before you jump on that wagon, let me help you with something,,,, there are method actors, villian actors, saintly actors, bit part actors,,,not just "mega-stars"
Many variations of actors, many variations of coaching styles

 

[glv98]

The player gets the message if it is delivered with good timing,,,If they half-trot down the court and have a couple of turnovers, and then have a couple of good passes and then disappear for a quarter, then show up like superman at the end (sounds vaguely familiar),,,The message gets lost in the outcome.

You call it old school, I call it coaching the players while in the game, not after it

And, its not important that we see it, it is important that the player knows it WILL come if earned.
If you don't think coaching is a little bit "theater",,,,you've never done it
We coaches play to the players, refs, fans, other coaches, other teams,,,we are actors, squared

and before you jump on that wagon, let me help you with something,,,, there are method actors, villian actors, saintly actors, bit part actors,,,not just "mega-stars"
Many variations of actors, many variations of coaching styles

Gobbledygook.

I have zero doubt you are an extremely theatrical "coach" who totally plays to the crowd and insists on being a visable part of the game. That's one approach, laughable High School Harry as it is. Other coaches have different approaches. Doesn't make theirs wrong nor ineffective. In fact, much of KJH's best coaching this year occurred in the locker room at halftime. Davis talked about being callled soft for days.

IMO its fair to judge KJH by the effectiveness of her coaching, but not the manner in which it's delivered, especially since so much gets delivered out of our sight.

 

[glv98]

Can a team actually be successful with a high turnover point guard? Destiny Henderson says hold my beer.

Henderson leads the SEC by a mile in assists with 131. But is also in the top three for total turnovers with 69, a lousy 1.9 assist/t.o. ratio. Averages right at 3 t.o. per game. We all saw the UConn meltday where she had 8 t.o. So how does she make up for it? By averaging 12.4 pts, shooting 44% fg and 43% 3 pt. Henderson is a 74% ft shooter and averages almost 5 rebounds per game.

Could we survive and advance while continuing to cough up the ball at alarming rates if our point guards could contribute like this? Unfortunately, right now they are not. Horston seems similar to Henderson to me, potentially a high turnover pg but one who overperforms her t.o.s (eventually, we hope). She's currently right there with Henderson, top five in assists but also top five in t.o.s with a weak 1.5 a/t.o. ratio. Truthfully, both Davis and Burrell are high t.o. players as well. But PG seems to be the key.

Walker doesn't help with ball security, barely breaking a 1.0 a/t.o. She averages about two and a half t.o. per game, Horston just under 3. Evenso, both Jordans are better with the handle than Henderson.

So the big difference in our pg play and So. Carolina's actually isn't ball security, it's shooting. Our pg's numbers remain too dismal to detail, but suffice to say both are a good ten pts below Hendersons fg and 3 pt shooting averages. JH averages about 8 pts per game, Walker 5.

IMO another way Henderson has a big advantage that negates her loose handle is as a facilitator and distributor. She gets her team into a coherent offense much more dependably than our pgs. Of course she also has a better offense and teammates to work with.

Moral of the story, if you're going to hand it over alot you better do everything else really, really well.

 

[Nute Gunray]

Armchair point-guarding here, but the trick imo is to build ball security into "muscle memory" through a combination of practice techniques:

1) Practice daily vs pressure defense including double-terms, trapping, breaking press, four-on-five, etc.

2) Sprints or lines for taking ball to sidelines or corners. Same for picking up dribble and getting trapped. Same for teammates not coming to help the double-team.

3) Sprints (or stairs at end of practice) for unforced turnovers due to telegraphed passes, passes to covered teammates, trying to pass over taller defenders instead of bounce pass, etc.

4) Ball handling drills including fast break dtills designed to eliminate dribbling off feet, thighs, legs, or just losing handle.

Note: Probably all of the above or some variation is already being done daily. Decades of game and practice experience, coaching clinics, coaching resources, and observation of successful teams make it no secret how to correct errors if athletes are willing and able to fix mistakes.

Creekdipper, I concur with everything in your post except your note that all of the four practice techniques are probably in place already for the LVs. The LVs frequent turnovers and stolen balls shout loudly that these techniques are not in place.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Can a team actually be successful with a high turnover point guard? Destiny Henderson says hold my beer..

Look at who gives you a like,,,nuff said

 

[Amb3096]

Can a team actually be successful with a high turnover point guard? Destiny Henderson says hold my beer.

Henderson leads the SEC by a mile in assists with 131. But is also in the top three for total turnovers with 69, a lousy 1.9 assist/t.o. ratio. Averages right at 3 t.o. per game. We all saw the UConn meltday where she had 8 t.o. So how does she make up for it? By averaging 12.4 pts, shooting 44% fg and 43% 3 pt. Henderson is a 74% ft shooter and averages almost 5 rebounds per game.

Could we survive and advance while continuing to cough up the ball at alarming rates if our point guards could contribute like this? Unfortunately, right now they are not. Horston seems similar to Henderson to me, potentially a high turnover pg but one who overperforms her t.o.s (eventually, we hope). She's currently right there with Henderson, top five in assists but also top five in t.o.s with a weak 1.5 a/t.o. ratio. Truthfully, both Davis and Burrell are high t.o. players as well. But PG seems to be the key.

Walker doesn't help with ball security, barely breaking a 1.0 a/t.o. She averages about two and a half t.o. per game, Horston just under 3. Evenso, both Jordans are better with the handle than Henderson.

So the big difference in our pg play and So. Carolina's actually isn't ball security, it's shooting. Our pg's numbers remain too dismal to detail, but suffice to say both are a good ten pts below Hendersons fg and 3 pt shooting averages. JH averages about 8 pts per game, Walker 5.

IMO another way Henderson has a big advantage that negates her loose handle is as a facilitator and distributor. She gets her team into a coherent offense much more dependably than our pgs. Of course she also has a better offense and teammates to work with.

Moral of the story, if you're going to hand it over alot you better do everything else really, really well.

I agree with a lot of your points, but one...I wouldn't call a 1.9 ato lousy. That's actually quite good. Maybe not top 5 in the country, but that's a solid #.

In general, Destanni keeps turnovers fairly low game-to-game, but it will end badly against teams closer in talent where she's really coughing it up...the losses to SC and Tennessee come to mind. In these types of games, even if she's efficient with her scoring, the TOs will eventually catch up to them.

 

[glv98]

I agree with a lot of your points, but one...I wouldn't call a 1.9 ato lousy. That's actually quite good. Maybe not top 5 in country, but that's a solid #.

In general, Destanni keeps turnovers fairly low game-to-game, but it will end badly against teams closer in talent where she's really coughing it up...the losses to SC and Tennessee come to mind. In these types of games, even if she's efficient with her scoring, the TOs will eventually catch up to them.

I think my standards for a/t.o. are higher, living in the past. Used to be anything under 2.0 was shaky. As the SEC has evolved, seems like bad reffing and sloppy play are the norm. Open to interpretation, but I don't consider DH nearly 3.0 per game average to be fairly low. No doubt DH loose handle is likely to hurt SC more against better teams, we already saw that against UConn.

There could be good pg discussion over whether you'd rather have a pg who makes a ton of nice assists, but costs you a ton of turnovers to get there, or a steady but unspectacular pg like Massingill was for us last year. Probably depends alot on the team around the pg.

My main point is that our pgs could really help us the rest of the way by zeroing in on the rim. Surely just the odds could catch up with them and make their shooting better. I don't see our ball security changing much, at least for this year.