Which is to say: context matters when you’re talking about something like TOV%.

Having the ball more will increases your turnover numbers, but won’t increase your turnover rate assuming you play at the same level.

Lavert had more talent around him. I won’t argue that. But not as much talent as Yogi had around him his freshman year. The field goal percentage theoretically shouldn’t change if you change the number of attempts, assuming a person’s skill level is unchanged.

Exactly. As long as we’re talking the RATE of turnovers, not absolute turnovers, and with a large enough sample size, then the percentage should theoretically stay the same if the person plays at the same level without improving or regressing his skills. Possessing the ball less will decrease his number of turnovers, but will not increase or decrease his turnover rate if he plays at the same skill level. His turnover rate is measured with the same standards as everyone else. There’s no grey area here. His rate is higher than his peers in this category. It’s not affected by the people around him. If he makes a bad pass, the turnover is on him. If his teammate doesn’t catch a well-passed ball, the TO is on the teammate, not him. When he leaves his feet before finding an open man to pass to as he often does, the TO is on him.

I’m drugging myself into believing the IU Turnover is a fact of life. Lol, The IU Turnover, sounds like a homegrown Hoosier recipe.

As long it isn’t on a consistent basis and as long as they don’t increase, right ?

I suppose that’s one way to look at it. I prefer to say that, rather than TO’s, another commonly tracked statistic is a better measure of shot selection–it is called FG%. And I concede Yogi’s was not great. Sure, he forced some things at times; he’s got to mature in that aspect of his game. But I certainly stand by my point above, essentially that he was asked to do more for his team than any other single player in the conference, and that he stood up to that level of responsibility quite well.

As for throwing it into the low post, I don’t put that on Yogi. That failing is an indirect consequence of CTC’s offensive philosophy, something I have been hoping for years that he would address. He simply has never had a team that effectively utilized a back-to-the-basket post player. Even looking back at that 2012-23 team, you rarely saw Zeller getting the ball on the low block and going to work.

According to wikipedia he is 6-7, yes, and arrived at Michigan 152 lb! Now 200 lb.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.

You haven’t watched Levert enough. IMO, he was definitely better than Dekker and Yogi on all-around basis.

But Yogi’s bad shot selections could also be considered TOs. He probably had 2-4 really bad shot selections every game. And you can’t really say that he had no one to throw it to, because a lot of times he just wouldn’t throw it into the low post (NV)

Agreed. You’re talking about Vic as a soph, not as a junior. But Levert’s offensive game as a soph was ahead of Vic’s as a soph. ‘m telling you, Levert is a special player.

The talent level around Lavert was so much better. This is a tough comparison IMO.

Yogi had some really bad turnovers. Unforced, leaving his feet, trying to do too much. He had a lot of responsibility. We get it.

Moving forward, I would like to see a more mature level of ball security. It’s the next phase in his development.

Evan Gordon was reliable.

Casanova!