[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=16453.msg186484#msg186484 date=1484458397]
As a team, we turned the ball over too many times, although this was largely corrected in the second half. 

Interestingly, each team was credited with 5 steals.  Colorado was averaging 13+ steals per game, so  "way too many" turnovers is also "fewer turnovers than all other P12 opponents".  (TO by P12 opponents: SC:20, UCLA:16, UA:19, ASU:19, ןɐɔ:20, Stanford:14).

And while we out rebounded Colorado by 10, they actually had one more O-board than we did. 

I read that statement to be a comment that our offensive rebounding was suspect, but it is using that combination of stats that is suspect to me.  We OUTREBOUNDED Colorado under our offensive end.  We got 60.5% of our defensive rebound chances and 53.8% of the offensive rebounding chances!!
[/quote]

Thank you for your insights, MT!  We had 11 turnovers in the first half and only 3 in the second half.  That was a very important correction.  Did you notice the two turnovers when we passed to a cutter, but the cutter went the wrong way?  Those two turnovers looked quite ugly.  I can't remember the players involved, but I hope they sort that out in practice this week.  The announcers said something about "never fake a back door cut" or else that can happen.  Meaning one of our players faked another of our players into throwing an errant pass?

On the rebounding, it wasn't our offensive rebounding that I thought might be lacking, but the fact that we didn't box out as well as we might on the defensive end and gave up a lot of offensive rebounds to Colorado.  I don't know what the average ratio of defender's defensive rebounds to offense's offensive rebounds should be for a good team, but 60.5% of our defensive chances doesn't sound very good to me.  Doesn't that mean that nearly 40% of the time Colorado got a second chance?  Or am I interpreting that wrong?

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=16453.msg186484#msg186484 date=1484458397]
As a team, we turned the ball over too many times, although this was largely corrected in the second half. 

Interestingly, each team was credited with 5 steals.  Colorado was averaging 13+ steals per game, so  "way too many" turnovers is also "fewer turnovers than all other P12 opponents".  (TO by P12 opponents: SC:20, UCLA:16, UA:19, ASU:19, ןɐɔ:20, Stanford:14).

And while we out rebounded Colorado by 10, they actually had one more O-board than we did. 

I read that statement to be a comment that our offensive rebounding was suspect, but it is using that combination of stats that is suspect to me.  We OUTREBOUNDED Colorado under our offensive end.  We got 60.5% of our defensive rebound chances and 53.8% of the offensive rebounding chances!!
[/quote]

Thank you for your insights, MT!  We had 11 turnovers in the first half and only 3 in the second half.  That was a very important correction.  Did you notice the two turnovers when we passed to a cutter, but the cutter went the wrong way?  Those two turnovers looked quite ugly.  I can't remember the players involved, but I hope they sort that out in practice this week.  The announcers said something about "never fake a back door cut" or else that can happen.  Meaning one of our players faked another of our players into throwing an errant pass?

On the rebounding, it wasn't our offensive rebounding that I thought might be lacking, but the fact that we didn't box out as well as we might on the defensive end and gave up a lot of offensive rebounds to Colorado.  I don't know what the average ratio of defender's defensive rebounds to offense's offensive rebounds should be for a good team, but 60.5% of our defensive chances doesn't sound very good to me.  Doesn't that mean that nearly 40% of the time Colorado got a second chance?  Or am I interpreting that wrong?