It's the turnover economy, stupid
Plus, an analytic preview of the conference finals and a Q&A with a gambling man
One of the dominant themes in this year’s playoffs from my perspective has been the impact of turnovers on the outcomes of games. In this year’s postseason, teams are 46-20 when they have fewer turnovers than their opponent. That’s a 70 percent win rate — up from 58 percent in the regular season and 56 percent in last year’s postseason1.
Turnovers were one of the defining factors — if not the defining factor in the seven-game series between the Oklahoma City Thunder and Denver Nuggets. But you wouldn’t know it from the discourse online, which spent a disproportionate amount of time debating and complaining about fouls and referees. The Thunder swarmed and suffocated the Nuggets, who committed 124 turnovers in the series. Meanwhile, the Thunder, who played under the same conditions as the Nuggets, committed just 74 turnovers. As we saw throughout the Thunder-Nuggets series, generating more turnovers than you commit can be the key to busting a game wide open.
Take a look at the chart below, which shows each team’s per game turnover differential in this year’s postseason. Turnover differential is just the difference between how many turnovers a team commits vs. how many they force.
OKC is way out on the right in this chart, illustrating their dominance in the turnover game in this year’s playoffs. Through 11 postseason games, their opponents have committed 201 total turnovers. But crucially, the Thunder have only committed 120 turnovers themselves. That nets out to a +7.5 per game turnover differential, which is the best per-game turnover differential in the playoffs since at least 1996-97.
This continues a trend from the regular season where the Thunder’s total turnover differential (+435) was more than twice as large as second place (Philadelphia). It also happens to be the largest differential of all time. In the so-called turnover economy, the Oklahoma City Thunder are turning a profit and then some.
Turnover economy2 is just shorthand for describing how good you are at taking care of the ball on offense. Limiting turnovers, especially as a player ramps up their on-ball usage, is one of the unsexy but important ways a player can help their team win. In fact, impact on turnovers is one of the first things to look at if you notice a player grades out more favorably in advanced metrics than consensus opinion. More often than not, it’s their ability to suppress (or generate) turnovers that is driving the disconnect. For example, a big part of why Chris Paul is seen by some metrics as a top five player from the last 30 years is his elite combination of ball security and turnover creation.
Over on xrapm.com, Jerry Engelmann has a section of his site devoted to parsing out a player’s impact on various facets of the game. Instead of showing a player’s impact on the score (which is what your typical all-in-one advanced metrics do), Engelmann’s site details a player’s impact on their team’s rebounding and turnovers. For example, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander had the single biggest impact on limiting his team’s turnovers this season, according to Engelmann’s numbers. Meanwhile, Alex Caruso had the single biggest impact on his team’s ability to generate opponent turnovers.
With both players on the same team, it’s no wonder the Thunder have been able to lap the field in turnover differential.
While the Thunder are in a league of their own in terms of the turnover economy, the Wolves, Pacers, and Knicks have found themselves in the green in this year’s postseason as well.
The Minnesota Timberwolves can be sloppy with the ball, but they’ve made up for it by being aggressive on defense and forcing more turnovers than they commit in the postseason. When Anthony Edwards, Jaden McDaniels, and Nickeil Alexander-Walker are engaged on defense, it’s like watching a pack velociraptors rip into their prey.
On the other end of the spectrum is the Indiana Pacers. They’ve been so-so at forcing turnovers, but great at avoiding them. Few players are better at taking care of the ball than Tyrese Haliburton. In fact, according to Englemann’s site, Haliburton had the 4th highest impact on limiting his team’s turnovers this season. Somewhat surprising for someone who makes as many daring passes as he does.
Meanwhile, the New York Knicks have been grinding out value in the turnover economy on both sides of the ball. Jalen Brunson knows the value of a possession as well as anyone and rarely lets the ball leave his hands unless it’s a shot or a sure pass. At the same time, the Wing Stop combo of Mikal Bridges and OG Anunoby are each averaging nearly two steals a game in the playoffs. Add in Mitchell Robinson and Miles McBride off the bench and the Knicks can dial up their disruptiveness as high as any team not named the Thunder.
In 2025, shot quality by itself no longer nets you the advantage it used to. Gone are the days when you could launch a few more 3s and a few less long 2s than your opponent and spot yourself a handful of points. Today, there’s more value to be had in being better at making shots or taking more of them than your opponent.
Teams and coaches can’t do much to improve their shot making. You either got it or you don’t. There isn’t a "shoot better” button to press. But shot volume, on the other hand, is partially a function of how well you take care of the ball on offense and how good you are at taking away the ball on defense. Turn a profit in the turnover economy and more often than not it’ll show up on the scoreboard. When Dean Oliver looked at what on-court factors are most important to winning, he found that turnovers were second only behind shooting. Unlike shooting though, coaches can push buttons to increase or decrease their aggressiveness in the turnover game.
For example, calling for more isolation plays on offense results in fewer passes and fewer opportunities for a deflection that leads to a turnover. The Thunder were one of the heaviest isolation teams in the NBA during the regular season, a playstyle that was conducive to keeping turnovers low. On the other end, the effects of extending ball pressure 94 feet from the basket may compound over the course of a game and cause an opponent to make increasingly bad decisions with the ball. The Wolves demonstrated the effectiveness of ball pressure when they started picking up the Lakers full court during their first round series, which helped them wear down the Lakers and ultimately win the turnover battle 56-73 in favor of the Wolves.
The turnover economy isn’t glamorous, but these playoffs are showing how it can lead to wins and losses.
Eastern Conference Finals
The chart below shows some key regular season stats for each conference finalist. I’ve split them in half so that you can look at how New York’s offense matches up against Indiana’s defense and vice versa.
Some things to look out for:
Who can make the other team play their game? New York’s slow-paced offense (28th in seconds per possession) vs. Indiana’s up-tempo offense (6th in seconds per possession). I’ll be interested to see who gets sped up or slowed down.
Will Indiana continue to sell out to take away the three? The Pacers were 5th in opponent three-point attempt rate during the regular season, meaning they allowed the 5th fewest threes as a percentage of all their opponents’ shots. But New York doesn’t take many threes to being with (28th in three-point attempt rate). Does that change Indiana’s strategy? If so, how?
Shooting luck vs. injury luck? In the playoffs, the Pacers are shooting 41 percent on threes — up from 37 percent in the regular season. Meanwhile, the Knicks have been able to lean on about seven guys without suffering any injuries. Who stays “lucky” longer might determine who makes it further.
Western Conference Finals
Some things to look out for:
Can the Wolves shoot the Thunder out of their double big alignment? The Thunder had the highest opponent three point volume on the lowest opponent three point accuracy during the regular season. Meanwhile, the Wolves like to take threes and are good at making at them. If the Wolves get hot from deep I’d expect the Thunder to counter by putting one of their bench wings in Isaiah Hartenstein’s place to help them suppress Minnesota’s outside shooting.
How much does Mike Conley have in the tank? Anthony Edwards and Julius Randle can be turnover prone and that’s a problem when playing against the Thunder. Mike Conley, a steady hand and master of maximing possessions, might have to spend more time on ball to keep the Thunder from running away with the series.
How will the Wolves manufacture easy baskets? Minnesota was 30th in transition frequency during the regular season and the Thunder are one of the hardest teams to score on when they set their defense (3rd in opponent points per possession off a made basket). Things could get ugly fast if they can’t find a way to score in the halfcourt.
Regular Season vs. Playoff Basketball
The animated chart below shows the change in scoring efficiency and usage from the the regular season to the playoffs for some notable players.
Not much to say other than that the only two players here that have upped both their usage and efficiency in the postseason are Giannis Antetokounmpo and Julius Randle.
A Refreshing Q&A with ShipTheJustice
The quickest way to earn my NBA affection is to make me laugh and teach me something new. Sam, who goes by ShipTheJustice on twitter, checks both of those boxes and then some.
Sam is a professional sports bettor by trade and a keen observer of all things NBA. He grew up in New Zealand and moved the the U.S. right as sports gambling was entering it’s boom phase. Before going into business for himself, Sam worked at a sportsbook and learned a thing or two how about to find an edge.
I emailed back and forth with Sam about sports gambling, zigging, zagging, and Zach Lowe podcast guest rankings.
This Q&A has been lightly edited for length and clarity
F5: When we were haning out I asked you how you make money betting and you said you were good at not getting yourself limited by sportsbooks. Can you tell me more about that without blowing up your spot?
Sam: First, in the words of the unfairly vilified Mike Budenholzer, play random! Playing at these soft sportsbooks is a privilege, not a right. It is like getting to play pickup against a bunch of 16-year-olds. If your goal is to get in there, dominate one run and go home, sure, by all means call "MOUSE" every time down and post up at the charge circle, kick the kid’s ass, make them cry, and walk out of there after his father politely requests that you no longer play in this game. But if you want to stick around and win a bunch then you need to dominate in a way that is far more subtle and varied.
Second, whilst sportsbooks have become better in their efforts to quantify their players, there are still plenty of things they miss. To put it in NBA terms I would think of it like this: in the early days, simply shooting enough threes was enough to gain an advantage. The same way you can no longer really get one over your opponent by gunning more threes, good luck keeping your accounts alive betting steam just because it is a major market. The NBA evolved from there to significantly more sophisticated measures of shot quality like quantified shot quality (qSQ) and eventually quantified shot probability (qSP). I would say that most sportsbooks are at the qSQ stage. But qSQ thought this Nikola Jokic shot had a 46.8% chance to go in while qSP had it at 58%.
A 46.8% eFG shot on a half court possession is probably one that opposing coaches are reasonably happy with, while 58% is a disaster. As a sports bettor you want bets that the trading team at the sportsbook is happy with that are actually disasters.
F5: Here's what I know, You grew up in New Zealand. You used to coach basketball. You moved to the U.S. to work for a sportsbook and at some point realized you could make more money (or at least be happier) placing bets yourself and now that's what you do for a living. What am I missing?
Sam: These are all borne out of trying to make a passion into a career. I like to say that I grew up both poor and privileged -- too often privilege is viewed through a prism of family wealth -- and that the opportunities afforded to me in my youth by my support network aren't afforded to everyone. It would be a disservice to those who aren't blessed with those opportunities not to try to do something cool.
Those foundations led to getting a degree in Finance and Economics from the University of Otago, and ultimately a strong enough feeling of safety to take on risk when pursuing a career rather than taking the banking jobs offered out of college. I tried sports journalism (no jobs), basketball coaching (no money), and eventually working in sports gambling, which is the perfect marriage of sports and finance -- my two passions at the time.
If you find a career you're obsessed with, get a lot of luck in timing the expansion of legalized US sports betting, find an incredible lady who is willing to get married extremely quickly removing the employment requirement from your visa, you can end up in a spot where you get to gamble on sports for a living.
Where does your penchant for betting come from? I know in Australia gambling and sports betting seeps into culture in a much deeper way than in America. Is it similar in New Zealand?
I think it probably started with easy spots to be contrarian. Things like knowing that Australia was likely slightly better than New Zealand at rugby in the very early 2000s and picking them to win a game made you look smart on the playground if it would happen given everyone else was sure the All Blacks would win. In the third grade an English kid in my class would not shut up about how he thought England was going to beat Brazil in the 2002 World Cup quarter final so I coaxed him into betting $5 on the game. Unfortunately his mother got wind of the bet and told me off after paying me.
From there builds an obsession with prediction.
As for New Zealand's gambling culture, there is a statutory monopoly on sports betting so there are only a regular amount of gambling advertisements on the TV rather than the disgraceful amount shown in Australia or America. How it can be legal to advertise -- and by definition encourage the use of -- products that are harmful is beyond me. Legalizing vice products that some are going to use no matter what is good. Encouraging people to use them is bad.
Are there any quirks that are practically useful in sports gambling but have no practical use for in-game strategy? I don't know if this is still true, but at one point teams would play better defense when they were defending the basket in front of their bench. I don't think that has any practical applications for in-game strategy, but it is useful information for gamblers. Can you think of any other examples like that?
The defending in front of your own bench thing is a good one. I think zigzag is a little that way really, though NBA analysts who don't care about gambling are starting to understand those trends now too.
The main things are just total rorts in the system where books are absurdly exposed to a singular particular outcome. Things like ceremonial starts for Mikal Bridges or Draymond Green where bettors will fire in a same game parlay of all of a player's unders. The best story I have in that respect is when Kobe died and all of the teams were taking immediate eight and 24 second violations to open the game. I was working at PointsBet at the time which operated a 'spread betting' function, meaning you could bet something like the number of seconds before the first basket would be scored. One clever punter knew about the Kobe memorials and bet the over in every game. Some more sentimental members of the trading team were very angry at the client but I thought it was incredibly clever.
Is the U.S. in the golden age of sports betting? It seems almost inevitable that there's going to be legislative or regulatory change in the near future that alters the sports betting landscape and makes it harder for people that do what you do professionally.
The true golden age was probably 2020-2022, but now is the second best time to be a sports bettor for sure. There is so much dumb money out there, which takes the pressure off of trading teams to scour every nook and cranny to find sharp bettors siphoning profits from their book.
Regulation absolutely should and probably will come quelling that flow of recreational money. Contrary to popular belief, sharp bettors make their money from recreational bettors, not from the books themselves.
Say more about that. How do sharp bettors make their money from recreational bettors?
It is two fold: firstly, books simply aren't as ruthlessly efficient in their limiting of sharp clients when they are still making plenty of money. Secondly, and much more importantly, a good sharp bettor will look a lot like a gigantic losing bettor. The more feasibly large losing bettors there are out there, the more that books are going to take on risk in an effort to attract those bettors and deal with the false positives. Once a market becomes mature and books have their hooks into all of the large recreational losing bettors, they are likely to be far more skeptical of a new bettor coming into the book and placing large wagers.
What's the most common misconception about sports betting that you see on a regular basis?
There are many. The one that has the most impact though is that books are trying to balance action on both sides and that therefore the spread is simply a reflection of public action.
The closing spread of an NBA game is the best predictor that we currently have of any given outcome. Not EPM, not DARKO, not what Zach Lowe says. A NBA playoff spread will have billions of dollars traded through it by incredibly smart operators. I think the public would view the gambling industry a lot differently if they knew about the predictive power that it has.
Peer into your crystal ball and tell me what the next NBA gambling controversy looks like. Take this in whatever direction you want.
My hot take is that there won't be one, at least in terms of players/staff gambling on the NBA. The Jontay Porter story to me is the sad tale of someone with a gambling addiction who got themselves in deep and that was their only way out.
I do think there may come an exposè of players' abusive DMs, or players may collectively band together to tell the stories of the vitriol levied toward them that is a product of gambling. The league would do well to get out in front of this via whatever methods they have available to them -- aggressive bans for in-stadium gambling-related abuse, targeted advertisements similar to those made by the NCAA, data sharing with social media companies.
I have some strong disagreements with your Zach Lowe podcast guest rankings. I think it's fun when he has beat reporters like John Krawczynski on!
I actually have advocated for more Athletic beat reporters! I was too low on John Krawczynski in the original rankings. Krawczynski, Fred Katz, Anthony Slater, and a few others do a solid job of letting the opinions of staffers of the teams they cover inform what they have to say rather than govern it. The bad beat reporters are mostly centered in Los Angeles, though Ramona Shelburne's reporting detail is exceptional, I will give them that.
It is the contractually-obligated repeat guests who Zach clearly does not respect that break me. The episodes follow the same format: Lowe asks a question, guest responds with two minutes of filler trope because they do not actually watch basketball, Lowe answers his own question with no regard for what the guest said, and then the guest agrees with his answer.
Most of these pods are still easily worth consuming. The same way Nikola Jokic can make Zeke Nnaji look like a real player, Zach Lowe can turn a boring guest into appointent listening.
What something you learned this NBA season? Either something you didn't know before or something you've changed your mind about.
I don't know that there is any one specific macro takeaway that sits with me. In the micro, teams have had a lot of success trying some really weird shit in this postseason -- stuff that is not really feasible to predict before a series starts. Perhaps that means we should be chunking in a little more variance in projections before a series starts. Perhaps it means really creative coaching can be more valuable. Perhaps it is a blip.
What's one thing you can't live without during the NBA season?
The goats, of course -- Lowe's Pod, Dunc'd On, databallr, pbpstats, DARKO, EPM.
One niche thing in particular is the depths of pbpstats rather than the top line stuff. From being able to see Cleveland's super switch heavy defense show up in defensive possession length summary tables; to testing theories on how likely certain teams are to have their guys dribble out the clock in their second-to-last possession in blowouts, and whether that translates across point guards or across coaches; to one of the most fun edges I've had the privilege of betting: Steven Adams to score the first basket in Oklahoma City games in 2019-20.
Another site to shout out that was sadly dead before we knew it was thehighlo. RIP.
For more interviews, visit The F5’s Q&A archive. I’ve done interviews with the creators of EPM, DARKO, LEBRON, xRAPM as well as ESPN’s Dean Oliver, Kevin Pelton, and more.
I want to give a shout out to Gabriel Guzman, whose site, CourtSketch, gives users the ability to look at win/loss rates when a team has a higher (or lower) value in a particular statistical category. Guzman’s site has tons of other features, but it was particularly helpful when I was writing this piece. Salute.
I tried to figure out who coined this term first. This was the earliest tweet I could find, but it may have been in the ether before then:
Even though I'd never heard of him (perhaps because I'd never heard of him), I thought this was one of the most informative interviews you've had on here. Nice job.
Enjoyed the analysis, and then the interview too. Thanks man.