The story of the 2025 field, as told by shot volume

Strength in numbers

Last year pre-Tournament, I wrote about how shot volume was back like it never left:

For most of the last decade I’ve found myself watching games somewhat differently thanks to the work of John Gasaway. He’s very good at getting someone to see how statistics within the game can be interesting and useful without being boring about it. (This is also a good summary of the goal of this site.) But what Gasaway first designed in 2016 and refined later on fascinates me:

It’s hardly news that programs like UK and UNC are excellent at offensive rebounding, but what’s changing is the willingness and ability of elite teams to bring their turnover rates down to the same level as all those plucky yet disciplined underdogs they’re always trampling underfoot. Taking care of the ball and rebounding your misses is a good way to safely navigate your way around an off night on the perimeter.

The original equation was Shot Volume = 100 + OREB% - TO%. The new one is more complicated but a little more accurate (presumably) and involves the idea of 100 possessions where there are no free throw attempts. The point is this: shot efficiency, AKA actually making the shots, is great. That’s the first step. The differentiator, especially on nights when your team isn’t shooting well, is shot volume. Can you find a way to make up for poor shooting? If so, you’re going to be harder to put down than a team that doesn’t.

Such a simple equation is always very easy to remember, particularly when the last three years have been the three most dominant since back-to-back Florida championships. This year’s offensive Shot Volume is the highest it’s been since 2010-11, when the sport’s offenses ran in a completely different way.

However, this year’s a bit different than the last few. Shot Volume in general is at a peak in the sport we haven’t seen in a long while. This year’s average offensive rebounding percentage (OREB%) is 29.8%, the highest since 2014-15, while the average turnover percentage of 17.3% is the second-lowest in the sport’s history despite steals being at their highest since 2012-13. (Blame, or praise, the altered charge rule that began last season.) Add it up, and on average, you’ve got the highest average Shot Volume (112.5) the sport has had since 2013-14, and before that, 2010-11.

Add that together with the second-highest eFG% (50.9%) in the sport’s history (2017-18), and unsurprisingly, we’re in the midst of the most stout offensive year the sport has had in terms of offensive efficiency, at 1.062 points per possession. Even if you prefer pure points per game, 72.8 is the highest average since 2017-18 and the third-highest since 1994-95. It’s a great time to be a college basketball fan.

However, we know a few things about shooting a basketball. For one, it’s wildly noisy on a game-by-game basis, even at the NBA level. We know that 2PT% is far more stable, and therefore, more predictive of future success. While neither TO% or OREB% alone are as predictive of a game’s outcome as eFG%, their work combined is almost as predictive as pure eFG% and several leagues more stable on a game-by-game basis.

That’s why shot volume matters. Are you able to find ways to win when you’re having a shooting howler, or alternately, when the opponent is running hot from three? You’re probably doing a good job at winning the shot volume battle. Still, the simple Shot Volume equation listed above isn’t the only way to do it. Gasaway’s equation, Jordan Sperber’s WHACKS, and the wonderful Easy Hack method are similarly predictive and just as important.

So: this year, instead of one guy’s Shot Volume estimation, you get four. Nope! You get FIVE, because as I referenced earlier in the year, I created my own version: Schedule Adjusted Shot Volume-Ish (SA-SVI), which isn’t just TO% and OREB% and also includes 2PT% and FT Rate. Which one of these is the most accurate? Well, probably not mine, but all five are included after the jump.

BEHIND THE WALL ($): A bunch of numbers, including hits and stayaways at potential seed lines