Jeff Ruland potential

[trex_8063]

This guy led the league in total turnovers in 1984 and didn't even average four assists per game. This is almost Shawn Kemp-levels of sloppy turnover economy relative to creative ability/load. It's terrible and shows a very low basketball iq.

Depends on other stuff and how many turnover you might think are a given but you raise assists and turnovers here ... just by the conventional A:T ratio his number is sub 1, but it's not a Duckworthian circa 0.5; Seikaly-eque 0.45 (there are worse but can't find the post I had).

It's a very high turnover number but I'd guess at a glance it's the worst a:t year of his meaningful career, and certainly the turnovers are very high and a:t is just one (simple) tool but I'd say the assists, from center, are a slight mitigation.

Whilst I don't love high turnovers I'd dispute that it necessarily show "a very low basketball iq" that would depend on the causes/circumstances (is it [mis]reading D, or is it setting picks, or is it catching passes, or is it grabbing rebounds ...).

Are there worse offenders (in terms of Assists/Turnover ratio) who had similar volume (raw average)*** of assists and turnovers as Ruland? Shoutout to Penbeast's McGinnis mention as that is the only one off the top of my head that is comparable.

Fair point about what the high turnovers by themselves reveal about Ruland's Bball IQ. In all fairness, I'm not super familiar with Ruland's game on tape/eye-test observation.

***Equal or greater than 3.8 assists per game and equal or greater than 3.8 turnovers per game over a 200-game sample

In terms of awful A:T ratios in noteworthy players, I'm not sure anyone is more eye-popping [not in good way] than Moses Malone: career avg of 0.45 Ast:TO. In his consensus peak season ['83], it's actually worse: 0.38.

But I think Ast:TO ratio is of limited value in evaluating all-around turnover economy (as is TOV%).
I've made my own metric that I use (called Modified TOV% [mTOV%]). To be sure: Moses does look pretty bad by mTOV%, too; but his Ast:TO ratio makes him look like the worst ever.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

A called moving screen is a turnover as well as a foul. I think Ruland may have been called for 1 or 2 moving screens a game. It was worth it for the effect his screens had at slowing down guards on defense. Gaurds had to keep one eye on their man and another eye looking out for Ruland and Mahorn unless they did not mind having their teeth knocked out.

Now my impression is based on Celtic games. I never saw those Bullets play anybody else.
Mahorn and Ruland were picking up a lot of fouls in the 1984 playoffs vs the Celtics. The guy I am picuturing coming arround those screens is Frank Johnson. I don't think Sobers used the screens as much. Had they not been so agressive with their screens I don't think Frank Johnson would have shot so well.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I note all those mid-80s Bullets teams were bad offensively, but pretty good defensively (which suggests to me that Ruland [in spite of NOT being a rim protector] couldn't have been too bad defensively).

Rick Mahorn is there in '84 and '85, and I know he's a very solid defender.


Anyway, was just curious about Ballard, since he's a SF and one of the biggest minute players on the team for '84 and '85.

I keep on thinking about bad boys Pistons when thinking about the 1984 Bullets. Yes there is Mahorn in common but I feel like there is more than that in common.

I think Mahorn was a smart defender as far as being in the right position. I think Mahorn bit on fakes, i think Mahorn can not recover if he leabs the wrong way. I think Mahorn's momentum is hard for Mahorn to stop which creates problems defending speed and problems defending fakes.

My vantage point for Bullets Mahorn is Bullets vs Celtics in the 1984 playoffs. Mahorn is big enough to play center and plays like a center. Bird and Maxwell are a problem for him.

I don't think Ruland was good a defense regardless how good the Bullets were as a team. The Bullets had competitve spirit. They were not going to let the Celtics take easy shots. They were good as a team positionally. They were good at the Eastern conference style sagging rotationg defense otherwise known as an uncalled illegal zone defense (as perfected by the Celtics, 76ers and Bucks and not very utilized in the Western conference. If the refs won't call it then bend those rules.)

Zealous Illegal screens: absolutley. As a Celtic fan that was the most memorable thing about that team. Homer gravel voice Johny Most getting hysterical about those screens may have made them more unforgettable for me. I think both Ruland and Mahorn tended to lean towards the defender trying to go arround the screen. They were trying to not move their feet and still move their uper body. Back then not moving the feet on screens was a big deal. Celtic guards got knoed over by elbows to the face that might be flagrant 2s in today's game. Back then it was just a foul and a turnover, stop your sniveling and play on Ainge. They caught DJ and Henderson a fiew times but it is more Ainge that I picture be completely blasted and maybe playing a little scared after that. Scaring Ainge was not easy.

Cost benefit alaysys I think the overzelous screens were a positive for the Bullets even though they did get called a few times a game.

Ballard never really made an impression for me. He had a reputation as a good defender but I did not really see it. I thought Sobers waa a good defender. I did not think Johnson was a prticularly good defender. Now if Sobers was the only good defender how were they a good defensive team. They tried hard. And they rotated well. So they were all good at rotating which while a team thing is also and individual talent. So I like them all as team defenders but not as man defenders. But the Celtics were a problem to defend so maybe I am too hard on those Bullets but they were not on the level of the early 1980s 76ers defensively.

Parish made Ruland look akward at times on defense.

Love Ruland's rebounding. Celtics make everbody look bad at rebounding but not Ruland.

[kcktiny]

I don't think Ruland was good a defense regardless how good the Bullets were as a team.

Ballard never really made an impression for me. He had a reputation as a good defender but I did not really see it.

Those 3 seasons of 1981-82 to 1983-84, when the Bullets ranked 4th best in the league defensively, Ballard lead them in minutes played and Ruland was 3rd in minutes (Mahorn 2nd, Frank Johnson 4th in minutes).

If these two were not very good to excellent defenders, and combined played over 1/4 of the team's total minutes played those 3 years, then how was that team so good defensively?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't think Ruland was good a defense regardless how good the Bullets were as a team.

Ballard never really made an impression for me. He had a reputation as a good defender but I did not really see it.

Those 3 seasons of 1981-82 to 1983-84, when the Bullets ranked 4th best in the league defensively, Ballard lead them in minutes played and Ruland was 3rd in minutes (Mahorn 2nd, Frank Johnson 4th in minutes).

If these two were not very good to excellent defenders, and combined played over 1/4 of the team's total minutes played those 3 years, then how was that team so good defensively?

My answer is that their team defense was good. 5 guys rotating to clog the right holes.

Then when I assess guys as individual defenders I forget about their team defense which is wrong and I start thinking about their one on one defense where the only guy I really like one on one is Sobers and I am not even sure about that because it is just a murky memory that might not be based on anything real. I am looking at this as a Celtic fan. Ballard can not guard Bird or Maxwell one on one but most teams don't have players like Bird and Maxwell. You basically want to defend Bird with somebody that has guard speed to force Bird to give up his dribble. You want Michael Cooper or Paul Pressy. Ballard had normal small forward speed which is not good enough. Bird only had power forward speed but normal small forward speed is not fast enough to crowd Bird and then recover if Bird trys to take advantage of being crowded. Ballard played Bird normal which does not take away Bird's dribble which leaves Bird free to find passing and shooting angles by dribbling a little bit to improve the angles.

I don't think Ballard was a leaper. If Maxwell is putting crazy herky jerky moves and fakes on Ballard, Ballard ws no more prepared than anybody else to stay properly aligned. The best defender of Maxwell was Caldwell Jones who got himself in proper position and then did not bight on any fakes. But Caldwell Jones was a mobile leaping 6' 11" guy who could meet Maxwell ad the top of the shot. One of Maxwell's fakes is not a fake and will be Maxwell's actual shot though his releases were odd. Ballard is not a 6' 11" leaper so Ballard can't wait see if a particular fake turns into the actual shot because Ballard can't jump late Like Caldwell Jones and still meet Maxwell at the top of his shot.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Watch on YouTube

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

A 1984 regualar season game Bullets ve 76ers
A chance to see what Ballard does with old Dr J

Watch on YouTube