Nylon Calculus discusses the various ways sites calculate possessions:
(FGA + .44*FTA – ORB + TOV)/2 (both teams included)
We maximize our effectiveness by reducing our turnovers, getting (and making) more free throws, and shooting better.
If we create a spreadsheet with the variables, we see dramatic and transparent impact of shooting, more than other variables (like turnovers). I'm using representative values (top line) for our team.
Pete Newell's object of "getting more and better shots than our opponents" reveals that without increasing the total possessions (and ignoring the three-point shot), points are almost linearly related to shooting percentage. Increasing the field goals attempted from 50 to 60 (by halving turnovers), barely increases scoring (25 to 29 when shooting percentage languishes).
Yes, the negative impact of turnovers (and opponents' offensive rebounds) likely shows up significantly in opponents' scoring.
Simply, we don't score, we fail. We shoot poorly, we fail. Poor shooting isn't adversity, it's a function of skill, passing, shot selection, and more. A poor shooting team must become an excellent passing team to get better chances or shoot better.
Practice shooting will likely correlate with game shooting percentage...although accounting for fatigue, defense, and "pressure", results are degraded...
All this encourages us to monitor and enhance shooting skills to raise the baseline from which results emerge.
Tonight we had only half a court, and ran this shooting drill. Of our first 60 shots, I counted the girls making only 20 (33%). Usually we're around 35 percent in practice. I whistled them in, and emphasized that until we commit to improvement, we're struggling.
I asked for more focus and caring; our next 60 shots counted 26 baskets (47%). It's as likely to be a fluke as sustainable, but will precedes change.