I'm not sure it does either, but it makes it more difficult

to make the assertion, especially when frustration sets in over losses. A few weeks prior to our losses, Notre Dame was "a well oiled machine" "firing on all cylinders" and analysts talked about how they loved to watch the ND offense with all the selfless passing. How everything changes when you lose a couple of games. We tend to think in extremes.

As to your specific stats, I'm not sure what you mean by assists per baskets made (I believe that is what I used.). I'm not sure how "baskets made as immediate put-backs following offensive rebounds" are relevant to whether a team is passing or not. Would you expect them to be greater or lesser for a passing team? However, "assists on fast-break baskets" would be extremely relevant, as you say. That is why I asked FightingIrishRadio if he had such stats. I don't. Likewise, passes to passes that lead to baskets I think would be relevant.

But even those stats probably wouldn't go far enough. There is passing and there is effective passing. Many teams, including UConn, like to rapidly pass the ball around the exterior in hopes that they will find an open man or, at least, tire the defense. We would have to check how many of those passes were ineffective by wasting shot-clock time or resulted in turnovers. Watching a team rapidly pass the ball around can be fool's gold. The key is not just passing, but "effective passing". I think that is what Muffet's modified Princeton offense is all about.

I understand what you are telling the board, and I agree we need better stats. What we have shown thus far doesn't lend evidence that ND is dribbling more and UConn is passing more. Different people have different perceptions. Recently, few BoneYarders would agree that UConn had an efficient offense.

Statistics surely are not the last word, but they're helpful in clearing up perceptions when fans are overly jubilant or overly downhearted.