Our defensive rebounding woes are vastly overrated

[CIL]

In 2003, with Anthony and Warrick covering the wings we ranked second to last in offenive boards per game allowed.

Maybe this is a good thing?

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...t-offensive-rebounds-per-game?date=2003-04-08

 

[SWFLCUSE]

Works for me!!!! LGO!!!

 

[690West]

This is referred to as a delicious nugget. Good work CIL

 

[kd bart]

Andrew Glockner in his article regarding the East Regional mentioned how Cincinnati killed Syracuse on the offensive boards last Friday night. I went backed and looked at the box score. Syracuse had one more offensice rebound and one more total rebound than Cincinnati for the game per the espn.com box score. So much for killiong us on the boards. Rebounding was not the reason we loss.

 

[Knicks411]

In 2003, we were bad on the defensive glass (we are bad every year) but this is by far the worst we've been.

We were 274th in defensive rebounding% that year, we're 341st thiss year. It's not the end of the world, we're awesome at forcing turnovers and allow a low fg%, but we're not good on the defensive glass.

 

[690West]

In 2003, we were bad on the defensive glass (we are bad every year) but this is by far the worst we've been.

We were 274th in defensive rebounding% that year, we're 341st thiss year. It's not the end of the world, we're awesome at forcing turnovers and allow a low fg%, but we're not good on the defensive glass.

To me , 341 and 274 are the same thing. Totally marginal at that point. Horrible but the same

 

[Knicks411]

To me , 341 and 274 are the same thing. Totally marginal at that point. Horrible but the same

I guess, they are both pretty awful, obviously. 4th from the bottom in all of college hoops stands out to me more than 70th from the bottom or whatever. It's probably 1 or 2 offensive boards per game? Dont feel like doing math.

 

[Upstate]

I also think the "lack of the half-court game" is negligible because we've gotten so many transition points, as long as we play our opponents even in the half court, the transition should provide the winning margin.

 

[KingOtis]

Of the 340 teams ahead of us, how many play a 2-3 zone?

Would be interested in knowing where we rank in terms of giving up second chance points. If we give up four offensive rebounds in one possession and they don't score, that's just milking clock.

 

[Marsh01]

I am looking forward to all of these meaningless stats to be deemed irrelevant when we win the national title.

 

[Knicks411]

Of the 340 teams ahead of us, how many play a 2-3 zone?

Would be interested in knowing where we rank in terms of giving up second chance points. If we give up four offensive rebounds in one possession and they don't score, that's just milking clock.

Well our defense still rnaks really highly, so it's not like it is hurting us that much, but it's hurting us. It's why our defense is top 15 instead of top 2 or 3. (Though more focus on the defensive glass would probably mean fewer turnovers, and also fewer fast break points?)

 

[tbonezone]

carmelo avg'd 10 boards a game.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I know Baylor has struggled on the boards this year as well. Duke killed them on the boards surprisingly in that tourney game a few years back. I think Baylor is playing more man now. All I know is Joseph better freaking rebound. That performance in NYC was a disaster. Your starting SF has to get a rebound! Welsh was really on him on that Experts show with good reason.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

The SU's defensive turnover rate outweighs their the rate of offensive rebounds allowed.

If you take each teams Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (points allowed per possession) and compare it with the Four Factors (effective FG%, turnover rate, offensive rebound rate and free throw weight), turnover rate is stronger predictor. An increase of 1% in turnover rate reduces points allowed by 1.3, an increase of 1% in offensive rebound rate increases points allowed by .8%. Per 100 possessions, Syracuse's defensive turnout rate saves them 3 more points than the % of offensive rebounds allowed costs them.

 

[Knicks411]

The SU's defensive turnover rate outweighs their the rate of offensive rebounds allowed.

If you take each teams Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (points allowed per possession) and compare it with the Four Factors (effective FG%, turnover rate, offensive rebound rate and free throw weight), turnover rate is stronger predictor. An increase of 1% in turnover rate reduces points allowed by 1.3, an increase of 1% in offensive rebound rate increases points allowed by .8%. Per 100 possessions, Syracuse's defensive turnout rate saves them 3 more points than the % of offensive rebounds allowed costs them.

That's good stuff, and I would also assume that defensive TO% has a better correlation with offensive efficiency than defensive rebounding%, since those TO often result in easy buckets going the other way.

 

[690West]

The SU's defensive turnover rate outweighs their the rate of offensive rebounds allowed.

If you take each teams Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (points allowed per possession) and compare it with the Four Factors (effective FG%, turnover rate, offensive rebound rate and free throw weight), turnover rate is stronger predictor. An increase of 1% in turnover rate reduces points allowed by 1.3, an increase of 1% in offensive rebound rate increases points allowed by .8%. Per 100 possessions, Syracuse's defensive turnout rate saves them 3 more points than the % of offensive rebounds allowed costs them.

Dang, you only have 83 posts, but when you bring it, you bring it. Love me some cusefannotindc. nh

 

[007]

The SU's defensive turnover rate outweighs their the rate of offensive rebounds allowed.

If you take each teams Adjusted Defensive Efficiency (points allowed per possession) and compare it with the Four Factors (effective FG%, turnover rate, offensive rebound rate and free throw weight), turnover rate is stronger predictor. An increase of 1% in turnover rate reduces points allowed by 1.3, an increase of 1% in offensive rebound rate increases points allowed by .8%. Per 100 possessions, Syracuse's defensive turnout rate saves them 3 more points than the % of offensive rebounds allowed costs them.

Great post, Cusefan.

To the point of the thread, SU lack of defensive rebounding is not "vastly over rated." It is a highly significant factor that is compensated for by the TO, steals, and blocked shots created, and FG % allowed. In a real sense, the lack of rebounding it is the "cost" of playing the zone the way SU plays it.

When looking at points per possession allowed ( a simplifeid way of looking atdefensive efficeincy), SU is tied for 18th best in the country at 0.92. So the lack of defensive rebounding is negated. Should SU have a game where TO, steals and blocks are down from the norm, the lack of defensive rebounding will become a major factor in the outcome.

 

[upperdeck]

one thing overlooked when calculating rebounding stats.. you can get 2-3-4 rebounds on a possession. some occur and the team takes 20-30 secs takes another shot gets a rebound, etc and scores.. 3-4 rebounds 1-2 min off the clock. some times you get 2-3 rebounds in 3-5 secs and dont score. very little impact on the game/score/clock. you seldom see the same type of play stat stuffers occur for TO's caused. the only way to really get 2-3 quickly is to turn them into points for the most part..

rebounds that lead to quick shots that dont score are not as big a deal but they look like they do on the stat line..

and Cincy did win because of rebounding.. without the 2nd chance shots in the 2nd half they would have lost the entire lead pretty quickly the way they were playing.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

That's good stuff, and I would also assume that defensive TO% has a better correlation with offensive efficiency than defensive rebounding%, since those TO often result in easy buckets going the other way.

Actually, no. I just checked. It actually has an insignificant negative correlation.

 

[moqui]

look, if it was a devastating problem, the team would not be 31-2. the point is not that the defensive rebounding makes SU a bad team, but only that it is a chink in the armor that has the potential to cost a game here or there - and in a one-and-done tournament, one "here or there" is fatal. I'm not really worried about the defense, but defense is not the key, anyway.

the half court offense in general, and the lack of any consistent interior offense in particular, are the bigger worries, IMO. Just a single extended scoring drought can be fatal - Syracuse learned that this year not only in its losses, but in so many of its victories, too. You can only stop a run if you can score - you can hold the other team empty 4, 5, 6 trips in a row, but their run still continues if you don't convert on the other end.

 

[Marsh01]

the half court offense in general, and the lack of any consistent interior offense in particular, are the bigger worries, IMO. Just a single extended scoring drought can be fatal - Syracuse learned that this year not only in its losses, but in so many of its victories, too. You can only stop a run if you can score - you can hold the other team empty 4, 5, 6 trips in a row, but their run still continues if you don't convert on the other end.

I agree. Offense is how we are going to win the NCAA tourney. If we make shots we will win games. If we dont, we wont. Tha'ts really it. People, media, etc can break down all the rebounding deficiencies we have, zone defense, should we press, etc. Its all irrelevant. We need to make shots. If we dont we will get bounced. Its been our achilles heel all year long. Games we make shots we roll teams, games we dont we have been winning but struggle.

If Brandon and James can somehow find their stroke we are going to be the toughest out in the entire tournament and will beat Vanderbilt by 100. Scoop is not the key, neither is Kris or Melo. Its James and Brandon. These two making shots take us from a really good team to a great team. If they dont then I am going to pray we somehow find a way to eek out these games like we have done all year.

 

[joct]

It seems bigger because it seems to come in bunches, when they can least afford it. Granted this is just 1 sample, but it felt bad during the Cinci game so I checked it out. When the comeback started in the 2nd half, 4 out of the first 5 scoring possessions for Cinci came off of putbacks. Otherwise, the SU D really shut them down during that time period. Granted they aren't going to run into many players like Gates, but it is telling.

19:05 Yancy Gates Offensive Rebound.

35-23​

19:03 Yancy Gates made Jumper.

37-23​

17:55 Yancy Gates Offensive Rebound.

37-25​

17:50 Yancy Gates made Layup.

39-25​

13:47 Yancy Gates Offensive Rebound.

41-33​

13:47 Yancy Gates made Layup.

13:19 Jaquon Parker Offensive Rebound.

43-33​

13:19

43-33​

Foul on Scoop Jardine
13:19 Jaquon Parker made Free Throw.

44-33​

13:19 Jaquon Parker made Free Throw.

45-33​

 

[Knicks411]

Actually, no. I just checked. It actually has an insignificant negative correlation.

Really? I have to admit I am kind of surprised about that.

Would it to be too much to ask to see maybe the correlation between steals and/or blocks and offensive efficiency? (Using just steals would filter out the dead ball TO that don't result in a fastbreak).

One thing i would like to do is figure out, is assuming I'm right (and if I',m not, forget this) to tie that kind of stuff into offensive efficiency. Like, say you have 2 teams with identical defensive efficiency rating; but one team forces steals say 15% of the time and the other half that. Theoretically, you'd rather have the first defense, because that one should feed your fastbreak offense more. (The idea would of course be to figure out where you draw the line; is 3% more steals worth 3% worse defensively? Etc)

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Really? I have to admit I am kind of surprised about that.

Would it to be too much to ask to see maybe the correlation between steals and/or blocks and offensive efficiency? (Using just steals would filter out the dead ball TO that don't result in a fastbreak).

One thing i would like to do is figure out, is assuming I'm right (and if I',m not, forget this) to tie that kind of stuff into offensive efficiency. Like, say you have 2 teams with identical defensive efficiency rating; but one team forces steals say 15% of the time and the other half that. Theoretically, you'd rather have the first defense, because that one should feed your fastbreak offense more. (The idea would of course be to figure out where you draw the line; is 3% more steals worth 3% worse defensively? Etc)

Steals, not significant. As for Blocks, every 1% increase in the block rate increases Offensive efficiency by .2. Per 100 possession, SU picks up about 4 points from their blocks.

 

[Oakland]

In 2003, with Anthony and Warrick covering the wings we ranked second to last in offenive boards per game allowed.

Maybe this is a good thing?

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...t-offensive-rebounds-per-game?date=2003-04-08

Not any more