How important is rebounding?

1,119 Views | 7 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by HoopDreams
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This season should tell you how important it is.

Cal has out-rebounded their opponent in only two games all season, San Diego State and Washington and won both of those games.

Cal has tied only one opponent in rebounding in a game, ASU, where both teams got 31 rebounds, and Cal lost the game.

Cal has been out-rebounded in 27 games so far, and has won only 5 of those games:
Hampton, Santa Clara, Cal Poly, San Jose State, and WSU. (Note that Santa Clara and WSU had significant players out with injuries in those games.) Cal has not beaten a single decent team when they have been out-rebounded.

Of course there are many factors contributing to losing a game, and many games one could argue were lost with bad defense or bad shooting, or little passing, or poor coaching, etc. Sometimes Cal shoots well, or shares the ball well, or plays acceptable defense, but one statistic sticks out like a sore thumb that is bad almost every single game: that Cal has been out-rebounded in all but two games, and in the ones where they have been out rebounded, they have won only 5 of 22 games, and only one out of 14 conference games.

Rebounding is the biggest thing, even before defense, that Wyking Jones or the next coach needs to address and begin to fix, in my opinion. As I've said before, you don't fix rebounding without big, experienced, big men. Wyking has a start on this with Vanover, Kelly, Anticevich, and Thorpe, and only one is a soph, still green. This coach or the next guy has to continue to develop what we have, and recruit more to keep the flow of coachable bigs to Cal. Rebounding is not rocket science. The basics can be taught, and the instincts come only with experience and thinking. Bill Russell and Darrall Imhoff did nothing at all in high school. In college, Darrall became Cal's best, and Bill Russell became the best on the planet. Russell knew every opponent so well, he knew where the shot might miss, and where to stand to have the best chance at the rebound. That is basketball genius. Imhoff had no great athleticism, but he anchored Cal's best NCAA teams, and had a long NBA career, just by playing smart, as he had been taught to do. Cal needs to rebound a lot better, to become any better overall, and win more of those games we now lose so often.

SFCityBear
RedlessWardrobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good points SFCB. I would have to say that unless Thorpe is some kind of glass eater, one of the keys to Cal rebounding better starts with Vanover bulking up - which hopefully will allow us to play some man to man on the defensive end.

I'm sure you'd agree that with proper technique any team can rebound on the defensive end better with a man to man D. The problem with that right now is Vanover is not strong enough to play the 5 in a man to man, and in most cases Kelly is a bit too short. However, as you say, hopefully experience will come in to play as well.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There was a famous analytical study done several years ago (can't remember the guy's name but it's a oft-cited study) that boiled down a lot of statistical analysis and concluded that games come down to four things with 4 factors that most correlate with winning a game:

1). eFG% - 40%
2). Turnover rate differential - 25%
3). Rebounding rate differential - 20%
4). FT % - 15%

Rebounding is a clear area for improvement but the differential of eFG% this year is pretty stark. Our offensive eFG% isn't good at 49%, good for 248th in the country but our defensive eFG% is a mind-boggling 58%, good for 351st in the country. We have a lot of areas to improve but defense is where we need to improve the most.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RedlessWardrobe said:

Good points SFCB. I would have to say that unless Thorpe is some kind of glass eater, one of the keys to Cal rebounding better starts with Vanover bulking up - which hopefully will allow us to play some man to man on the defensive end.

I'm sure you'd agree that with proper technique any team can rebound on the defensive end better with a man to man D. The problem with that right now is Vanover is not strong enough to play the 5 in a man to man, and in most cases Kelly is a bit too short. However, as you say, hopefully experience will come in to play as well.
I'd agree. And Kelly better get a lot stronger as well, so he can use that bulk to block out. Right now he is too soft. He needs some more spring as well. The conditioning gurus here can tell us if jumping can be improved in the gym.
SFCityBear
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting article on subject.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.poundingtherock.com/platform/amp/2018/9/13/17813602/san-antonio-difficulty-understanding-importance-rebounding
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Interesting article on subject.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.poundingtherock.com/platform/amp/2018/9/13/17813602/san-antonio-difficulty-understanding-importance-rebounding


Good adticle, Bearister. And right on cue, it mentioned the 4 Factors study I mention above. Dean Oliver was the name I was missing.
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheSouseFamily said:

There was a famous analytical study done several years ago (can't remember the guy's name but it's a oft-cited study) that boiled down a lot of statistical analysis and concluded that games come down to four things with 4 factors that most correlate with winning a game:

1). eFG% - 40%
2). Turnover rate differential - 25%
3). Rebounding rate differential - 20%
4). FT % - 15%

Rebounding is a clear area for improvement but the differential of eFG% this year is pretty stark. Our offensive eFG% isn't good at 49%, good for 248th in the country but our defensive eFG% is a mind-boggling 58%, good for 351st in the country. We have a lot of areas to improve but defense is where we need to improve the most.
I'm unfamiliar with "eFG%', but I assume it measures the difference between teams shooting success rates. I take this to mean if you outshoot opponents, rebounding becomes less critical, as shown in last night's game when we were out rebounded by a significant margin but outshot the Reds, especially from the arc.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
59bear said:

TheSouseFamily said:

There was a famous analytical study done several years ago (can't remember the guy's name but it's a oft-cited study) that boiled down a lot of statistical analysis and concluded that games come down to four things with 4 factors that most correlate with winning a game:

1). eFG% - 40%
2). Turnover rate differential - 25%
3). Rebounding rate differential - 20%
4). FT % - 15%

Rebounding is a clear area for improvement but the differential of eFG% this year is pretty stark. Our offensive eFG% isn't good at 49%, good for 248th in the country but our defensive eFG% is a mind-boggling 58%, good for 351st in the country. We have a lot of areas to improve but defense is where we need to improve the most.
I'm unfamiliar with "eFG%', but I assume it measures the difference between teams shooting success rates. I take this to mean if you outshoot opponents, rebounding becomes less critical, as shown in last night's game when we were out rebounded by a significant margin but outshot the Reds, especially from the arc.
eFG% is FG% that is adjusted for 3-point goals. formula is FGMade + 0.5 3-pt goals made/FGA.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
if you don't get the defensive rebound, that means the other team gets an offensive rebound, and that usually means a put back score, a foul, or at least an offensive position against a defense that is scrambling.

there are those offensive rebounds that just get passed or dribbled out to just start a fresh position, but if not, nothing good comes out of letting your opponent grab an offensive rebound. it's a contributor to our low defensive shooting percentage stat

offensively, it works in reverse ... if you don't get offensive rebounds, you are not getting those easy points
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.