O-REB% Or Why We Should Play the Big Lineup

[TBird41]

Noticed this on KenPom's Twitter, then did a little more digging:

This year 5 of the 8 teams in the Elite 8 are in the top 10 for Offensive Rebounding Percentage (MSU, Duke, KState, WVU, UK) and Baylor is 25th, meaning 6 of the 8 teams are top 25 in OReb%.

This is a trend. If you want to make the Elite Eight, the best thing you can focus on is offensive rebounding.

In 2009, 2-8 were top 10 and 4-8 were top 25.
In 2008, 2-8 were top 10 and 4-8 were top 25.
In 2007, only 1-8 were top 10 (us!) and only 3-8 were top 25, but two more teams were top 50.
In 2006, 3-8 were top 10 and 4-8 were top 25.

Additionally, it's pretty clear that the path most of the 17 teams that were not elite offensive rebounding teams took to the Elite Eight in the past 5 years is a path Georgetown can't/won't--either b/c they were Mid Majors (Butler, George Mason, Davidson), teams that ignore the front court and focus solely on guards (Villanova twice, Oregon) and teams that press like crazy (L'Ville twice, Missouri, Tennessee). Obviously, Georgetown could go the last route if it really wanted to. Though, if you look at the teams listed, they tended not to make the Final Four.

Obviously, this was not an exhaustive statistical investigation. Still, the bigger the lineup we play, the better the chance we have at being an elite offensive rebounding team. And it doesn't hurt that we're bringing in some recruits that have a reputation for being good at getting offensive rebounds in Bowen and Lubick.

[EasyEd]

Statistics don't lie but statisticians do.

[stafford72]

Statistics do lie. The best way to become an elite offensive rebounding team is to miss a lot of shots. Gtown was one of the best field goal percentage teams in the country. Not a strong candidate for a lot of offensive rebounds. Improving defensive rebounding, turnover creation, and shot blocking--now that is a recipe for success.

[TBird41]

Mar 27, 2010 19:01:42 GMT -5 stafford72 said:

Statistics do lie. The best way to become an elite offensive rebounding team is to miss a lot of shots. Gtown was one of the best field goal percentage teams in the country. Not a strong candidate for a lot of offensive rebounds. Improving defensive rebounding, turnover creation, and shot blocking--now that is a recipe for success.

Offensive Rebounding Percentage is a rate stat, not a counting stat. It doesn't measure the total number of offensive rebounds that you get, but the percentage you get of your missed shots. That's how, in 2006-07, Georgetown shot 50.5% from the field while still finishing eighth in OReb%--they rebounded 40.4% of their missed shots, even though there weren't that many of them.

[bmartin]

I would guess that teams that do well on the offensive boards tend to be teams that defend well and rebound on the defensive end also. Size, positioning, and hustle are a pretty good combination on both ends of the court. Our problem was mostly on defense, but not necessarily in the paint.

[dreamhoya]

id take being a top 10 DEFENSIVE rebounding team.

[whatmaroon]

Mar 27, 2010 19:18:30 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Mar 27, 2010 19:01:42 GMT -5 stafford72 said:

Statistics do lie. The best way to become an elite offensive rebounding team is to miss a lot of shots. Gtown was one of the best field goal percentage teams in the country. Not a strong candidate for a lot of offensive rebounds. Improving defensive rebounding, turnover creation, and shot blocking--now that is a recipe for success.

Offensive Rebounding Percentage is a rate stat, not a counting stat. It doesn't measure the total number of offensive rebounds that you get, but the percentage you get of your missed shots. That's how, in 2006-07, Georgetown shot 50.5% from the field while still finishing eighth in OReb%--they rebounded 40.4% of their missed shots, even though there weren't that many of them.

Unfortunately it seems to have been taken down, but Randy Hill wrote a column for Fox Sports the week before the 2007 Final Four where he wrote that Georgetown would be an even better team if only they pulled down an average number of offensive rebounds. The day I read that column may have been the date I officially became a tempo free stats nut.

[thejerseytornado]

Mar 27, 2010 21:33:19 GMT -5 bmartin said:

I would guess that teams that do well on the offensive boards tend to be teams that defend well and rebound on the defensive end also. Size, positioning, and hustle are a pretty good combination on both ends of the court. Our problem was mostly on defense, but not necessarily in the paint.

agreed. I think offensive rebounding rate is correlated with something else that is much more important towards a win...like overall rebounding rate or interior defense, etc.

also, how well did those teams that do rebound well fare in getting to the championship?

[CO_Hoya]

Mar 27, 2010 21:33:19 GMT -5 bmartin said:

I would guess that teams that do well on the offensive boards tend to be teams that defend well and rebound on the defensive end also.

Yes and no.

There is a fairly significant correlation between offensive rebounding and defensive efficiency [about 9%], but offensive and defensive rebounding are much less well-correlated [less than 3%].

Edited because math is hard.

[ceshoya]

Mar 27, 2010 19:18:30 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Mar 27, 2010 19:01:42 GMT -5 stafford72 said:

Statistics do lie. The best way to become an elite offensive rebounding team is to miss a lot of shots. Gtown was one of the best field goal percentage teams in the country. Not a strong candidate for a lot of offensive rebounds. Improving defensive rebounding, turnover creation, and shot blocking--now that is a recipe for success.

Offensive Rebounding Percentage is a rate stat, not a counting stat. It doesn't measure the total number of offensive rebounds that you get, but the percentage you get of your missed shots. That's how, in 2006-07, Georgetown shot 50.5% from the field while still finishing eighth in OReb%--they rebounded 40.4% of their missed shots, even though there weren't that many of them.

That's true, but it could be said that teams with higher FG% don't have the same sense of urgency. If you're a team that shoots poorly, you know that you have to go to the boards on every shot. Better shooting teams have to fight the complacency of thinking shots are gonna fall.

Not that it's an excuse, but I think it's something that needs to be emphasized more. We certainly have the bodies to be much better on the offensive boards.

[gujake]

I don't know if it's the style of defense we play, the system, or what - but I think this holds true for us more so than most teams as well. It certainly seems like we are a better offensive rebounding team, better defensive rebounding team, and a better defensive team overall when we play a bigger lineup.

[paranoia2]

I continue to believe most of the ills of this year's team were a direct result of the severe lack of depth.

Rebounding is about boxing out, aggression, quick jumping and DESIRE. Some things that could affect that:

1) Fatigue: in game and in season. In game is obvious. In season like nagging injuries or asomething like asthma flairing up.

2) Being very cognizant of fouls: Aggression and hard boxing out can lead to fouls being called. If the coach & the entire team knows they cannot get in foul trouble it becomes a problem.

[jester]

yes, but clearly a lack of effort for reason number 2 has lead to trailing in games against inferior competition resulting in the necessity of staying on the floor leading to reason 1. Vicious cycle! sometimes players just didnt box out even when they had good position...but agree that lack of depth hurts. But Ohio St played the same number of guys and in most of their games none of their players were somehow not even close to being in foul trouble (not sure how Big East vs. Big Ten style of play has to do with that).

[jester]

of course when the starters ex Turner dont score for ten minutes straight in a tournament game it leads creedence to fatigue is always there offensively...but for the defense/rebounding for the most part didnt seem to suffer too much in the season.