Post by Saxifrage on Jan 15, 2008 22:52:41 GMT -5
There was a crucial stretch, during the Pittsburgh game, in which the Panthers got the rebound three times after missing on three-pointers. (Looking at the play-by-play, I see that it was from 8:36 to 5:00 in the second half.)
And while I was watching the game, it seemed to confirm an unarticulated sense I’ve had, over the season, that there is something wrong with Georgetown’s spacing for rebounds on three-pointers. Watch, for instance, that moment toward the end of the Connecticut game when Hibbert sets a high screen for Freeman to move behind and attempt a three-pointer. The ball is released, and Hibbert rushes far down under the basket while the players out on the edge peddle back toward the defensive end. The ball comes out long, as three-point misses tend to do, and Connecticut gets the rebound.
Maybe, if I really went through the play-by-play for all the games, my overall impression would prove incorrect. But I’ve looked at the play-by-play for the Pittsburgh game, and the impression is certainly correct there. Many things went wrong for Georgetown in that game, beginning with the team’s own three-point shooting, but high on the list should be something I’ve not seen many commentators mention so far: the team’s abysmal rebounding after missed three-point shots—on both offense and defense.
Overall in the game, Georgetown’s rebounding was not as bad as it has been in some other games. That’s not to say it was great: Up at the offensive end, the Hoyas got 33.33% of the missed shots, and down at the defensive end, they got 57.50%.
But when you break out missed two-pointers from missed three-pointers, the numbers become more disturbing. On missed two-pointers, Georgetown and Pittsburgh rebounded almost precisely the same. In fact, Georgetown was slightly better: The Hoyas got 5 of their own 13 missed-two-pointer rebounds (38.46%), while the Panthers got 11 of their own 29 missed-two-pointer rebounds (37.93%). Or, to turn it around, down on the defensive end, Georgetown got 62.07% of the available rebounds, while Pittsburgh on defense got 61.54%. That is, to say, of the available rebounds on missed two-point shots.
On missed three-pointers, it’s a different story. Generally speaking, in college basketball, offensive rebounds tend to be slightly higher for missed three-pointers. The ball comes out further, so the interior position of the defense matters a little less. Which makes it all the more disturbing that Georgetown did much worse at rebounding missed threes in the Pittsburgh game.
On the offensive end, the Hoyas missed 17 three-pointers and got 5 of the rebounds. That’s 29.41%—a much lower percentage than their 38.46% rebounding on missed two-pointers. And down on Georgetown’s defensive end, the Panthers missed 11 three-pointers, of which the Hoyas got the rebounds on 5—a very poor 45.45%. In other words, Pittsburgh got almost 55% of the possible offensive rebounds on their missed threes.
Ugh. In fact, for much of the game, it was worse than it looks from the numbers. Of Georgetown’s missed threes, 5 came in the final four minutes, and the Hoyas got 4 of those rebounds. For the other 36 minutes of the game, Georgetown missed 12 three-pointers and got the offensive rebound 1 time—an astonishingly bad 8.33%.
I don’t know what the explanation is. As I said, I think it may have something to do with spacing on the offensive end: Not distinguishing between an attempted two-pointer and an attempted three-pointer, the guards pull back to prevent a fastbreak, while the forwards and center rush in, leaving the long bounce of a missed three-pointer to fall between them.
Maybe that’s not the explanation for the Pittsburgh game. Certainly it doesn’t explain why the Hoyas rebounded missed threes so poorly on the defensive end. Perhaps the team was crashing too hard, overrunning the long rebound. Perhaps the guards, who become especially important on missed threes, weren’t active enough. Or perhaps Georgetown plans its rebounding on the assumption that the team is going to make a much higher percentage of threes than the awful 3 of 20 it managed against Pittsburgh.
Regardless, in the explanations of what went wrong in that game, the poor rebounding of missed three-point shots has to be added into the mix.
And while I was watching the game, it seemed to confirm an unarticulated sense I’ve had, over the season, that there is something wrong with Georgetown’s spacing for rebounds on three-pointers. Watch, for instance, that moment toward the end of the Connecticut game when Hibbert sets a high screen for Freeman to move behind and attempt a three-pointer. The ball is released, and Hibbert rushes far down under the basket while the players out on the edge peddle back toward the defensive end. The ball comes out long, as three-point misses tend to do, and Connecticut gets the rebound.
Maybe, if I really went through the play-by-play for all the games, my overall impression would prove incorrect. But I’ve looked at the play-by-play for the Pittsburgh game, and the impression is certainly correct there. Many things went wrong for Georgetown in that game, beginning with the team’s own three-point shooting, but high on the list should be something I’ve not seen many commentators mention so far: the team’s abysmal rebounding after missed three-point shots—on both offense and defense.
Overall in the game, Georgetown’s rebounding was not as bad as it has been in some other games. That’s not to say it was great: Up at the offensive end, the Hoyas got 33.33% of the missed shots, and down at the defensive end, they got 57.50%.
But when you break out missed two-pointers from missed three-pointers, the numbers become more disturbing. On missed two-pointers, Georgetown and Pittsburgh rebounded almost precisely the same. In fact, Georgetown was slightly better: The Hoyas got 5 of their own 13 missed-two-pointer rebounds (38.46%), while the Panthers got 11 of their own 29 missed-two-pointer rebounds (37.93%). Or, to turn it around, down on the defensive end, Georgetown got 62.07% of the available rebounds, while Pittsburgh on defense got 61.54%. That is, to say, of the available rebounds on missed two-point shots.
On missed three-pointers, it’s a different story. Generally speaking, in college basketball, offensive rebounds tend to be slightly higher for missed three-pointers. The ball comes out further, so the interior position of the defense matters a little less. Which makes it all the more disturbing that Georgetown did much worse at rebounding missed threes in the Pittsburgh game.
On the offensive end, the Hoyas missed 17 three-pointers and got 5 of the rebounds. That’s 29.41%—a much lower percentage than their 38.46% rebounding on missed two-pointers. And down on Georgetown’s defensive end, the Panthers missed 11 three-pointers, of which the Hoyas got the rebounds on 5—a very poor 45.45%. In other words, Pittsburgh got almost 55% of the possible offensive rebounds on their missed threes.
Ugh. In fact, for much of the game, it was worse than it looks from the numbers. Of Georgetown’s missed threes, 5 came in the final four minutes, and the Hoyas got 4 of those rebounds. For the other 36 minutes of the game, Georgetown missed 12 three-pointers and got the offensive rebound 1 time—an astonishingly bad 8.33%.
I don’t know what the explanation is. As I said, I think it may have something to do with spacing on the offensive end: Not distinguishing between an attempted two-pointer and an attempted three-pointer, the guards pull back to prevent a fastbreak, while the forwards and center rush in, leaving the long bounce of a missed three-pointer to fall between them.
Maybe that’s not the explanation for the Pittsburgh game. Certainly it doesn’t explain why the Hoyas rebounded missed threes so poorly on the defensive end. Perhaps the team was crashing too hard, overrunning the long rebound. Perhaps the guards, who become especially important on missed threes, weren’t active enough. Or perhaps Georgetown plans its rebounding on the assumption that the team is going to make a much higher percentage of threes than the awful 3 of 20 it managed against Pittsburgh.
Regardless, in the explanations of what went wrong in that game, the poor rebounding of missed three-point shots has to be added into the mix.
