Rebounding, Again

[Saxifrage]

From the early sight of Hibbert diving on the floor to tie up the ball, to Summers' 11 grabs, the game against Notre Dame looked as though the Hoyas were determined to show that they were past the rebounding problems that had ailed them in the Pittsburgh game. Even after the box score appeared, which reported Notre Dame’s outrebounding Georgetown 42 to 34, the impression remained.

Unfortunately, it is isn’t true. The Hoyas played smart and strong, and in many ways—little and big—controlled the Irish from the beginning. But rebounding wasn't one of them.

Notre Dame missed a lot more shots (41) than Georgetown did (25), but once you control for that by breaking it down to percentages of available rebounds, you get figures that are not as good as they could be. Notre Dame outrebounded the Hoyas on both ends of the court. The Irish got 75.76% of the available rebounds on defense, and 39.53% of the available rebounds on offense. Georgetown grabbed 60.47% on defense and 24.24% on offense.

One of the problems in the last game, against Pittsburgh, was rebounding missed 3-pointers. In that game, Georgetown got 29.41% of the missed threes on offense, and a miserable 45.45% of the rebounds of missed threes on defense. (This was all discussed in an earlier thread: hoyatalk2.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=14755)

At least on the defensive end, that problem was solved against Notre Dame, as the Hoyas got 13 rebounds on Notre Dame’s 18 missed threes (72.22%).

But the better defensive rebounding on missed threes was matched, in the Notre Dame game, by worsened rebounding of missed twos. The Irish missed 25 two-point shots and got the rebound 12 times—which means that the Hoyas got only 52% of the two-pointer rebounds on defense. (Notre Dame, by comparison, got 76.19%—16 of 21—of the two-pointer rebounds on their own defensive end.)

In other words, this is the reverse of the Pittsburgh game: Georgetown got 72% of Notre Dame’s missed threes, but only 52% of Notre Dame’s missed twos. The Irish got 17 extra chances on offensive rebounds, 12 of them after missing two-point shots.

That didn’t help them much, because they shot a terrible 32.8% for the game—due, I think, entirely to Georgetown’s superb defense. The solution to the bad rebounding of threes on the defensive end turned out to be simple, as the coaches had the forwards step out whenever Notre Dame put up a shot.

Here, for instance, is a telling stat: Of Summer’s 9 defensive rebounds, 6 were of missed three-pointers.

Is that what opened up the paint for Notre Dame to grab the rebounds on 48% of their missed two-pointers? I don’t know, but there seems to be something about the smothering way Georgetown plays defense that allows the other team to get offensive rebounds—either of threes, if the forwards step in, or of twos, if the forwards step out.

[lichoya68]

LOOK WE HUSTLED AND DID CRASH BOARDS SO I WAS HAPPY WITH EFFORT VERY HAPPY OG HOYAS ROYISMUCHVERYMUCHMEANER KEEP IT UP GO HOYAS BEAT CUSE NEED TO KEEP HUSLTING YUP GO HOYAS ;D ;D

[Saxifrage]

Jan 19, 2008 17:34:23 GMT -5 lichoya68 said:

LOOK WE HUSTLED AND DID CRASH BOARDS

Yes, the Hoyas hustled, and no, the Hoyas did not crash the boards. Georgetown got 60% of the rebounds on defense, and 24% on offense. Notre Dame got 76% of the available rebounds on defense, and 40% on offense.

Look, praise the Hoyas for what they did do, not for what they didn't. They played hard, they controlled the game, they shot well, and they played great defense. Add it up, and that equals victory. You don't have to add in stuff that isn't the case.

[hoyaboy1]

Are you up for breaking down the numbers through, say, when the lead hit 20?

[The Stig]

I think the impression that we dominated the boards (numbers be damned) came from Notre Dame's lack of second-chance points. Do you have that stat from this game and the Pitt game?

[SFHoya99]

Either hoyaboy's question or possibly by half. We probably still got outrebounded in the first half but did much worse in the second when everyone knew the game was over.

[GUJook97]

Rebounding wasnt a factor at all in this game, and I think we just need to start looking at what Roy is doing to prove the anomaly. Roy scored 21 points and had, what, 3-4 rebounds? The simple fact is that he just doesnt miss shots. We dont out rebound teams all that much because we dont freakin miss a lot of close in shots. We also kick the crap out of teams and let them pad stats at the end.

[GUJook97]

I am pretty sure we didnt get outrebounded in the first half.

[FLHoya]

1st half rebounding:

ND: 18 total, 6 offensive (21 missed FGs)

GU: 19 total, 4 offensive (14 missed FGs)

2nd half rebounding:

ND: 24 total, 11 offensive (20 missed FGs)

GU: 15 total, 4 offensive (11 missed FGs)

It's tough to determine when to best judge RBs by the "when the lead hit 20" standard, since it happened about 3 minutes into the second half (subtract 1 def and off RB for ND)

It hit 21 with 10:19 to go. After that point ND had 6 offensive rebounds.

[chep3]

Does anybody have numbers on how our rebounding was last year? People have put forth pretty compelling arguments about how our defensive system would result in fewer rebounds, but if we are doing significantly worse than last year, it would seem to be personnel then right?

[dchoyafan]

Jan 19, 2008 18:03:50 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

Rebounding wasnt a factor at all in this game, and I think we just need to start looking at what Roy is doing to prove the anomaly. Roy scored 21 points and had, what, 3-4 rebounds? The simple fact is that he just doesnt miss shots. We dont out rebound teams all that much because we dont freakin miss a lot of close in shots. We also kick the crap out of teams and let them pad stats at the end.

I agree with you about this game but, seriously, you seem way off base in the generalization in the "Roy just doesnt miss shots. We dont out rebound teams all that much because we dont freakin miss a lot of close in shots. We also kick the crap out of teams and let them pad stats at the end" statement.

Seriously, have you watched our losses as well as our blow-out wins? Did our offense "not missing shots" mean we had to get beat on the defensive end just as thoroughly and even more noticeably in our losses, even if you throw out our bad offensive rebounding numbers? Bad rebounding has REALLY hurt us, and you can't blame it on 2nd-stringers or a late game cushion! I'd say that some extra rebounding in the Memphis or Pitt games would really have helped: we had plenty of misses to go after!

I think we just need to make more of an effort to get our big guys into the paint when other players are shooting. There are so many times I notice a 3 pointer going up with all 5 players on the perimeter/no-one goes to the hoop just in case! That we hit so many of our shots masks the problem, but we would get more rebounds it we had someone inside...

We seemed to turn it around this game, and I hope that continues! Since JT3 is a beast of a coach who will probably figure it out and get his players to fix it, I bet it will.

[Highsmith]

While I am surprised at the rebound numbers....especially the second half, I have to say that the effort I saw today is at least a step in the right direction. Even if we don't dominate the boards at any point this year, I'll be much happier if we put forth the effort at tracking down not just rebounds, but loose balls like we did today. The second half was weaker in that area, but I am not going to quibble with a little less hustle with a 20+ point lead (to a point).

The defensive rebounding is more troublesome to me than offensive rebounding. Our low number of missed shots have no effect on our rebounding on the defensive end......not sure why this keeps getting brought up. I do notice that we really struggle to track down opponents misses off of 3 point shots.......this seems to be some factor in our problems, but it is by no means the only one. I am starting to see more of the aggression needed to be good rebounders from the guys who need it.....Ewing, Macklin and Summers especially. Roy will get his boards at times, but if he faces more athletic big men or if there are a lot of outside shots taken, he will have more trouble. That is where our forwards and guards need to really step it up. Syracuse has some rebounders, so we will see how that game goes on he boards. Hopefully today's trend continues to improve.

[GUJook97]

I disagree that "bad rebounding has really hurt us." In our losses, people are quick to blame rebounding, but that is only one of multiple factors. We havent dominated in rebounding in any game really, and it is has not hurt our 14-2, 4-1 Big East record. We are simply stronger in other defensive facets of the game. Our defensive FG % is astounding.

Of course we could be better, but threads like this deserve to be responded to. It's like having a thread titled, "Hoyas beat ND by 20, but miss half of their shots." Missing those shots are really going to hurt us down the road against better teams. You dont think it is a bit ridiculous to talk about how rebounding has really hurt us?

[SFHoya99]

Our defensive rebounding is pretty much the same as last year's.

Our offensive rebounding is much worse.

[The Stig]

Jan 19, 2008 19:53:13 GMT -5 Highsmith said:

While I am surprised at the rebound numbers....especially the second half, I have to say that the effort I saw today is at least a step in the right direction. Even if we don't dominate the boards at any point this year, I'll be much happier if we put forth the effort at tracking down not just rebounds, but loose balls like we did today. The second half was weaker in that area, but I am not going to quibble with a little less hustle with a 20+ point lead (to a point).

Good point - our guys were hustling like crazy at the start, even if they didn't track everything down. Having JWall go through the scorers' table to track down the opening tip is a good way to start the game from a hustle perspective.

[lichoya68]

LOOK IM THE FIRST ONE TO WORRY ABOUT REBOUNDING BUT TODAY THE NUMBERS WERENOT BOTHERSOME TO ME CAUSE WE DOMINATED ROY DOMINATED WE MADE THEM TAKE BAD SHOTS WE HUSTLED FOR THE BALL SO IM THE FIRST ONE TO WORRY BUT DIDNOT TODAY WE OUTMANNED AND HUSTLED THEM AND ROY DID MORE THAN OUTREBOUND THEM HE LOOKED THEM IN THE EYES ESPECIALY HARNGODY AND STARED THEM AND DESTROYED THEM THAT WAS PLENTY GOOD FOR ME KEEP IT UP AND BEAT CUSE DOMINATE DESTROY YUP THATS PREETTTY DANG GOOD GO HOYAS BEAT CUSE ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Saxifrage]

Jan 20, 2008 0:19:57 GMT -5 lichoya68 said:

LOOK IM THE FIRST ONE TO WORRY ABOUT REBOUNDING BUT TODAY THE NUMBERS WERENOT BOTHERSOME . . . WE OUTMANNED AND HUSTLED THEM

I think, if I understand you, that I agree.

Look, the revealing stat here is that Summers got 9 defensive rebounds, and 6 of them were of missed three-point shots. That's 2/3s of his rebounds, coming on about 1/3 of Notre Dame's missed shots.

Rebounding missed threes requires hustle and better positioning away from the basket--exactly what we were missing in the Pittsburgh game. Summers was great: He hustled, and he did against Notre Dame what he didn't do against Pittsburgh.

It ain't putting down Georgetown to say that our our rebounding on missed two-pointers wasn't as great as other parts of our game against Notre Dame.

In fact, I like GUJook97's comment above: "Rebounding wasn't a factor at all in this game." That's true and interesting. The coaching staff seems to have decided that a certain number of offensive rebounds granted the other team is a price worth paying for the low shooting percentage to which those teams are held in Georgetown's style of defense.

Better effort and training--a piece of the way JT3's teams improve over a season--will lower the number of these offensive rebounds surrendered. But I think, through the whole season, we're going to see defensive rebounding be weaker than the height of the team would appear to promise, even in games like this one where the Hoyas dominate.

And I'm not the one to say the coaching is wrong. If it works, it works: "Rebounding wasn't a factor."

[Filo]

Jan 20, 2008 16:01:26 GMT -5 Saxifrage said:

In fact, I like GUJook97's comment above: "Rebounding wasn't a factor at all in this game." That's true and interesting. The coaching staff seems to have decided that a certain number of offensive rebounds granted the other team is a price worth paying for the low shooting percentage to which those teams are held in Georgetown's style of defense.

Better effort and training--a piece of the way JT3's teams improve over a season--will lower the number of these offensive rebounds surrendered. But I think, through the whole season, we're going to see defensive rebounding be weaker than the height of the team would appear to promise, even in games like this one where the Hoyas dominate.

And I'm not the one to say the coaching is wrong. If it works, it works: "Rebounding wasn't a factor."

While watching the ND game it really hit me that the major reason why we are not rebounding all that well defensively as a team is because the guys are jumping out and contesting the shots, and they are not in position to box out and grab rebounds. I was really looking at this during the game and it was pretty clear. However, the defense was absolutely suffocating for stretches of the game -- whoever was doing the announcing said it several times and even said that it looked like there were 7 guys out there at once. So, if losing the rebounding battle is the price we pay for playing some suffocating D and contesting all those shots -- ND shot 35% from the field and 25% from three in the 1st half! -- then I'll take it.