Defense&Rebounding vs Shooting Percentage

[BillyC80]

This is probably a question for the stat-heads. When a team excels in both defense and rebounding, how much does that compensate for a poor shooting percentage?

Is it as simple as measuring points scored per possession and points allowed per possession?

Keep in mind, additional shots due to offensive rebounds are still considered part of the same possession, i.e., that same trip down the floor.

 

[RUBigFrank]

Rebounding means more second shot opportunities on offense and more possessions on defense. Simply more looks.

 

[kcg88]

I'm not sure this totally gets at your question, but:

Rutgers' effective FG% (a stat that weights 2- and 3-pointers into one clean number) was 44.7%, 339th/351 in the country. UCLA was 1st at 59.8%, just for reference.

The team with the lowest eFG% to make the tournament was South Carolina at 47.3% (304th in the country). They were good at offensive rebounding (41st in the country) and getting to the line (52nd in the country) but where they really shined was defensively (5th-highest turnover percentage). They also had the 35th-best defense on 2P%... in other words teams didn't get many easy baskets. They also benefited from luck as teams shot just 30.6% from 3 against them (there are convincing studies that show that defensive 3P% is more luck that anything else).

They also, of course, had one excellent scorer in Sindarius Thornwell. Side note, if you want to look at the absolute-best-case scenario for Sanders, it's him. Thornwell shot 27% from 3 and 39% from 2 as a sophomore, comparable to Sanders' 27% and 40%. By the time he was a senior, Thornwell shot 39% from 3 and 47% from 2. (Caveat: Thornwell did shoot 37% from 3 as a freshman, so his sophomore year may been more more a slump than a lack of ability).

The next-lowest major-conference team to make the dance was Minnesota at 48.7% eFG (246th in the country). They made up for it by being elite defensively, thanks to Reggie Lynch inside blocking shots. They were average at rebounding on offense, but were very good at not turning it over and wasting possessions that way.

So where does that leave Rutgers? Well, the shooting HAS to improve. Even putting Thornwell or Lynch on last year's Rutgers team doesn't get them to the tournament. I don't think any amount of defense or rebounding can cancel out just how bad we are at shooting (small sample size, but our eFG% is even lower this year).

 

[BillyC80]

kcg88, good to know. Let's be South Carolina!

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

This is probably a question for the stat-heads. When a team excels in both defense and rebounding, how much does that compensate for a poor shooting percentage?

Is it as simple as measuring points scored per possession and points allowed per possession?

Keep in mind, additional shots due to offensive rebounds are still considered part of the same possession, i.e., that same trip down the floor.

Short answer is yes to question 2. points per possession is the best way of explaining offense and defensive performance. You can take another step by adjusting the raw number based on the opponent.

The 4 main components are
1. effective FG% (3s count as 1.5)
2. rebounding on the end we are talking about
3. turnover %
4. FT rate

REBOUNDING---whenever we talk rebounding I always like to split the discussion between offensive and defensive rebounding. Offensive rebounding can be evaluated by OREB/(OREB+opponents defensive rebounds). This tells us what % of our own misses we are rebounding.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

What kenpom.com says about us through a huge sample size of 3 (no CUNY game)

Adjusted offensive efficiency of 1.001 points per possession 226th best
Adjusted defensive efficiency of .967 54th best
offensive effective FG % 42.1% 316th :cry:
defensive effective FG% 41.0% 24th
offensive turnover % 13.5% 18th
defensive turnover % 24.6TH 32nd
OREB % 35.1% 70th
DREB% 84.4% 4th :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
offensive FTA/FGA 33.7 200th
defensive FTA/FGA 14.9 4th..coach made reference to this

Other nuggets
345th in strength of schedule
64th in average height 77.7 inches
217th in experience 1.59 years (0 for frosh, 1 for soph....3 senior)
31.5% bench minutes 159th
opponent FT% 50% :scream:, somehow that is 4th and not #1, our 60.6% not looking bad :)

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

As kcg says effective FG% is probably the stat that is the biggest barometer for Rutgers success, or lack thereof.

So far. This year and career
Eugene 51.7, 35.0
Corey 34.5, 40.6, 47.8
Mike 38.9, 45.6, 45.1, 37.9
D 41.9, 49.3, 51.7
Geo 46.5
Duke 37.5
issa 60.0, 45.1
Sa' 25.0 ,40.0
Souf 0
Shaq 0, 56.2, 47.7
Jake 0, 33.3, 27.8, 0

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Douby 55.6, 47.4, 53.3
Shields 46.1, 52.8, 51.4, 43.6
Farmer 46.7, 48.1, 36.5, 43.8
Inman 46.2, 45.7, 48.8
Rosario 45.8, 47.2.........53.4, 52.6 w Florida

Tacko Fall 100.0, 71.5, 75.0

 

[BillyC80]

GRF and kcg, good stuff.

My point of all this is to downplay our weak shooting percentage, and focus instead on SCORING and preventing our opposition from scoring.

 

[bac2therac]

you have to take into consideration the 4 teams that RU has played and they are all dreadful so when probably 14 of RU's conference games are going to be against top 80 schools that changes everything. The intensity of defense and pace of game will be much different than what RU is getting used to

 

[higgins3]

Most likely, the team will not shoot as bad as they did versus Choppin State. Heck, there might even be two nights where they can actually show a good shooting performance.

I am expecting the team to shoot something like .278 from three this year.

 

[BillyC80]

Higgins, shooting .28 from 3 is like shooting .42 from 2. I'll take it, mainly because I believe that percentage is enough to keep defenses honest so they don't pack the lanes inside. We have to spread them out so guys like Corey and Geo can do their thing.