Brandon Jennings - 2024 Offer

[spiderman]

again, I don't understand why we almost exclusively give up on offensive rebounding to stop transition. I don't think it's necessary. you can situationally offensive rebound with certain players from certian spots on the floor and still stop transition.

but no, I didn't cherry pick stats "to say anything I want them to". I gave you 6 of the top 10 offensive rebounding teams in the country this year who aren't winning. I didn't go further but I can look at the next 10 if you think that's a better sample size.

I'm just saying that offensive rebounding by itself isn't a special predicator to winning, and I don't see anything that says it's "statistically proven" to be. I'd bet there are a ton of stats that are better predicators. heck, probably defensive rebounding. maybe turnover rate ... assist to turnover ratio ... blocked shots per game ... 3 point shooting percentage ... 3 point shooting defense ...

being great at anything helps you win. being great at multiple things is probably the best predicator.

 

[whampas]

Too many variables to suggest what separates winners from losers other than the score and you can't score without the basketball. To me it's the most fundamental of all strategies. Do whatever you can to posses the ball.

 

[fan2011]

Too many variables to suggest what separates winners from losers other than the score and you can't score without the basketball. To me it's the most fundamental of all strategies. Do whatever you can to posses the ball.

I mean, theoretically the opponent can score for you on their own basket.

 

[whampas]

I mean, theoretically the opponent can score for you on their own basket.

Must be what Mooney hopes for as we sprint backwards.

 

[MrTbone]

again, I don't understand why we almost exclusively give up on offensive rebounding to stop transition. I don't think it's necessary. you can situationally offensive rebound with certain players from certian spots on the floor and still stop transition.

but no, I didn't cherry pick stats "to say anything I want them to". I gave you 6 of the top 10 offensive rebounding teams in the country this year who aren't winning. I didn't go further but I can look at the next 10 if you think that's a better sample size.

I'm just saying that offensive rebounding by itself isn't a special predicator to winning, and I don't see anything that says it's "statistically proven" to be. I'd bet there are a ton of stats that are better predicators. heck, probably defensive rebounding. maybe turnover rate ... assist to turnover ratio ... blocked shots per game ... 3 point shooting percentage ... 3 point shooting defense ...

being great at anything helps you win. being great at multiple things is probably the best predicator.

Well I think the original point was that OReb is "a key factor to success". To your point, it's not the only one, but you've distilled it down to that one lens.

Not sure if you actually looked at the link he provided, but these are the four factors:
1. Effective field goal percentage
2. Turnover rate
3. Offensive rebound rate
4. Free throw rate

None of these are independent and all of them are predicated on being better at these than your opponent, so it's not even a measure across the entire D1 landscape.

I suspect if you went back and recalibrated for those four and not just one, the teams that are effective at most if not all four items would surface towards the top of a consistent winners list. Speculation on my part but pretty reasonable.

I think the nuance is likely you can't be terrible at any one of those things and hope to be consistently good. Maybe you can get away with one and be ok, or bad at two and still catch lightning in a bottle.

Here's how we stacked up on these in our NCAA tournament seasons:

	eFG	TO Rate (presumably TO/game)	OReb%	FT Rate
2009-2010	113th	23rd	329th	297th
2010-2011	32nd	7th	279th	297th
2021-2022	54th	13th	330th	151st

So I don't know quite what to make of that, other than in the context of the four factors, we may have been pretty lucky to make the tournament in 2010, and slightly more likely in 2011 and 2022. The FT Rate in 2010 and 2011 isn't a mistake, we were the exact same both years.

It would be interesting to do this exercise for VCU to see how the data supports or doesn't support the thesis.

 

[plydogg]

again, I don't understand why we almost exclusively give up on offensive rebounding to stop transition. I don't think it's necessary. you can situationally offensive rebound with certain players from certian spots on the floor and still stop transition.

I’m with you here and have always thought this. We aren’t ever going to be Houston, but they just wear you down on the offensive glass and turn ever missed shot into a 50/50 ball. It’s exhausting knowing you won’t have one free rebound during the game. Not only are you worn down but it demoralizes you.

It’s like running Derrick Henry at the defense. The run game may start slow but over 4 quarters of the guy running you over eventually you’re going to give.

I’ll just add this season sucks. Just end it here and put the old dog down. Richmond men’s basketball is not fun to watch. Thank god we have the women making Richmond look good.

 

[spiderman]

Well I think the original point was that OReb is "a key factor to success". To your point, it's not the only one, but you've distilled it down to that one lens.

if kneepad said he felt offensive rebounding was "a key factor to success", I'd have kept my mouth shut. wish I did anyway!

I responded to the assertion that offensive rebounding "is statistically proven to be a key indicator of success". to me there's a difference. and I think if it was statistically proven to be a key indicator of success, then everyone including Mooney would focus on it.

 

[MrTbone]

if kneepad said he felt offensive rebounding was "a key factor to success", I'd have kept my mouth shut. wish I did anyway!

I responded to the assertion that offensive rebounding "is statistically proven to be a key indicator of success". to me there's a difference. and I think if it was statistically proven to be a key indicator of success, then everyone including Mooney would focus on it.

I’m not trying to pick an argument, and I don’t personally know that OReb is a key to success. Was mostly just saying I think your proof is flawed, you’ve sort of demonstrated only that you can be good at OReb and still not successful. The converse and perhaps better view would be who has shown consistent success and how do they perform at OReb.

Separately, I was just showing some data around the four factors and that we didnt meet all four in our best seasons. So you can look at that a couple ways; either the thesis is flawed or more likely, we prove the thesis broadly but demonstrate it takes exceptional performance in at least two factors to supersede it.