shooting! and more shooting! it's the key to UR's success. defense won us some grind it out games last year but I think we have always wanted to play a tempo game and focus on offense first. Still have to get stops but getting buckets is UR objective #1, and having 5 out shooters will be a real weapon if Walz can do it.
Mike Walz - Player Eval
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
we've focused on shooting and where has that gotten us?
I bet if you compare A10 team defense ranking with the final A10 standings there's a strong correlation.
Thanks for the link.
Easily the most interesting statement by Mike was the comment that UR is once again reinventing itself and is focusing on offensive rebounding this summer. Seems like the old dog is trying some new tricks.
From the transcript:
“Offensive rebounding has been a focal point of the summer. So really trying to, in a way, deviate from what we've been used to seeing from Richmond and falling at the bottom of the league and offensive rebounding percentage, and blocks and stuff like that. We're really trying to change that perception of Richmond basketball into a more physical branded basketball.”
From 3 Bid League: One Intriguing Player (Plus Ten More), Sep 13, 2024
Walz sounds like a coach, very impressive. And offensive rebounding?!?! Be still my heart...
I know Coach Mooney has historically had a different philosophy with offensive rebounding throughout his tenure here. There might be metrics that show fast break points from opponents vs. our own second chance points, but just my gut feeling has always been that rebounding both on the offensive and defensive end should be a focal point of any team. It seems that we have tended to struggle more against the physical teams that emphasize rebounding: though we have beaten a lot of very good teams with our lack of rebounding. Still, it feels that this is an area we can improve on that will allow us to be more competitive in games, especially against those physical teams. Glad to see we are emphasizing this in practice!
Yep, not to get into a debate again, but I like that part as well. I think their can be a "happy medium". Sman has pointed out that really good rebounders - like Burton and Bigs seemed to get theirs despite any philosophies. I do think from an athletic standpoint - possibly both Walz and Beagle are a bit more athletic than predecessors in TJ, Quinn, and Golden even. So maybe 20-25 minutes full bore from both will be the plan.
I think some guys are natural rebounders. they have that quick twitch. the right mentality is important but that can be taught. Bigelow definitely rebounded beyond his area, while the ball had to come near Quinn.
Beagle probably has more of a rebounding pedigree than anyone we've brought in. not sure about Walz's twitch, but he's big and he's a bull. seems bouncier than Quinn or Golden.
very nice to see Mooney adjusting to what he has, vs asking his players to adjust to what we typically do.
Beagle probably has more of a rebounding pedigree than anyone we've brought in. not sure about Walz's twitch, but he's big and he's a bull. seems bouncier than Quinn or Golden.
very nice to see Mooney adjusting to what he has, vs asking his players to adjust to what we typically do.
I know I was against lesser competition, but am I reading that right?
Last season, Beagle was a better offensive rebounder the Derrick Williams and better defensive rebounder the Darius Garrett?
Yes, because neither of them got a single rebound last year in college.
statistically it's not close. you'd probably have to go back to Pete Woolfolk.
Last edited:
Mike is a tough player who has improved each year. I truly hope his confidence is reflected
on the court. My only concern is when he made a mistake last year , he would hang his head
and not look very confident. Physically you don’t see Mike getting pushed around in the block
very often.
on the court. My only concern is when he made a mistake last year , he would hang his head
and not look very confident. Physically you don’t see Mike getting pushed around in the block
very often.
Mike Walz please report to the coach's office immediately for your verbal reprimand and latrine duty
Mooney's been doing this schtick for 18 plus years now, running a system that abhors offense rebounding and in extension physical branded basketball. Obviously, I would be elated if what he is said in this interview turns out to be true. Time will tell.Maybe the combination of Walz and Beagle both being good offensive rebounders could have something to do with it, and we could see them out there together some. Or, if not out there together, each of them is still a better offensive rebounder than TJ, Grant, or Quinn, so this is probably an example of Mooney simply coaching to our strengths and not making a sudden, dramatic, ongoing change.
I am not trying to start this big debate here about offensive rebounding. I am fine either way. If a coach wants to crash the boards and get a few more offensive rebounds a game while giving up more transition lay ups and open 3s the other way, fine, or if a coach wants to not crash the boards and give up less lay ups and open 3s in transition, that's fine too.
If we never had success doing it Mooney's way, I could better understand the frustration on here with our style, but with our recent years of 24, 24, and 23 wins, all in the last 5 seasons (with a shortened 23 game season included), it seems like his style has been working out fine.
I am not trying to start this big debate here about offensive rebounding. I am fine either way. If a coach wants to crash the boards and get a few more offensive rebounds a game while giving up more transition lay ups and open 3s the other way, fine, or if a coach wants to not crash the boards and give up less lay ups and open 3s in transition, that's fine too.
If we never had success doing it Mooney's way, I could better understand the frustration on here with our style, but with our recent years of 24, 24, and 23 wins, all in the last 5 seasons (with a shortened 23 game season included), it seems like his style has been working out fine.
I'm all for offensive rebounding if available - extra possessions are important! Play to the strengths of your personnel and if Beagle and Walz (and Nescovic and our guards/wings) can get boards, let's get them.
My takeaway is that Walz mentioning his 3 point practice means they do want him shooting more from outside both in order to fit more 2 bigs lineups (I'm thinking 4m per game) and to open up passing lanes. If our traditional high-post 5 doesn't have the passing skills that Grant/Quinn had (based on consensus here - doesn't mean they don't or haven't developed it in the offseason) but is more of a 3 point threat, it brings a slightly different look but still keeps cutting/ passing lanes open. We don't want the drop coverage 5 defense we saw against Quinn to clog our offensive sets.
My takeaway is that Walz mentioning his 3 point practice means they do want him shooting more from outside both in order to fit more 2 bigs lineups (I'm thinking 4m per game) and to open up passing lanes. If our traditional high-post 5 doesn't have the passing skills that Grant/Quinn had (based on consensus here - doesn't mean they don't or haven't developed it in the offseason) but is more of a 3 point threat, it brings a slightly different look but still keeps cutting/ passing lanes open. We don't want the drop coverage 5 defense we saw against Quinn to clog our offensive sets.
we're going to set up with the 5 up top a lot as always. it would help so much for the 5 to be a shooter. hopefully both Walz and Beagle can hit that shot. it was the one thing missing from Quinn.
I don't get too excited about Walz talking about working on it. Quinn did every year too. but Walz did seem more willing to shoot it last year in fewer minutes.
I don't get too excited about Walz talking about working on it. Quinn did every year too. but Walz did seem more willing to shoot it last year in fewer minutes.
Mooney said Quinn was a little slow and they needed to conserve his energy by getting him back on defense early. He also mentioned that he expected more offensive rebounds, because Walz and Beagle are both very fast for big men. I expect a lot more offensive rebounds this year.
My criticism of the lack of rebounding (offensive rebounding in particular) has been that historically it has imposed a ceiling on the team most years. We play enough bad to mediocre teams every year that we can get 12 wins or so right off the bat, and we usually have enough good shooting games to get another 5-10 wins.
But typically, teams at our level or above are going to focus on rebounding. Since we don't, that means we have to shoot even better than normal and do it against a higher level of competition to win those games. Not a good recipe for giving yourself a chance.
Pounding the offensive glass against teams like that can help overcome shooting issues and can be the difference between a win or lose in a close game.
But typically, teams at our level or above are going to focus on rebounding. Since we don't, that means we have to shoot even better than normal and do it against a higher level of competition to win those games. Not a good recipe for giving yourself a chance.
Pounding the offensive glass against teams like that can help overcome shooting issues and can be the difference between a win or lose in a close game.
Last edited:
Couldn’t have said it better.
Exactly what I was alluding to in my post. CM has changed some philosophies recently so it is possible he will do so again. I do think that it will give the Spiders am edge, simply because offensive rebounding has not been a priority. Suddenly the scouting report has to change.
Grant was in the same category as Quinn. CM was strategic in the past years too. It just limited the path to success just like Eight Legger stated.
I guess I just don't understand the limited the path to success talk. Grant was on a team that went 24-7 one year and won the A-10 title and a 1st round dance game another year. And about EL's shooting against teams at our level or above talk, doesn't seem like it would be crazy to think you would need to shoot a little better than average to beat similar or better teams. If you aren't making your shots, a team as good as you or better will have plenty of games where they make theirs. I don't think a couple extra offensive rebounds a game, not all of which you will convert into points, will make up for bad shooting nights against similar or better teams.
I know our lack of offensive rebounding can be frustrating to many out there, but I really do get the strategy. And, its just not nearly as dramatic as many of you think. Usually, it is a difference of only a couple offensive rebounds a game. Sure, we may be near the bottom in OR, but teams in the middle are only 2 ORs a game better. 4 of the last 5 seasons, we have been outrebounded on the offensive end by 2.5 rebounds or less a game. Last year was the one time over this and we went 15-3 IC and won the A-10 regular season. I think Mooney feels it makes more sense to prevent as many easy buckets as possible on the other end instead of going harder at the boards and maybe getting 2 more offensive rebounds a game. I don't see a problem with his thinking, especially when we have had TJ, Grant, and Quinn at C about the last 10 years.
I know our lack of offensive rebounding can be frustrating to many out there, but I really do get the strategy. And, its just not nearly as dramatic as many of you think. Usually, it is a difference of only a couple offensive rebounds a game. Sure, we may be near the bottom in OR, but teams in the middle are only 2 ORs a game better. 4 of the last 5 seasons, we have been outrebounded on the offensive end by 2.5 rebounds or less a game. Last year was the one time over this and we went 15-3 IC and won the A-10 regular season. I think Mooney feels it makes more sense to prevent as many easy buckets as possible on the other end instead of going harder at the boards and maybe getting 2 more offensive rebounds a game. I don't see a problem with his thinking, especially when we have had TJ, Grant, and Quinn at C about the last 10 years.
Last edited:
I understand your point. However, I'm of the opinion that there are places where, despite our recent success, we can improve. I think o-rebounding is a place where we can improve, and therefore improve on the recent success that you have outlined. I'm not an overly analytics-inspired guy, but I do think eschewing-by design-this aspect of the game is to our detriment and I would love to see a change in philosophy there.
For sure, you will have to play a good game to beat a good team. But would you rather have one chance to make a shot or three? Offensive rebounding can give you extra chances, and often they are better scoring chances than the original shot was. Offensive rebounding also can help avoid those long runs by the other team that seem, at least anecdotally, to occur because we go one-and-done a few times in a row on offense. And good teams are more likely to have runs like that anyway, so let's do whatever we can to limit them. When we play good teams, it's usually going to be on the road, so give up a big run and the crowd gets into the game, it becomes very deflating.
Now I suppose Mooney would say that we are preventing a bunch of fast-break dunks, but I still don't understand why most teams in the country do not employ our philosophy AND ALSO do not give up a series of fast-break dunks nonstop on defense. So clearly there is a happy medium somewhere.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
the only reason we are forced to have this discussion is because some people here worship the hardwood that Mooney walks on and everything he has done or will ever do is flawless.
The issue I have with this strategy is that in my opinion it bleeds passivity into our play. We are just giving up on an aspect of the game that brings energy into the game. Offensive rebounding wears down other teams on defense, energize the crowd and your team when you get one and it is demoralizing to the other team when you give them up.
And again, I don't see this mutually exclusive decision that you either go after offensive rebounds or get torched in transition. Lots of teams can do both successfully, as should we.
I do get having a player like Quinn out there causes you to tweak things because he was not the most swift footed of players, but this strategy was employed long before Quinn was on the roster. Maybe Mooney sees something different with Walz/Beagle this year and if so I would welcome that. It would be a major change of his tactical approach to the game though.
our "strategy" of not going after offensive rebounds as much as other teams do is strictly related to personnel in my opinion. we recruit highly skilled big men. the ones who we get typically aren't great run/jump athletes. Quinn and Golden for example ... you can send them to the offensive glass all night but they'll only get 1 or 2. and they'll have a hard time getting back.
we haven't had a Beagle type of rebounding big man. it makes sense to ask him to do that more than Quinn or Golden.
we haven't had a Beagle type of rebounding big man. it makes sense to ask him to do that more than Quinn or Golden.
Good point on Quinn/Golden but those teams had other really good rebounders (Burton/Bigelow) on the court that we could have unleashed more to go after offensive rebounds.
This is the first I have heard Mooney ever articulate though that this strategy was done for personnel reasons. Mooney has repeatedly said it was to prevent transition points, that was the strategy and he employed it regardless of who was at the center position in the past. I'm just glad he has see needs for an adjustment, whatever he chalks it up to. Anytime you finish in the bottom 10 of statistically category in all of the college basketball, it should cause you to re-evaluate your strategy around said issue.
yes, because Quinn/Golden wouldn't always be able to get down the floor if they went to the offensive glass.
I assume he feels Beagle/Walz can get back faster.
teams love to hit the offensive glass against us, why are we not burning them with fast break points as a result?
I understand controlling pace - & there are a number of ways to do it - #1 avoiding live ball TO's which we do a good job. I'm not convinced getting everyone back on D has a very big impact on that though. It can help control pace but its down the list imo.
Personnel will always play a role in strategy but as 97 noted we are not regularly sending our most athletic guys to O rebound either. We've all seen a shot go up and everyone turns & runs the other direction. There's a time & place but to me there's no doubt we do it to an extreme and that's a coaching directive. I'd like to see a better balance.
I understand controlling pace - & there are a number of ways to do it - #1 avoiding live ball TO's which we do a good job. I'm not convinced getting everyone back on D has a very big impact on that though. It can help control pace but its down the list imo.
Personnel will always play a role in strategy but as 97 noted we are not regularly sending our most athletic guys to O rebound either. We've all seen a shot go up and everyone turns & runs the other direction. There's a time & place but to me there's no doubt we do it to an extreme and that's a coaching directive. I'd like to see a better balance.
I wouldn't worry too much about the bottom 10 of stats when the sample size is so small. We have usually averaged only about 2 offensive rebounds less than teams that are in the middle of the pack. And, the interesting thing is last year, when we were about 3.5 offensive rebounds from the middle, we went 15-3 IC and won the A-10 regular season. In 2020, we went 24-7 and finished 326 in offensive rebounding. In 2022, we finished 325, and won the A-10 title and beat Iowa in the dance. So it's just not accurate to say this strategy doesn't work and is not productive.
Unleash Bigs and Tyler more? Cmon, man. Geez, Tyler averaged over 7 boards a game and Bigs over 6 for us. At 6'7, Tyler finished 6th in the A-10 in rebounding 3 straight years, and Bigs, also at 6'7, finished 8th last year. Instead of mentioning how impressive that is, you say "we should have unleashed them more"?
It's seems rather obvious why Mooney said what he said. We have guys like Walz and Beagle instead of TJ, Grant, and Quinn. I don't think we will see a dramatic change other than those guys getting more boards for us. I doubt we see guards crashing and us giving up easier buckets at the other end at the result.
Last edited:
I feel like Tyne is a sneaky offensive rebounder. Haven't looked at data at all, but just a sense I got from watching last year. Could be I'm making this up in my head.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Not like there are any games in the past 20 years that we could have benefitted from an extra offensive possession or two right?? You seriously make me laugh man, keep toeing that company line. I sincerely hope you are compensated well for it.
Tyler and Bigs were very impressive rebounders on the defensive ends. I would have loved to see guys with an aptitude, desire, and athletic ability like Tyler or Bigelow being given the green light to go after offensive boards versus the main approach we took during out time of running back on defense after a missed shot.
The real question is how does Tony Bennett and UVA do with offensive rebounding
The O rebounding discussion comes down to a passive or aggressive approach to the game. Mooney favors the former.
Want the Spiders to be the aggressors. Take the game to the opponent. Don't unnecessarily retreat and just play defense. Stay in their face.
Don't intend to hammer Mooney as he has won 65% of games last 5 years, a pretty good record, just differ with his approach.
Want the Spiders to be the aggressors. Take the game to the opponent. Don't unnecessarily retreat and just play defense. Stay in their face.
Don't intend to hammer Mooney as he has won 65% of games last 5 years, a pretty good record, just differ with his approach.
The reason I am a proponent of a more focused effort on offensive rebounding is because it adds another dimension to our game that we haven't typically displayed before. We have certainly demonstrated success with our current strategy of preventing fast break points and have beaten a lot of quality teams as well. However, our lack of physicality and focus on offensive rebounding has been a part of our game that other teams have tried to exploit and use their own physicality to gain an advantage. Additionally, the better teams tend to have the whole package when it comes to athleticism, physicality, and shooting ability. If we want to get to that level, we have have to most improve in the physicality aspect. I don't necessarily think it is something we have to stress every game either. Just like I don't think players necessarily need to fit in this traditional 1-5 role, but rather it depends on match-up and complementing skillset. For instance, depending on the opponent, we may want to focus more on limiting fast break points if they have a lot of quick guards. Also, we may want to focus more on rebounding and play to our player's strengths/abilities depending on whose on the floor. Like if both Walz and Beagle (both of whom are good rebounders) are on at the same time, as opposed to 3 smaller guards. All in all though, I don't see a downside of trying to play more physical basketball where we are aggressive with getting rebounds. Rebounds are such an essential element of the game. It could give us 7-8 second chance points in a game or limit our opponent from having 7-8 second chance points in a game. That's a 15 point swing, which can make a huge difference.
I have posted this before, I was at a gathering where an Assistant from one of the top 5 national programs was present. So I took the chance and asked how they viewed the rebound issue. He said they had the same debate internally, so they had their staff do a study of all NCAA games to date. Their finding did not break out OR vs DR, but they found no team had won an NCAA game and lost he boards by more than 6 unless they shot 60% or better or won some other excessive stat, eg TO's, steals, etc.
I did the same analysis of our record for about 7 years and found it worked with us, Thus my conclusion, you don't have to win the boards to win, but you have to hold it close or your margin of victory gets small. You can increase that margin by dominating in another area,
I did the same analysis of our record for about 7 years and found it worked with us, Thus my conclusion, you don't have to win the boards to win, but you have to hold it close or your margin of victory gets small. You can increase that margin by dominating in another area,
I like offensive rebounds as mush as the next guy ... but I love defensive rebounds.
I'm excited to see a rebounder like Beagle work. I'm confident he'll continue to rebound here. maybe Walz will board too, but we don't know how much if at all they'll play together.
so the big unknown ... are Dusan and AP and whoever else we play at forward rebounders? we lose a really good one in Bigelow. and Dji chipped in nicely from the 3. gotta replace those boards.
I'm excited to see a rebounder like Beagle work. I'm confident he'll continue to rebound here. maybe Walz will board too, but we don't know how much if at all they'll play together.
so the big unknown ... are Dusan and AP and whoever else we play at forward rebounders? we lose a really good one in Bigelow. and Dji chipped in nicely from the 3. gotta replace those boards.
Not sure if this is as interesting to everyone else as it is to me, but here are some offensive rebounding stats over the past 16 years, along with some commentary.
ORB = offensive rebounding rate (number of offensive rebounds / number of misses). For teams this is just total offensive rebounds / total missed field goals. For players this only counts misses when they are on the court.
The table below shows the D1 Avg ORB each season, Richmond's ORB, the top player in terms of ORB for that season, and their individual ORB.
For reference, Beagle had a 9.7 ORB last year at Albany.
- Walz is statistically our best offensive rebounder since Darius Garret. Garret's 13.8 ORB in 2011 put him at roughly top 50 nationally.
- We haven't had a really great offensive rebounder since DWill and Garret back in the early 2010s.
- Our best offensive rebounder tends to perform at a high level over multiple seasons, it usually isn't a fluke when a player has a good season.
- TJ and Golden were not getting a lot of offensive rebound, probably because they were focusing more on running the offense. Somehow, Quinn was getting a decent amount of offensive rebounds in 23 though.
- The national ORB rate steadily declined from 2010 to 2020, but has been on the rise since. It is always interesting to see such clear national trends in the game.
- As we all know, Richmond performs well below the national average for ORB every year.
ORB = offensive rebounding rate (number of offensive rebounds / number of misses). For teams this is just total offensive rebounds / total missed field goals. For players this only counts misses when they are on the court.
The table below shows the D1 Avg ORB each season, Richmond's ORB, the top player in terms of ORB for that season, and their individual ORB.
| Season | D1 Avg ORB | Richmond ORB | Top Player | Player ORB |
| 24 | 29.0 | 17.3 | Walz | 9.6 |
| 23 | 28.5 | 21.0 | Quinn | 8.2 |
| 22 | 28.1 | 22.4 | Cayo | 6.9 |
| 21 | 28.0 | 20.3 | Burton | 5.8 |
| 20 | 28.0 | 22.6 | Burton | 7.7 |
| 19 | 28.4 | 19.1 | Cayo | 5.3 |
| 18 | 28.7 | 23.4 | Buckingham | 6.2 |
| 17 | 29.3 | 20.7 | Buckingham | 5.2 |
| 16 | 29.8 | 23.2 | Allen | 7.2 |
| 15 | 31.0 | 22.2 | Allen | 6.8 |
| 14 | 31.4 | 26.0 | Allen | 7.8 |
| 13 | 31.8 | 27.1 | DWill | 9.2 |
| 12 | 31.4 | 27.6 | DWill / Garret | 11.1 / 8.3 |
| 11 | 33.8 | 26.9 | Garret | 13.8 |
| 10 | 34.3 | 24.0 | FCM / Garret | 8.7 / 8.5 |
For reference, Beagle had a 9.7 ORB last year at Albany.
- Walz is statistically our best offensive rebounder since Darius Garret. Garret's 13.8 ORB in 2011 put him at roughly top 50 nationally.
- We haven't had a really great offensive rebounder since DWill and Garret back in the early 2010s.
- Our best offensive rebounder tends to perform at a high level over multiple seasons, it usually isn't a fluke when a player has a good season.
- TJ and Golden were not getting a lot of offensive rebound, probably because they were focusing more on running the offense. Somehow, Quinn was getting a decent amount of offensive rebounds in 23 though.
- The national ORB rate steadily declined from 2010 to 2020, but has been on the rise since. It is always interesting to see such clear national trends in the game.
- As we all know, Richmond performs well below the national average for ORB every year.
