Next Season
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
We don't concede the ball, and we still get some offensive rebounds. We, like plenty of other teams, just don't crash the boards like some teams do. The reason is you give us less transition buckets, including transition 3 pointers, with this style. Some teams play this style, others don't, and I am fine with either style, but you should play to your strengths, and I would assume, most, if not all, teams do just that.
The bottom line is I just don't think this is as dramatic as you and others think. You say we concede the ball, but last year we averaged 6.8 offensive boards a game. We gave up 8.7 a game. So, not even 2 offensive boards a game. Some of you act like it is 10 boards a game, but it only looks dramatic because 6.8 put us at 349th in the country, while 8.7 was at 84th. I don't think maybe one or two extra offensive rebounds a game is worth changing your style and giving up transition points. Some of you disagree, and that's fine.
Last edited:
One thing to look at is the commonality for the three years we did make the tournament. All three years, we had a smallish PG and a decent sized SG. So that could be a compelling case versus all of the reasons why two guards of whatever size didn’t work all the other seasons.
For the record, I’ve never been overly bothered by guard size but it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t have an impact on defense and rebounding.
Tough to say with this team because there are so many new pieces. I mentioned last year, I wanted to see more Roche. I think the system is fine. We just won 24 games with it in 2020 and 2022. To me, it's all about the PG, 3 point shooting, and defense. I think our system allows us to be really good if we do well with those 3 areas. So, as is often the case, it comes down to the players we have. Last year, our PG started out pretty good, but started struggling as the season went on, and we had no back up. I have said Mooney messed up there. We only shot 33% from 3, and never seemed to have the look of a good 3 point shooting team, so I think that hurt us throughout the year. Defensively, it was far from a great year, but we were okay there, had some real good games, and I think with just good, average, not even great, offense a few games, we likely win at least 3 or 4 more last year. We lost 5 games when we gave up 62 or less. We can't let that happen again.
There is an epidemic of malaria and leprosy in the state of Florida. No joke, make sure everyone going there are vaccinated!
Seems a little unfair to not include 2020 in this debate, when you talk about who our guards were when when we made the dance. I think we were pretty solid offensively and defensively with Jacob and Blake. Also, in 2011, 6'3 Brothers started, but only averaged 1.8 boards a game, and Ced, at 6'1, played over 16 minutes a game so, with KA playing over 36 mpg, we actually did have 2 small guards (Ced and KA) out there a lot that year as well. What makes you say it has an impact on defense and rebounding? I have watched every game, and just don't ever remember thinking we lost a game because of the size of our guards. It's all opinion, so I guess if you did, we will just have to disagree. Quickness matters a lot with defense, and rebounds for guards just don't seem that important as far as deciding games. And, very few guards rebound a lot anyway. Goose played nearly 30 minutes a game and averaged 3.1 a game, which was the most he averaged while here. I liked Goose and thought he was very good defensively, but I would always take a 6 foot or under Blake or ShawnDre type as a 2nd small guard over him.
Goose averaged 2.5 and 3.1 rebounds a game his final 2 years. ShawnDre 2.6 and 2.3, and Blake 2.2 and 2.3. As I keep saying, I just don't see how this is a dramatic difference.
Last edited:
If you're going to concede the rebounding battles, you better make a lot of threes, or at least shoot a very high percentage on whatever shots you are taking AND/OR not give up cheap threes when your opponent crashes the offensive boards. It just feels like generally, there's a much smaller margin for error with teams that can't or don't rebound effectively.
There were a ton of games in the waning years of the matchup defense where our smaller guards were methodically switched up to size mismatches. And these were not at the perimeter where it may not have substantially mattered, these were paint touches or going to the rim.
So again, I think it’s not real rational to suggest it didn’t matter. I watch the games too, saw it with my own eyes.
Wrt your point about 2020, sure, good year with smallish guards, don’t disagree. As mentioned, I was keeping it to the limited subset of years we actually made the tournament.
I hear you, but how much do we really concede the rebounding battle? Last year, we got 2.2 less rebounds per game than our opponents, 1.9 offensively and 0.3 defensively. It just seems like a lot of misleading talk on here about how awful our rebounding is and how it costs us all these games when the reality is we have not been that far off from our opponents recently. Our offensive rebounding margins were - 2.2, -2.5, -1.8, and -1.9 the past 4 seasons. So, yes, we might concede losing the battle by a couple rebounds, but I guess some of you think that is significant while I don't think it is even close to that. And, I think you better make a good amount of 3s and shoot a high percentage whether you rebound well or not.
8legs1dream
Team Manager
I told this on here years ago, but I think it has relevance here. Years ago I was told by an assistant Coach on a high major team, they had researched and at that point no team had won an NCAA tournament game and lost the "battle on the boards" by more than 6 (I took that as total). So I did about a 3 year analysis of our team and found it worked with us unless we shot 60% or better in the win. As I recall the formula was above 95% accurate.
My point you don't have to win the boards to win, but you cannot get killed, and you have to do other things well to make up the difference, think possessions. Steals, turnovers, to make up the difference, Although O boards are important D boards are also important.
My point you don't have to win the boards to win, but you cannot get killed, and you have to do other things well to make up the difference, think possessions. Steals, turnovers, to make up the difference, Although O boards are important D boards are also important.
^ this. that's the key. sometimes we're so good at other things that we can overcome size issues and rebounding deficiencies. but not often enough.
VT, I've been a proponent of the general system. I think Mooney was ahead of the curve on a lot of things. but end of the day we've danced once since KA and Harp graduated in 2011, and that took a special 4 day run after finishing 6th in conference. it may or may not be the size of our guards, or the lack of focus on rebounding, or needing a skilled big man instead of an athletic rim protector, or something else in any particular year. but what we're doing isn't working often enough.
VT, I've been a proponent of the general system. I think Mooney was ahead of the curve on a lot of things. but end of the day we've danced once since KA and Harp graduated in 2011, and that took a special 4 day run after finishing 6th in conference. it may or may not be the size of our guards, or the lack of focus on rebounding, or needing a skilled big man instead of an athletic rim protector, or something else in any particular year. but what we're doing isn't working often enough.
We did change to man to man 4 seasons ago, and have two 24 win seasons since.
good change. on the heels of two 20 loss seasons, it was overdue.
Okay, but you have to factor in that a lot of times when you lose the boards by 6+, it is because you shot poorly on the offensive end, regardless of your style. When you keep missing, that's more boards for the opponents. Some might say then crash the boards, but a couple offensive rebounds here and there would likely not change anything. Just because you decide to crash the boards does not mean you will get all these extra rebounds, and there is way more truth to getting hurt in transition with this strategy than some of you want to accept here.
I do get what you are saying about not wanting to lose the boards battle, but as I have said, I don't think it is as dramatic as some of you are saying. We don't go into games saying let's lose the boards by 6+ and shoot 60%. We win the boards by 6+ too some games, and that is even against teams who might crash the boards more than us. I don't think those teams went into the game thinking they would lose the boards by 6+ either.
I guess some of you might say, but we can't win a lot when we shoot poorly playing this way. Well, I would ask who does win a lot when they shoot poorly? We can disagree, but I'm not going to change everything I do from a rebounding perspective because I want to win more games when I shoot poorly. One extra win crashing the boards during a bad shooting night could lead to multiple losses when doing this when we shoot average other nights.
Looking at your last paragraph, I agree you don't want to get destroyed on the boards, and that is not part of the strategy. We only got outrebounded by 2 boards a game last year. And, it is certainly part of the strategy to do other things well to make up the difference. We get steals, we protect the ball, and we prevent easy, transition baskets.
Bottom line is we don't have to agree here. It is a strategy we use that other teams use as well. I happen to like it because I can't stand giving up easy baskets in transition, especially open 3s that can change momentum and turn a game around. But, no worries when others don't like our style. I can accept your thinking differently here. No different than some coaches playing man and some playing zone. Neither coach will be right or wrong.
Last edited:
does anyone have transition stats? do we really give up substantially less transition points than others?
looking at last years A10 games (so excluding OOC cupcakes):
we were outrebounded by 3.3 per game.
we had as many turnovers as our opponents.
we were out-assisted by 2.1 per game.
we had less steals than our opponents.
we had fewer blocked shots.
we shot worse.
the only stat I see an advantage was we made 3.5 more FTs per game.
No wonder we went 7-11 IC. Turnovers, assists, and steals are the ones we are used to winning. Hopefully, King helps get us back to what we are used to seeing there. And, also hope he shoots well and helps us shoot better than our opponents. Nelson averaged 2.0 assists and 1.8 turnovers last year. Yikes! I think had we had a true back up PG, Nelson would have been benched much sooner than he was. Again, this is on Mooney for giving Nelson the keys and not really having a back up plan if it didn't work. Dji wasn't the answer and wasn't any better at 1.2 assists per game and 1.3 turnovers pg, with only 7 total assists in his 7 starts. Just can't win with PG play like that.
I would say we definitely give up fewer transition points than our opponents. Just think back to our games and think how rare it was for an opponent to grab a rebound and score quickly.
Last edited:
8legs1dream
Team Manager
100% of the blame on your most hated guys Nelson and Dji
0% of the blame on you-know-who
always
this isn't transition baskets, but sorting by "% of initial FGA in Transition" seems to say we don't get back all that well.
we ranked 275th last year.
Hoop-Math -- college basketball play-by-play statistics
hoop-math.com
Watching the games, though, you know what you see, right? Whatever that is, it sounds like stats overload to me. Those stats seem awfully close together, like there is little difference between top 100 or below 200. And, I don't like using steals because you will give up a lot of transition points after your opponent gets steals.
We do rank 128th in eFG% on those transition shots, so while it seems like teams are trying to push us with quick shots, we at least do a decent (not great) job of defending them.
I really have no idea how much our "get back" strategy helps or hurts compared to more aggressive offensive rebounding though.
I really have no idea how much our "get back" strategy helps or hurts compared to more aggressive offensive rebounding though.
I don't know if we really have a "get back" strategy ... at least not substantially more than other teams. we get 7 offensive boards per game. we give up 9. and we're giving up more shots inside of 10 seconds than most teams.
sorry VT. I watch all the Spider games but not enough of the other 362 teams to know visually who gives up more early shot attempts. I'll trust the stats.
Right, and it's hard to say how much it helps or hurts. If it always helps a lot, all teams would do it. If it always hurts, no team would do it. But, we are not alone here, and plenty of other teams play like this. To say you would rather us play a different style is fine, and I get that if some of you don't like it, but I can't agree when you say it doesn't work and all that. It works plenty or no one would do it.
Cool, but not all shots in the first 10 seconds are run out, transition shots where you shoot because you are open and the other team did not get back. And, certainly, not all shots are the same. What about lay ups? And, open 3s? That is what I am concerned about stopping. There is some eye test involved, and I know what I see out there. If you disagree, no worries.
I think it's the best you can do with stats for transition defense.
not many team are taking bad shots in the 1st 10 seconds of offense. I think most of those are at the rim or an open look. but yes, some are off turnovers and not missed shots.
not many team are taking bad shots in the 1st 10 seconds of offense. I think most of those are at the rim or an open look. but yes, some are off turnovers and not missed shots.
Anyone have specifics on rebounds in our wins and losses? Keys for me are vs like minded teams, in or our of conference. If we are padding our rebounding stats by winning the VMI or other low major games by 20 each, but then losing 1 possession games by more than a few boards, it really could brle translating directly to losses. I do feel like there were a few games where we blew late leads via a combo of dumb fouls and giving up offensive boards where 1 stop would have basically iced a game. (Note: just looked and we conceded key off rebounds in last minute of regulation vs both COC and W&M, both of which were huge factors in the losses.Didn’t look to see if there were other instances but wanted to confirm my memory was correct)
The Comparison tab of the Game-by-Game stats is a good way to check the overall numbers at a glance:
richmondspiders.com
In general, there's unsurprisingly some correlation between rebounding margin and wins and losses, but interesting to see our biggest positive one was +17 in the loss to Syracuse. We were also –7 in the A-10 tourney game where we absolutely destroyed UMass.
Yes, we did run up the rebounding margin numbers in some of our blowout wins like Drake (+13) and FDU (+10), but we were also negative double digits in a number of blowout losses.
Some of the other notables included being –13 in that 2OT loss to GW, –7 in the 3-point loss to Wichita, and –10 in a 5-point loss to GMU.
2023-24 Men's Basketball Cumulative Statistics - University of Richmond Athletics
The official 2023-24 Men's Basketball cumulative statistics for the University of Richmond Spiders
richmondspiders.com
In general, there's unsurprisingly some correlation between rebounding margin and wins and losses, but interesting to see our biggest positive one was +17 in the loss to Syracuse. We were also –7 in the A-10 tourney game where we absolutely destroyed UMass.
Yes, we did run up the rebounding margin numbers in some of our blowout wins like Drake (+13) and FDU (+10), but we were also negative double digits in a number of blowout losses.
Some of the other notables included being –13 in that 2OT loss to GW, –7 in the 3-point loss to Wichita, and –10 in a 5-point loss to GMU.
Last edited:
I am no basketball expert, but I believe the winner is decided based on the number of points scored by each team, and I believe that rebound numbers don’t count towards these points.
Not sure what point you're making. Nobody has said otherwise.
Being +17 on the boards, including out rebounding your opponent on their own glass, typically leads to a lot more shots which means a better chance of winning.
Unfortunately we offset that by being –12 in the turnover department, which is unusual for us and meant we only ended up with three more shots than Syracuse had. Their better shooting was able to overcome that smaller remaining gap.
Overall a very weird game for us...dominating the boards and turning the ball over is not the Richmond way.
Being +17 on the boards, including out rebounding your opponent on their own glass, typically leads to a lot more shots which means a better chance of winning.
Unfortunately we offset that by being –12 in the turnover department, which is unusual for us and meant we only ended up with three more shots than Syracuse had. Their better shooting was able to overcome that smaller remaining gap.
Overall a very weird game for us...dominating the boards and turning the ball over is not the Richmond way.
I have video of our final “set” in regulation which consisted of us making 1 pass and then throwing the ball immediately to Syracuse. One of the real lowlights of the season. Was out of a timeout so someone actually designed that mess.
Tyler was also brutal at the FT line vs Syracuse. Even mediocre from him there and UR likely wins. Those were actual points squandered directly.
Tyler was also brutal at the FT line vs Syracuse. Even mediocre from him there and UR likely wins. Those were actual points squandered directly.
That’s what he does…who needs opposing fans with a fan like this 😐
Yep, basically gave up 21 possessions with the -12 in turnovers and 9 blocked shots. That's a great way to overcome a +17 rebounding advantage. Ends up as a net -4 in meaningful possessions, and we lost by 3.
I think rebounding is important, obviously if you never get a rebound it will be nearly impossible to win. You will have to essentially never miss a shot or the opponent would have to have a ton of turnovers. Improving rebounding will improve a team, all else being equal. However, good rebounding in and of itself does not guarantee a good defense, or good offense. I think other aspects of offense and defense are more important, mostly getting high % shots on offense and preventing high % shots on defense.
Statistically, there is essentially no correlation between rebounding and efficiency. The R2 for offensive rebounding and offensive efficiency is 0.04, for defense it is 0.06. That means if you pick a team at random and look at their rebounding numbers it will not really tell you if the team has a good offense or defense. A team with great rebounding numbers is only very, very slightly more likely to have a good defense than a bad defense. Another way to put it is that it isn't very hard to be a great defensive rebounding team but have a bad defense, and it is easy to have a bad defensive rebounding team but a good defense.
Effective field goal % is a much better predictor of overall efficiency, r2 being 0.30 on offense and 0.29 on defense. This means it is likely that a team with a better offensive or defensive eFG% has an overall better offense or defense.
Statistically, there is essentially no correlation between rebounding and efficiency. The R2 for offensive rebounding and offensive efficiency is 0.04, for defense it is 0.06. That means if you pick a team at random and look at their rebounding numbers it will not really tell you if the team has a good offense or defense. A team with great rebounding numbers is only very, very slightly more likely to have a good defense than a bad defense. Another way to put it is that it isn't very hard to be a great defensive rebounding team but have a bad defense, and it is easy to have a bad defensive rebounding team but a good defense.
Effective field goal % is a much better predictor of overall efficiency, r2 being 0.30 on offense and 0.29 on defense. This means it is likely that a team with a better offensive or defensive eFG% has an overall better offense or defense.
Last edited:
I think it was -8 in turnovers (14 for us, 6 for them), but, no question they were costly. We did a lot of things right that game, including going 13-31 from 3, but some missed FTs and the turnovers really hurt.
Here is a table comparing the national rank of offensive and defensive rebounding % for the national champion and Richmond over the years.
Some takeaways:
- We are consistently really bad at offensive rebounding, by design.
- Our best defensive years were not our best defensive rebounding years.
- We had a better defensive rebounding percentage than the national champ in each of the past 3 years.
- National champions tend to be really good offensive rebounders, but defensive rebounding doesn't seem to matter?
- You can win a national championship with both below average offensive and defensive rebounding.
| Year | Champ OR% | Champ DR% | UR OR% | UR DR% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | 68 | 348 | 53 |
| 2022 | 40 | 196 | 327 | 143 |
| 2021 | 5 | 274 | 332 | 203 |
| 2020 | 321 | 104 | ||
| 2019 | 101 | 50 | 350 | 250 |
| 2018 | 140 | 100 | 315 | 161 |
| 2017 | 1 | 25 | 341 | 243 |
| 2016 | 224 | 147 | 331 | 268 |
| 2015 | 32 | 125 | 342 | 279 |
| 2014 | 210 | 248 | 319 | 298 |
| 2013 | 16 | 241 | 303 | 317 |
| 2012 | 20 | 114 | 276 | 305 |
| 2011 | 7 | 226 | 279 | 246 |
| 2010 | 6 | 122 | 329 | 260 |
Some takeaways:
- We are consistently really bad at offensive rebounding, by design.
- Our best defensive years were not our best defensive rebounding years.
- We had a better defensive rebounding percentage than the national champ in each of the past 3 years.
- National champions tend to be really good offensive rebounders, but defensive rebounding doesn't seem to matter?
- You can win a national championship with both below average offensive and defensive rebounding.
