Next Season
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
The things I loved the most about Beilein's teams were that they didn't foul and they didn't turn the ball over. His teams were that way at every stop in his career, and they won.
I don't know if generally there is a strong correlation between those two things and winning, but there sure was for his teams.
I don't know if generally there is a strong correlation between those two things and winning, but there sure was for his teams.
So 9 of the past 13 champions ranked top40 or better in OREB if I’m reading that right. Seems relevant.
Not really. I would think the national champs were probably good at a bunch of stuff. I mean, we are talking about the best team out of 350+. Shouldn't most of their stats be real good? And, it's not like the stats scream anything about OREB anyway because there is also a stretch in there from 2014-2019 where 4 of the 6 years, the champs finished 210, 224, 140, and 101 in OREB.
South Carolina St. had the 2nd most offensive rebounds per game in the country last year with 13.8 a game. They went 5-26. UMASS was 11th with 13 a game. They went 15-16. Rhode Island was the only other A-10 team in the top 50, finishing 49th with 11.7 OREB a game. They went 9-22.
Last edited:
Yes, three straight shot clock violations in the final three minutes of regulation and another in OT.
Definitely seems relevant. However, the 7th and 8th highest OREB% this year belonged to St. Peters and UMKC, who both had horrendous offenses and were deep Q4 teams. Having a high OREB% itself doesn't guarantee offensive success. Maybe there is some non-linear effect where great offensive rebounding doesn't make a bad offense good, but can make a good offense exceptional?
I think the fact that ~20% of national champs have sub 200 ranked offensive rebounding means it is not essential for winning though, there are other avenues for winning.
Last edited:
Additional fun table about rebounding and the NCAA tournament. This is a table of the at-large quality team with the worst OREB% and which round they lost in. At-large quality means 11 seed or better.
Some takeaways:
- Richmond was only the worst offensive rebounding team in one of their three NCAA appearances under Mooney.
- The worst offensive rebounding team has made the tournament as an 11 seed, and won a game.
- The worst offensive rebounding team usually loses in the first round, only made the sweet 16 once in the 13 seasons I checked.
| Year | Team | OR% rank | Elimination Round | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Penn State | 360 | 32 | 4th worst OREB team that season. |
| 2022 | Colorado State | 341 | 64 | |
| 2021 | Maryland | 330 | 32 | |
| 2019 | St. Johns | 338 | 64 | |
| 2018 | Creighton | 327 | 64 | |
| 2017 | Virginia Tech | 325 | 64 | |
| 2016 | Northern Iowa | 351 | 32 | Literally the worst OREB team in the country that season |
| 2015 | Dayton | 337 | 16 | |
| 2014 | Arizona State | 338 | 64 | |
| 2013 | Saint Louis | 291 | 32 | |
| 2012 | Virginia | 295 | 64 | |
| 2011 | Michigan | 323 | 32 | |
| 2010 | Richmond | 329 | 64 |
Some takeaways:
- Richmond was only the worst offensive rebounding team in one of their three NCAA appearances under Mooney.
- The worst offensive rebounding team has made the tournament as an 11 seed, and won a game.
- The worst offensive rebounding team usually loses in the first round, only made the sweet 16 once in the 13 seasons I checked.
Oh yeah, that's right. A couple of those were from blocked shots that we got back, but didn't have enough time to get a 2nd shot off. So, in a second of game time, there was a missed shot by us, blocked shot by them, an offensive rebound for us, and a turnover for us.
I’m neither inferring nor implying that OREB has to be exceptional to become a national champ, just seems relevant given the info.
Thanks for sharing it.
Less interested in the stats than the culture and mindset infused into the team. We did not go to the NCAA's in a long time. The driver of the bus was Gilly. We saw him trash talk the 40 YO virgin at the A10 tourney. He brought the eff you, I am going to win this no matter what it takes attitude. Watch St. Mary's and SDSU, and UCONN for that matter play - you are going to FEEL them, you are going to be tired of playing them at some point in the game b/c they are relentless at certain aspects of the game. That was a mindset that David Gonzalvez, and Kevin Smith, Butler and others brought to the table. I do think Mooney had that in lock step with Gonzo and Smith back then, the fire breathing, F-bombing, you didn't want to be in the locker room at half time down 6 at Fordham Mooney. More than combing through stats, that is the attitude missing. I know times are a changing and you have to be a players coach now (esp in portal era), but the top coaches know how to recruit and instill a winning culture, and expectations. Hopefully the infusion of King and Hunt brings a little of that. Boyden seems like he has it. Hopefully we can get back to it this year and expect to be good moving forward.
Yes. All of this. You can generally get stats to say anything you want. What I don't like about our rebounding philosophy is it is very passive. We deliberately aren't going after every ball, every possession. And to 23's point, watch Houston or UConn last year. Those teams were super physical, the bruised you mentally and physically on the court.
We play this "fluid" offense, we don't by design crash the boards particularly on the offensive end (which I think bleeds to the defensive end as well), we are rarely the team that is going to exert it's physical will. I think there is a long history that regardless of sport, that a team that is the aggressor on the court, is going to come out on top more times than the team that is be aggressed.
I hear you, but we have heard our players say Mooney let them have it at times. The good thing about a player's coach only sometimes getting on his guys and not always is when you always get on your guys, they can tune you out, but do it only every now and then, and it means something to them. But, I see your point, and I would much rather our players show more emotion than less.
KenPom has his 4 factors as: eFG%, TO%, OR%, and FTRate. We are usually quite strong in TO%, and I bet typically good at eFG%, less consistent in FTRate, and we habitually and systematically eschew OR%.
Given the data, I question that approach. Purely eyeball test, which I'm sure makes 2011 and VT's heads spin: we could send at least 2 guys for ORs to improve our efforts and still not give up too much in terms of transition defense. Like, take advantage of Bigelow's strength.
Given the data, I question that approach. Purely eyeball test, which I'm sure makes 2011 and VT's heads spin: we could send at least 2 guys for ORs to improve our efforts and still not give up too much in terms of transition defense. Like, take advantage of Bigelow's strength.
I enjoy reading the tea leaves (the stats), but I don’t think I know the best way to win basketball games. Stats are a measure of outcomes, they are not inputs that can be tuned to change a teams on court success.
The reason I like Roche starting is bc when a shooter comes off the bench, they other team is very aware of it and usually makes a point of keying on him. As a starter, he can fall in the rhythm of play a little more. I also like playing him with Quinn for kickout 3s bc we obviously will post Quinn up a bunch.
If healthy, I think Roche needs to start. Obviously, there will be competition, but I think we need his shooting abilities in our starting line-up. I think he also plays serviceable enough defense.
At 39% it’s a no brainer. I think the question is if there’s another guy who is north of 31.3% and if being something else (higher 3pt upside, ball handling, better d, etc).
I’ve not seen much to think that exists except for the super small sample size on Noyes.
Sman this kind nd of reinforces my point - when he came in for like 13m per game in A10 play it was easier for teams to keep tabs of him for a 3-4m stretch as a sub than it would gave been for 12-15m per half as a starter. As a starter he might be able to pick and choose shots and get more quality looks than in the role of bench gunner. Everyone knew he was coming in looking to shoot. I feel like as a starter it removes the pressure to take any shot that appears no matter its quality. I’d have him on same rotation as Quinn.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Roche was such a puzzling player to watch sometimes last season. That literal lightning fast shot looked so damn good when it was dropping in the bucket however!
I didn't notice anything too different in A-10 play as far as defenses or anything else. The 3 game A-10 stretch when he played a lot of minutes, he went a combined 7-19 from 3. He must have been a little banged up after that because he went from 36, 28, and 23 minutes those 3 games to 10, 10, 11, 11, and 3 (3-11 combined from 3) his final 5 games. Look at his minutes per game. When he played good minutes, especially in OOC play, he shot well. His minutes dropped in IC play, and he didn't shoot as well. If healthy, he needs to be on the floor. We didn't have enough other good volume 3 point shooters to not play him a lot last year, and I don't think we have enough this year either.
He played 23 minutes in Thomas' 1st game and hit 3 3s (and got 5 rebounds) and helped us beat St Louis. Then, only 10, 10, 11, 11, and 3 minutes to close the season. He had to have been banged up a little then.
I also think that by conference play, the book was out on him a little bit that you just crowd him because he isn't going to dribble at all. I think the biggest thing he had to work on this offseason was a countermove to the catch-and-shoot, because his effectiveness did really wane. I'm concerned that the injury has prevented him from really being able to make material improvements to his ball handling.
We saw him start to do this some last year, and it was effective. I remember him making some 15 foot type shots after dribbling once or twice. He made 14 2s in 36 mpg at The Citadel, and 13 in only 18 mpg here last year. I know that is not many, but it looked like he was clearly making an effort to shoot more 2s as the year went on. I agree he probably would have been really focused on that along with ball handling more and more in the off season. Hopefully, he gets fully healthy soon, if not already there. We need him.
Anyone know what this injury is that Roche has? I have yet to see it reported anywhere, just that he has some type of injury.
It was either a toenail transplant or leg hair restoration, according to what I just told myself.
I see Roche (Noyes & others too for that matter) shooting and scoring more this season. Last year Roche didn't have teammates who could regularly get him the ball on-time & in scoring position.
Much improved guard play, plus having additional outside threats on the floor with him (Noyes, King, and whomever else) should open it up some for Roche this season.
Much improved guard play, plus having additional outside threats on the floor with him (Noyes, King, and whomever else) should open it up some for Roche this season.
I just got a text from the athletic department, reminding me that TOMORROW is August 29th the last day to renew season tickets...
Cut them some slack, they were too busy putting together this excited tweet about how high our women's soccer team was picked in the A-10...
Last edited:
