Sunday's paper

[urmite]

Yes, I know this topic is beating a dead horse. And that most of us will believe a change when we see it. But...

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_3c1180db-8d7b-51c2-ab89-6486d4ad2ea4.html

"Under Chris Mooney, who became coach for the 2005-06 season, only once has UR completed a season ranked among Division I's top 300 in rebounding margin. That was 2010-11, when the Spiders ranked No. 255 (minus-2.1), advanced the Sweet 16, and finished 29-8."

 

[fan2011]

Yes, I know this topic is beating a dead horse. And that most of us will believe a change when we see it. But...

http://www.richmond.com/sports/article_3c1180db-8d7b-51c2-ab89-6486d4ad2ea4.html

"Under Chris Mooney, who became coach for the 2005-06 season, only once has UR completed a season ranked among Division I's top 300 in rebounding margin. That was 2010-11, when the Spiders ranked No. 255 (minus-2.1), advanced the Sweet 16, and finished 29-8."

Wins are more important than number of rebounds. There are hundreds of teams who have better rebounding margins but fewer wins than we have had since Mooney got here.

The team that was 1st in rebounding margin went 15-15 last season, the team that was 3rd went 12-20. While rebounding is a good thing and something we need to improve on there are many other aspects to basketball and being a good rebounding team doesn't guarantee success, just as being a poor rebounding team doesn't guarantee failure.

 

[WebSpinner]

actually, the same with every sport, can have a very good team but still have a poor stat here and there if you are doing nice things elsewhere.

 

[I-M-UR]

If we have bad shooting days, which we have had a few times, you must get offensive rebounds to have second chance points.

 

[MrTbone]

Totally agree with fan2011, which i often do. there is a perennial fervor over how poor we rebound, and it's very much disproportionate to our overall level of success. i do think there are times/games where we would be wise to alter our offensive rebounding strategy in particular, but i don't have a problem with our philosophy and i do think we will be improved this year not playing two guards under 6'. We should have fewer size mismatches which means less help rotation and more cases where we can box out in a more traditional fashion.

 

[TBSpyder]

I rarely agree with MrTbone, but here I do, I feel confident that we will be a better rebounding team, this year.

 

[MrTbone]

TBS, I didn't realize i was so confrontational.

We should be better this year, I'd love to see us keep it close, that would be a great step forward.

 

[urmite]

I looked at this article because it seemed to be the most current local media mention. I posted the excerpt because I was surprised that rebounding margin was consistently in the bottom 15%. (I would have guessed bottom 25%.) And that being so low all the time could be used as evidence that teams can be successful without it.

However...

I will take two contrary positions. I believe there is a correlation to winning and rebounding, that if our rebounding MARGIN improved and absolutely nothing else changed we would win more games.

I also believe that if a team gets every single offensive & defensive rebound it would be difficult to lose.

 

[urfan1]

I don't believe we have to be the best rebounding team to win, but to win consistently I don't think we can be one of the worst rebounding teams

 

[Ulla1]

Fan1, you are right. This year's edition of the Spiders has the size and athleticism to rebound much better. The newcomers bring better shooting both from the field and the free throw line which will decrease the importance of rebounding and enhance chances of winning. OSC

 

[WebSpinner]

Ulla, we actually may know that the newcomers shot well in high school but we have no idea if that will translate to the next level. if all of this worked, we would not be complaining every season about out shooting woes. we could say we hope that the newcomers will be good shooters but that is about it.

 

[Ulla1]

Spinner, the difference this year is the new recruits were well-known as shooters in high school and averaged better than 20 points per game. The only recent guys who averaged 20 points in school or better were Kendall Anthony and Terry Allen. How did they turn out? OSC

 

[WebSpinner]

over the years have seen guys who averaged 30+ points per game in high school and not get 30 points here over 4 years. look at the video and who they are playing against, for the most part no other player on the court is going to play in college. we can hope that they will be good, really good but cannot say they will be good or shoot well until they come out on the court and do it. am excited about our new guys but until they show me here, not betting your ranch or my ranch on it quite yet.

 

[sdspider]

I'll take the rebounding numbers from 2011 if we get the same results

 

[keefusb]

I like to think that shooting and scoring success in HS translates to college, but a few recent Spiders players who had HS scoring averages just under 20 ppg never became scorers at the D1 level (Trey Davis, Greg Robbins, and Tim Singleton were all somewhere around 18 ppg scorers in HS, there might be a couple more examples). In fact, if I recall correctly, Singleton was a Rivals three-star recruit coming out of HS and we all know how that ended up.

That said, I am optimistic that at least one of the current freshman, and perhaps two of them, will pan out as important offensive contributors.

 

[WebSpinner]

really hope they all do but can't count on it until it is proven. we have upped our recruiting, on paper, now we need to see it in action.

 

[mcspider]

The main part about our rebounding that chafes at me the most is when we give up offensive rebounds to the other team. If we can limit the opponent's extra chances, then I think that sets us up to be successful given our other strengths. Someone will be able to recall the actual position, but our 2011 team ranked in the upper 200s in total rebounding IIRC. That team managed very well..

 

[MrTbone]

It is chafing but it's also a product of our defense. I think fewer size mismatches will go a long way this year.

 

[Not-A-Homer]

It is chafing but it's also a product of our defense. I think fewer size mismatches will go a long way this year.

I hope that you are right, but I have a lot of ???? about it in my mind.

I think the low rebounding numbers are simply the system trade-off for limiting fast breaks by the opponent. We must admit that the scheme is highly effective as designed - rarely do we see a fast break dunk by the opposing team.

If Wood is a better than average rebounder (as has been implied), it will be because of instinct, quickness & desire - because he is not massive in terms of size, strength, or bulk.

I suspect that consistently low rebounding numbers do not have much to do with the size of the guards.

 

[SouthJerseySpiderFan]

Feeling rebounding problem will never go away and CM probably doesn't see it as an issue. Other areas must make up for it but playing in the A10 his teams still produce plenty of wins. Like poster Philly I think mentioned awhile back it's a mentality team's must possess AKA Michigan St. Right or wrong UR's rebounding issues gives out the perception the team is "soft". Tired of hearing national TV announcers in-game noise about UR being lucky down only a couple points but getting destroyed on the glass.

Well here's some Spider rebounding numbers against major 5/6 teams over the years showing how the margin widens against better competition making it more difficult to win those contests.

In 2014-15 season had a -6 margin per game. Against majors -11.2.
Miami-Fla (-14 Loss), Ari St (-15 Win), NC St (-12 Loss) and WF (-2 Loss)

In 2013-14 rebounding margin was also at -6. Against majors -18.2
Against MInn (-15 Loss), NC (-8 Loss), WF (-27 Loss), and FLA (-23 Loss)

In 2012-13 total season rebounding margin was at -5.7. Against majors -11.3.
Minn (-17 Loss), WF (+2 Win), Kansas (-19 Loss)

In 2011-12 total season rebounding margin was at -5.6. Against majors -5.7.
Illinois (-8 Loss), Rutgers (-4 Win) WF (+4 Win), UCLA (-15 Loss)

In 2010-11 total season rebounding margin was -2.1 Against majors -3.7.
Purdue (+10 Win), Ari St (-2 Win), G Tech (-9 Loss), S Hall (-9 Win), WF (+4 Win), Vandy (-12 Win), Kansas (-8 Loss)

Statistical history tells us for the most part you win the rebounding battle and you also win the game. CM's Spider teams might be #1 in college b-ball at winning games in spite of their rebounding issues. I don't see UR's teams getting to next level consistantly without their rebounding numbers improving. Better squads for the most part can go down low to score points when their outside game isn't on.

Maybe CM has a card up his sleeve with the new wave of recruits arriving where a 3 guard offense shoots lights out from 3PT land and diminish his theory of having big men who must be able to shoot from distance. The guy is still a youngster in his coaching career. Go Spiders!

 

[spiderman]

when we make shots, like in 2010-11, our rebounding numbers look much better.