The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-25-2019 02:01 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 01:09 PM)Miggy Wrote:  I think you’re looking at Temple’s rebounding deficit for the season in the wrong way.

For the season, Temple took 101 more field goal attempts, and shot them at a lower percentage than opponents did, and therefore only made 22 more baskets than opponents did.

As a result, Temple opponents garnered 77 more defensive rebounds than Temple did.

Clampett: the -77 deficit = -2.41 defensive rebounds per game.

That seems like normal rebounding to me.

Clampett: actually well below average (#196th in the nation).

That to be expected given how many more fga’s Temple took.

Clampett: Temple's FG% was also low (#215th in the nation).

A more valid argument is that Temple should not have had nine less offensive rebound for the season because Temple took and missed more shots.

Clampett: Temple's off. rebounding was (#196th in the nation).

I HOPE YOU'LL READ THE FOLLOWING, BECAUSE YOU WILL FIND THESE NUMBERS VERY INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE.

BUT NOT TO WORRY, BECAUSE I STILL THINK THAT WITH SOME WORK ON REBOUNDING BY THE COACHES, TEMPLE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BATTLE FOR 3RD PLACE THIS SEASON.

FOR YOUR SAKE AND MINE, I HOPE COACH MCKIE "LIGHTS A BONFIRE" UNDER HIS PLAYERS WITH RESPECT TO REBOUNDING.


I've done a careful study, including many computations of Temple's rebounding data from last season, as reported here:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch.../2019.html

I INVITE YOU TO CHECK SOME OF THESE COMPUTATIONS, USING A CALCULATOR, IF YOU'RE IN ANY DOUBT ABOUT THEM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temple's defensive rebounding deficit was extremely poor when one considers the fact that Temple's opponents were ranked an abysmal #306 in the nation.

In other words, with respect to defensive rebounding, Temple was out-rebounded by opponents with an average rank of 306th in the nation - - one of the least effective sets of rebounding opponents in the country, as a whole.

Temple's offensive rebounding ranking was also below average (#196 in the nation), and Temple was out-rebounded opponents with below-average (#188th ranked) offensive rebounding statistics. Their lack of offensive rebounding prowess was most problematic in games vs. better-rebounding teams, becoming a major problem in AAC games, with Temple was tied for 11th (last) place in offensive rebounds.


The rebounding data for the season as a whole is not representative of the way Temple's rebounding during conference play, due to playing a number of very poor rebounding teams during conference play.
Temple's opponents for the season as a whole (on average) were ranked an extremely low #283 among D1 teams.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch.../2019.html

Temple's poor rebounding didn't become an extreme problem until conference play, with Temple lagging their conference opponents by -61 (-3.38 offensive rebounds per game) and -42 (-2.33 defensive rebounds

In other words, Temple was out-rebounded by a huge margin (-5.7 rebounds per game) by one of the very least effective (rebounding) sets of opponents in the AAC conference .

This rebounding deficit was particularly abysmal when one considers that Temple's conference opponents as a whole were ranked near the bottom (opponents were ranked #11th in the conference out of 12 teams).

From that standpoint, it wouldn't come as a surprise that Temple was tied for 11th place, and thus one of the two least effective rebounding teams in the conference.

One can’t look at Temple’s poor rebounding national rank without looking first atvTemple’s actual stats, and one does, the reason for Temple’s poor rebounding is apparent.

Doing so shows that the reason was not the coaching nor the players trying to get more rebounds, but rather that Temple took more fga’s and missed more shots than opponents. Temple needed to reverse those stats in order to garner more rebounds.

Given those facts, of course, Temple was going have a low national ranking.

As teams that shot better than opponents are going to get more defensive rebounds.

So, season wise Temple’s rebounded on the defensive end as they would be expected to.

Until Temple shoots a higher field goal percentage than opponents one can’t expect Temple’s rebounding to improve. I’m confident Temple will shoot better than their opponents this season.

Unlike Temple’s season’s stats, Temple took fewer fga’s (27) than opponents, and reversed the deficit gap on fg percentage from .6 percent to Temple shooting 1.1 percent more than opponents did. Temple only had 6 less fg misses than opponents did.

When we look at the actual rebounding stats, opponents garnered 61 more offensive rebounds, and 42 more defensive rebounds than Temple did over 18 conference games, or a little more than 3 offense rebounds per game. So, if Temple has garnered 61 more rebounds, by some combination of offensive and defensive rebounds. Temple would not have had any rebounding deficit. So, the deficit was not a huge one.

It’s clear from these stats that Temple did not rebound in 18 conference games as well as they should have, and need to do rebound better.

It should be noted that Temple won conference games where opponents out rebounded Temple.

And as I have pointed out elsewhere, in 8 of Temple’s 10 losses for the season Temple had more offensive rebounds than opponents did, and in the two other losses (one conference, one non-conference) even though Temple was out rebounded badly on the offensive boards, Temple led in both games with five minutes to go in regulation.

So, as we see, Temple rebounded in non-conference games as one would expect, but not in conference games, still managed to win thirteen conference games, and of Temple’s five losses, onlybone can be attributed , in part, to lack of rebounding.

(10-25-2019 06:47 AM)Miggy Wrote:  [quote='Miggy' pid='16394432' dateline='1571940588']

One can’t look at Temple’s poor rebounding national rank without looking first at Temple’s (other) stats...

...Temple took more fga’s and missed more shots than opponents. Temple needed to reverse those stats in order to garner more rebounds.

Until Temple shoots a higher field goal percentage than opponents one can’t expect Temple’s rebounding to improve.

Temple rebounded in non-conference games as one would expect, but not in conference games, still managed to win thirteen conference games, and of Temple’s five losses, only one can be attributed , in part, to lack of rebounding.

It is a "non sequitur" (logically, "doesn't follow") to suggest that Temple's rebounding can't improve unless Temple's FG% improves first.

Rebounding and FG% are independent and statistically orthogonal variables. They may be either positively or negatively correlated with each other, depending on the personnel (players and coaching staff).

There have been hundreds of teams that rebounded well in a season, regardless of how many FGAs that they made or missed.

For example, [b]USF was ranked 6th in the nation in rebounding last season, despite being ranked only 252nd in the nation in FG%.[/b]

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/sch.../2019.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
It's possible that what you intended to claim was that, last season, Temple's rebounding was positively correlated with Temple's FG%, and it's completely possible that they were so correlated. However, the only way to compute the correlation would be to run a statistical program or do the computations using a calculator (would take an hour or so for by a capable statistician to enter all the data and compute the correlation, either way).

If it was the case, then it, might suggest that there was a common factor that caused both rebounding and FG% to be low.

The most likely common factor would be a variable, such as mediocre motivation, low energy or morale, tension among teammates, coaching issues, etc.

However, Temple won 23 games, due to excellence in other areas, such as ball control, 3 pt shooting, perimeter defense, steals, etc.

So the most likely cause seems most likely to be something to do with something more specific, such as too many poor rebounders and sketchy 2 pt shooting, and/or inadequate coaching with respect to rebounding and mediocre FG2%.

Another possibility is that there were multiple causes of the correlation between rebounding and shooting. This could be examined by conducting somewhat complicated multiple regression analyses

One has to see the forest not just the trees.

For me, the big picture shows that for all of Temple’s alleged underachievers rebounding, Temple won with them on the court, and Temple out rebounded opponents in 8 of the ten games they lost. So, these players are winners even though they don’t do everything well. Few players do. So, I’ll wins over rebounding deficits any day of the week.

Basic concept. For the season Temple took way more fga’s and missed way more more fga’s than opponents, and therefore opponents garnered more rebounds than Temple did. It follows that Temple’s national ranking in rebounds would be terrible. Fix that problem Temple’s rebounding deficit should go away.

Agree, that in conference games, Temple should have rebounded better. But, other factors played a bigger roles in determining the outcome of games.