stupid rebounding question...

[bjornolf]

I know that I don't know a lot about basketball, but I don't understand why everyone keeps saying what a lousy rebounding team we are. Every announcer, commentator, and analyst talks about how small we are and how we can't rebound. I was looking at the stats over on GoDuke.com, and for the season, we are +31 in rebounding over 21 games (892-861), and in ACC play, we are -10 rebounding over 9 games (320-330), though that includes a -9 deficit to UNC and a -16 deficit to Clemson, so we were +15 outside of those two games. So, I guess my question is, are we THAT bad at rebounding, or do people just assume we are because of our lack of size and rebounding deficits early in games? Before the Carolina game, Skip Bayless was arguing on 1st and 10 with some guy about the game, and the other guy was saying how Duke just didn't have the size to hang with Carolina, or most of our opponents for that matter, and he didn't understand how we kept winning. But he's not the only one. It seems to be the popular equine cadaver to beat for "experts" discussing Duke this season. To have those kinds of rebounding numbers DESPITE said lack of size would indicate to me that we are a pretty GOOD rebounding team.

[AtlBluRew]

Without checking the stats myself, I would suggest that you look at our offensive rebound numbers, rather than total rebounds. I think it's the offensive rebounds that the announcers are referring to. Our offensive rebounding numbers should be a little low due to two factors: size and, more importantly, the style of offense that we run. Size is self-explanatory. With the style of offense that we run, with the players spread out, offensive rebounding becomes more difficult. I would also wager that our heavy reliance on 3-point shots, and the longer more unpredictable rebounds that result, make the offensive rebound numbers go down a bit.

[mpc]

I think in large part Duke has been able to combat its size disadvantage w/ a lot of hustle (yes I am capt. obvious) but they also may not have faced the greatest rebounding teams. Where they have faced some teams w/ stronger front courts there been extended periods where Duke could not buy a rebound, e.g the Pitt game, the beginning of UNC and most of the MD game. Also, Duke tends to take a lot of long shots which usually result in long rebounds, so that favors the hustle rebounders over the size rebounders as well.

Just my 2 cents

[Wander]

Duke's rebounding is kind of like UNC's defense - neither are awful on an absolute scale, but you'd expect more from a national title contender.

[pfrduke]

Actually, our offensive rebounding is slightly better than our defensive rebounding. In conference play we gather 35.7% of our misses and 63.4% of our opponents' misses. That's a very average rebounding team - which is what we are. There have been some games where we've really been hammered on the glass (Illinois, Clemson, UNC). But there have also been games (FSU, Miami, BC) where we've out-glassed the other team, so to speak.

[dukerev]

Part of rebounding is size and hops, and part of it is hustle. But another part is understanding where missed shots are going to go. We have a lot of guys who have an inate understanding of the game. You'd think that most Div I players would have it, but amazingly, there are a lot who don't understand the game. Duke intentionally brings in players who are not only good athletes (big, fast, tall, etc.), but also players who enjoy basketball, who spend off hours in the gym because they like it, and who watch basketball. Positioning makes a big difference in rebounding. Size isn't everything. Patrick Beverly, a 6'2" guard from Arkansas is averaging over 10 rebounds a game in SEC play (and there are 5 guys 6'10" and bigger on that team) - because he understands where the ball is going. That's why we can rebound even though our frontcourt is somewhat shorter than the competition.

[mus074]

Without checking the stats myself, I would suggest that you look at our offensive rebound numbers, rather than total rebounds. I think it's the offensive rebounds that the announcers are referring to. Our offensive rebounding numbers should be a little low due to two factors: size and, more importantly, the style of offense that we run. Size is self-explanatory. With the style of offense that we run, with the players spread out, offensive rebounding becomes more difficult. I would also wager that our heavy reliance on 3-point shots, and the longer more unpredictable rebounds that result, make the offensive rebound numbers go down a bit.

Conventional wisdom is that three-point shots produce less predictable, wider-caroming rebounds, therefore benefiting the offense as the defense's secondary job is to box out. Duke shoots 38.2% of its shot from beyond the arc, the 82nd highest %age in D-1 (of 341). (http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Duke&y=2008) That should help us.

Duke gets 34.0% of offensive boards (136th) and gives up 32.4% of defensive boards (145th). We are decidedly mediocre in rebounding, but not too bad given our relative height (197th by weighted height-minutes at C and PF), not to mention our tendency to pull our "big," Singler, out top or to the corner so frequently on offense.

There is another issue which affects offensive rebounding - how many we send to the boards. We look to play and defend the transition, which chooses to sacrifice some marginal rate of rebounding. Ken Pomeroy did a solid article a couple of weeks ago about the marginal benefit of crashing the offensive boards versus defensive efficiency. Generally, there is a give-and-take relationship that requires finding the right balance. Our overall defense is ranked 5th in the nation. I think our balance is just fine.

The pundits overestimate the importance of rebounding. Rebounds only matter for missed shots. Turnovers preclude the shot even being taken, and made shots obviate their need. Our turnover offense and defense are ranked 27th and 17th, respectively. Our overall shooting is ranked 7th in the nation, and our shooting defense is ranked 43rd. The better an opponent shoots, like BC today, the less out defensive rebounding factors in. But TOs today were the story - they had 21 to our 6. That's 15 more opportunities for us to make shots, and 15 fewer opportunities for them to attempt a shot which might have created a rebounding opportunity.

We rebound just fine. We're 21-1, with a sizable average margin of victory against the 8th hardest SOS. The pundits are just wrong.