Perceived rebounding issue

[ER3]

Maybe you might want to check your math here again.
To me that looks like a difference of just 25 offensive rebounds (not 64) for the season- in 38 games. That's less than 2/3 of an offensive rebound per game difference. And the total rebounding differential was a whopping -1.7 per game. Not exactly being "mauled". This is just another example of the massive hyperbole that we constantly see from the bashers of this team.

So...is your contention that we were a good rebounding team this year? That overall we were pretty effective at limiting second chance opportunities for our opponents?? You obviously don't agree with my assessment (which is fine...), but I would certainly like to hear yours.
We got "mauled" on the offensive boards in the loss against Tulsa...in the loss at Missouri State...in the loss against Michigan State...in the loss at home against Drake...etc., etc. Did we get some offensive rebounds of our own throughout the year?...sure...but that really wasn't my point.
My point here was that I think we did a less than stellar job at keeping teams off of the offensive boards at critical junctures in critical games...and we paid the price for it with losses in those games...however, I do feel that this is something that should be "fixable" if the staff and players place a priority on it.
I don't think it is accurate or fair to dismiss my opinions and to label me as a "basher of this team" simply because I see what I perceive to be consistent weakness of the team and want measures to be taken to insure that improvements are made in that area throughout the year.

 

[Da Coach]

Of course, if you pick out the couple worst rebounding games of the entire year, you can say we were mauled by those teams.
I think you do enjoy bashing and critcizing this team, and you do it in nearly every post.

I don't think it's reasonable to say
we might not have gotten mauled on the offensive boards like we did this year

 

[ER3]

Of course, if you pick out the couple worst rebounding games of the entire year, you can say we were mauled by those teams.

I picked out four games that I clearly remembered our ineffectiveness on our defensive boards to be a big reason why I felt we lost the game...that was my point from my original post...that our inability to consistently keep teams from getting an inordinant number of offensive rebounds cost this year's team in many, many games. Do you find that to be an unsupportable opinion on my part? What is your opinion?

I think you do enjoy bashing and critcizing this team, and you do it in nearly every post.

That simply isn't true...and is "massive hyperbole" on your part. Am I critical of aspects of this team?...absolutely. This board needs some counterpoints to every kool-aid point of view, IMO...it should help to make for more interesting discussions about the various aspects of the program... But at the same time, there are performances by players, coaches, home crowds, etc...that I have been very impressed with and have commented on those as well from time to time...

 

[VeveJones007]

I picked out four games that I clearly remembered our ineffectiveness on our defensive boards to be a big reason why I felt we lost the game...that was my point from my original post...that our inability to consistently keep teams from getting an inordinant number of offensive rebounds cost this year's team in many, many games.

Based on the average, though, our rebounding must have been considerably better in some other games to offset the discrepancy in those games. I understand what you're saying, but I feel that Bradley had an average rebounding team last year, not a bad rebounding team. I think the stats back up that assessment.

Rebounding is just one of the areas in which the Braves need to improve. We need to be better defensively, we need to get an inside presence on offense, we need an inside presence on defense, we need to be more consistent...etc. I think everyone could agree that our rebounding could definitely use improvement, but I just think that some, if not many, posters feel that it's not a dire situation.

 

[TRIMAN]

I picked out four games that I clearly remembered our ineffectiveness on our defensive boards to be a big reason why I felt we lost the game...that was my point from my original post...that our inability to consistently keep teams from getting an inordinant number of offensive rebounds cost this year's team in many, many games. Do you find that to be an unsupportable opinion on my part? What is your opinion?


That simply isn't true...and is "massive hyperbole" on your part. Am I critical of aspects of this team?...absolutely. This board needs some counterpoints to every kool-aid point of view, IMO...it should help to make for more interesting discussions about the various aspects of the program... But at the same time, there are performances by players, coaches, home crowds, etc...that I have been very impressed with and have commented on those as well from time to time...

I apparently watched the same games as ER3 and different games than the rest of you. There were too many times this year where we couldn't buy a board. We out rebounded Maryland Eastern Shore by one, but I know that they are a final four contender every year. At least we got 6 on Florida Gulf Coast!

With some better teams: Mich St beat us by 19. Tulsa by 9 in the final game.

Butler was even. Outrebounded VCU by 4 (both in blow-outs)

Rebounding definitely cost us some games, and the bigs need to improve. Or Wilson needs to grow. Ask Memphis how ignoring a category works.

 

[shaunguth]

We were also an awful three-point shooting team last season. Just look at the Indiana State (14.8%), Butler (15.8%), Northern Iowa (20.7%), and Creighton (20.8%) games and you'll see why we lost games!

 

[Scouter]

We were also an awful three-point shooting team last season. Just look at the Indiana State (14.8%), Butler (15.8%), Northern Iowa (20.7%), and Creighton (20.8%) games and you'll see why we lost games!

Rebounding in those games:
at InSU: InSU 39, BU 32
at Butler: Butler 32, BU 32
vs. Norhtern Iowa: UNI 45, BU 27
vs. Creighton (MVCT): CU 39, BU 38

 

[shaunguth]

I chose to pick the worst three-point shooting games of the season to show that rebounding is not the only thing determining wins/losses. Three-point shooting was 42.7% in wins and 31.3% in losses.

 

[Scouter]

I chose to pick the worst three-point shooting games of the season to show that rebounding is not the only thing determining wins/losses. Three-point shooting was 42.7% in wins and 31.3% in losses.

I completely understand that. Not denying it at all. All I did was provide some facts.

The two games that frustrated me the most this season were the home losses to UNI and Wichita State. Yes, yes, Ruffin was out for those two games, but rebounding, IMO, played a much larger role on the outcome of them.

Against UNI, BU was out-rebounded 45-27.
Against Wichita, BU was out-rebounded 38-22.
If BU was anywhere CLOSE to winning the rebounding battle in those two games, it likely wins both. Instead of 9-9 in the league and the fifth seed, Bradley finishes 11-7 and tied for third place (as the fourth seed), 19-12 overall and possibly gets into the NIT instead of Creighton.

Another frustrating game that could've had a major impact on the season was Michigan State. Bradley got out-rebounded 48-29. Now, I don't expect Bradley to out-rebound Michigan State, but even if BU is just minus-10 in that category instead of minus-19, I like our chances a lot more. Win that game (coupled with the wins over WSU and UNI) and we're definitely in the NIT, have a 20-win regular season and are maybe on the extreme outside of the NCAA bubble.

So that's my frustration with rebounding. Win those two conference games and you have a respectable regular season. Win the third (which would be more of a toss-up if the rebounding margin were anywhere close) and you have the program's biggest regular season win in a decade, if not longer.

 

[ER3]

We were also an awful three-point shooting team last season. Just look at the Indiana State (14.8%), Butler (15.8%), Northern Iowa (20.7%), and Creighton (20.8%) games and you'll see why we lost games!

So is it your opinion that we were a good rebounding team overall? That we did a good job at keeping teams from getting offensive rebounds against us?
I don't feel like I went out of my way to find the only four games that we had trouble keeping teams from getting offensive rebounds against us...like those games were the exception to the rule. I just remembered back to the ones that stuck out in my mind as being the glaring examples of games we lost when it seemed that teams were getting offensive rebounds at will against us.
Did we struggle shooting the 3 in some games? sure...every team does, but I certainly don't see that as a consistent problem for this team...and it isn't the topic being discussed in this thread. I realize it is possible to find four games where we didn't shoot FTs well, didn't shoot 3s well, didn't shoot 12 foot jump shots well, etc. and call that "proof" that there is a problem in that area...but I don't feel like that is what I did in this case...

 

[basketball nut]

AT should be a good rebounder because of his height and length, rebounding is also about desire,hustle, and the understanding of knowing the direction of where a missed shot is headed. I believe we will be ok as far as rebounding next season.

real fan, you just hit it on the head. I have seen many fine rebounders that were not tall but just had a knack of knowing where the rebound was coming down at and got to the ball first. The one thing I have seen lacking from BU players is that knowlege of understanding where the ball is go to come down and then getting there. This is not something that can be easily taught. I remember seeing one player setting all kinds of records for rebounding and he really couldn't jump that great and wasn't that fast but had the knack for knowin where the ball was going to be and got to it first. He also had great timing and often out rebounded bigger guys because of that.
Your other 2 items-disire & hustle are the intangibles that are very hard to teach also. These are 2 areas that a player just has to have the drive to get to the ball first. Yound and Eldrige are 2 of the best in the Valley at doing this. They are both in that 6'3" range and often got put backs from just timing and hustle. A coach can teach and scream as musch as he wants but until the player himself wants that to happen, it won't happen.
How good will BU be in rebounding will be seen but I think that we seen some people start to get the idea this year that if you can't get to the rebound then keep your hands moving and you might be able to punch the ball to a teammate. This seems to be getting more popular in the college ranks then it used to be and is how we often got out rebounded and even lost a game to Drake at home. It seemed like that was the turning point for MS as he seemed to start doing that same thing a lot more which then made him a force on the boards for us. Hopefully some of the returning players learned from this.

 

[it's boogie time]

Here's the Valley only stats for rebounding

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Wichita State.....18 648 36.0 539 29.9 +6.1
2.Southern Illinois..18 585 32.5 533 29.6 +2.9
3.Illinois State...... 18 592 32.9 561 31.2 +1.7
4.Missouri State....18 625 34.7 598 33.2 +1.5
5.Drake............... 18 568 31.6 569 31.6 -0.1
6.Creighton.......... 18 595 33.1 605 33.6 -0.6
7.Northern Iowa.....18 549 30.5 574 31.9 -1.4
8.Bradley............. 18 574 31.9 616 34.2 -2.3
9.Evansville.......... 18 549 30.5 611 33.9 -3.4
10.Indiana State.....18 543 30.2 622 34.6 -4.4

It's interesting that the best rebounding team was one of the worst teams and the team that ran away with the conference was right in the middle.

Bradley needs to improve their rebounding if they want to make the top 3 next year. It's hard to run a fast break taking the ball out of the basket.

 

[ph]

So is it your opinion that we were a good rebounding team overall? That we did a good job at keeping teams from getting offensive rebounds against us?
I don't feel like I went out of my way to find the only four games that we had trouble keeping teams from getting offensive rebounds against us...like those games were the exception to the rule. I just remembered back to the ones that stuck out in my mind as being the glaring examples of games we lost when it seemed that teams were getting offensive rebounds at will against us.
Did we struggle shooting the 3 in some games? sure...every team does, but I certainly don't see that as a consistent problem for this team...and it isn't the topic being discussed in this thread. I realize it is possible to find four games where we didn't shoot FTs well, didn't shoot 3s well, didn't shoot 12 foot jump shots well, etc. and call that "proof" that there is a problem in that area...but I don't feel like that is what I did in this case...

I think our overall strategy is good enough to win more games than we did. We sacrifice some rebounding opportunities to get more steals on defense (play passing lanes) and more wide open shots (offensive spacing) on offense.
I think our greatest weakness last year was lack of depth at guard. Our system requires too much of 5 quality guards playing 4 spots, and then when we get an injury it goes downhill. More quality guards, we get fresher, higher energy play the entire game, and breakdowns like the Drake home game may not happen. Their point guard got 3 boards. Its not like we lost the game becasue their big guy was outrebounding our guards.

 

[shaunguth]

So is it your opinion that we were a good rebounding team overall? That we did a good job at keeping teams from getting offensive rebounds against us?

No.

I don't feel like I went out of my way to find the only four games that we had trouble keeping teams from getting offensive rebounds against us...like those games were the exception to the rule. I just remembered back to the ones that stuck out in my mind as being the glaring examples of games we lost when it seemed that teams were getting offensive rebounds at will against us.

Not just four games, but over the course of a 38-game season we shot 43% in the wins and 31% in the losses.

 

[SFP]

For argument sake let's throw the statistics out the door. When Mich St. came back it was because they started to dominate the paint and pick up a few more second chances in the 2nd 1/2. I remeber losing a few games because the intensity of the other teams hitting the offensive boards hard. I do not think we are the only ones with that perception I believe all the teams we played who had a bruiser percieved our lack of rebounding as a way to score on us. Most of us are just saying is that we need to add rebounding as strategic value like the 3 pt shot. Mich St. is known for their rebounding year in and year out and it seems to do them well.

 

[mportsch]

As with most stats, it is usually best to look at tempo-free versions to see the real picture. Pomeroy's site is the best place I'm aware of to see these stats.

Bradley was indeed very lacking at both offensive and defensive rebounding (243rd and 224th in the nation, respectively), but I'd argue that the offensive rebounding really wasn't an issue, since the offense is perimeter-oriented by design. The team shoots a lot of threes and hits them at a good rate, so you don't really need offensive rebounding to have a good offense. Indeed, under Jim Les, Bradley has consistently put good offensive teams on the floor.

The defensive glass is where Bradley is really hurting. In my view, this is a nasty side-effect of the style that Jim Les likes to play - he gives the vast majority of minutes to perimeter players that are almost nonexistent on the defensive glass. Four of the top five players in terms of minutes are terrible rebounders (Crouch, Maniscalco, Warren, and Ruffin). Wilson is a decent rebounder, and Salley is actually good, but those two guys can't do it alone.

There are big men on the bench who have shown the ability to rebound (Singh, Austin, and Collins), but Les doesn't play them very much for various other reasons (turnovers being a huge one, as all three guys have ridiculously high turnover rates for guys that don't handle the ball that much).

The bottom line is that Bradley will have to give up some of the perimeter-based offense if they hope to solve the defensive rebounding issues. Playing Wilson at the 3 along with two big men would certainly help in this area, but the catch-22 is that the offense would likely suffer with that lineup. It will be up to Les to find the balance that results in the most wins.

 

[houstontxbrave]

Maybe you might want to check your math here again.
To me that looks like a difference of just 25 offensive rebounds (not 64) for the season- in 38 games. That's less than 2/3 of an offensive rebound per game difference. And the total rebounding differential was a whopping -1.7 per game. Not exactly being "mauled". This is just another example of the massive hyperbole that we constantly see from the bashers of this team.

Sorry the number has been corrected.

 

[shaunguth]

The bottom line is that Bradley will have to give up some of the perimeter-based offense if they hope to solve the defensive rebounding issues. Playing Wilson at the 3 along with two big men would certainly help in this area, but the catch-22 is that the offense would likely suffer with that lineup. It will be up to Les to find the balance that results in the most wins.

Exactly!

 

[Out of Balance]

As with most stats, it is usually best to look at tempo-free versions to see the real picture. Pomeroy's site is the best place I'm aware of to see these stats.

Bradley was indeed very lacking at both offensive and defensive rebounding (243rd and 224th in the nation, respectively), but I'd argue that the offensive rebounding really wasn't an issue, since the offense is perimeter-oriented by design. The team shoots a lot of threes and hits them at a good rate, so you don't really need offensive rebounding to have a good offense. Indeed, under Jim Les, Bradley has consistently put good offensive teams on the floor.

The defensive glass is where Bradley is really hurting. In my view, this is a nasty side-effect of the style that Jim Les likes to play - he gives the vast majority of minutes to perimeter players that are almost nonexistent on the defensive glass. Four of the top five players in terms of minutes are terrible rebounders (Crouch, Maniscalco, Warren, and Ruffin). Wilson is a decent rebounder, and Salley is actually good, but those two guys can't do it alone.

There are big men on the bench who have shown the ability to rebound (Singh, Austin, and Collins), but Les doesn't play them very much for various other reasons (turnovers being a huge one, as all three guys have ridiculously high turnover rates for guys that don't handle the ball that much).

The bottom line is that Bradley will have to give up some of the perimeter-based offense if they hope to solve the defensive rebounding issues. Playing Wilson at the 3 along with two big men would certainly help in this area, but the catch-22 is that the offense would likely suffer with that lineup. It will be up to Les to find the balance that results in the most wins.

You have brought up alot of good points here. It's not most guards are bad rebounders its basicly because of a couple reasons. One good reason is they play are out of position to get them. Another reason is that most teams play with 2 to 3 guard system and two bigs. And I am not talking about 6'5" bigs. Look at the 4 players you named aboved and how meny times did we see them all on the floor at the same time (ALOT). I some what agree with you on the playing time the 3 bigs you mentioned. I thought SS should have played more. He had 13 points the first game of the season, a couple 9's and 7's and the next game after that JL wouldn't play him. He puts a body on people, sets bone shaking sreens, makes free throws, pushs people out of the paint, doesn't make meny turnovers and as Coach Stoll has said meny times is very smart and fundamental player. Wilson should be at the 3 next yr., and he could help with the rebounding from there to. (Come on JL just do it)!
I think the rebounding will even be more important next yr. for to reasons
1. The 3 point line being moved back a foot.
2. Also I don't think we will have the high % 3 point shooters next yr. as we have in the past.
Defence, Rebound and Score in that order!!!

 

[mportsch]

You're probably right that the defensive philosophy plays a part in the rebounding numbers of the BU guards. You'd think that a guy like Warren, at 6'5'' with decent athleticism, would be able to grab more rebounds than he does. It would solve part of the problem if you can just get the guards to help out on the glass a bit more - a good example of this is Osiris Eldridge, who at 6'3'' 190 is still able to grab a good share of defensive rebounds (on par with Theron Wilson).

I do agree that Sam Singh brings a lot of positives to the table, as does David Collins. If either (or both) of these guys could solve their turnover issues, they can be big parts of a very good Bradley team. I am hoping that both are able to take better care of the ball and play significant minutes next year.