Rebounding

[MuggsyB]

When UConn went on their big first half run, it was about getting out in transition and absolutely torching the nets from three.  IMO Marquette could have handled the rebounding issue better had they clamped down on defense a little better to start.

This is exactly what happened.  The game was lost because of our transition defense along with the rebounding.  So when
Kolek went to the basket like 5 times and got blocked, or bricked, it led to wide open transition opportunities.  They may not count as turns but that's essentially what they were.  This is the same team that scored 47pts at home vs Creighton.  We allowed them to get out in the open floor from poor shot selection and bad transition D.  Stop the ball.

[MU82]

"Stop the ball" sounds easy, but when you have one shooter standing in each corner, your big near the hoop and then your PG drives and gets rejected, you have 4 of your 5 players way behind and having to catch up.

[MarquetteMike1977]

I agree Rodman had a great nose for the ball,  but if he was a dumb rebounder he still would have averaged 9 boards a game.  The man could jump high and up and down like a pogo stick.

Agree with You both. Also recall Shaka bringing up Dennis Rodman on the radio after one of Marquette's games this year.  Saying something like We do not have Dennis Rodman on our team.

[Dr. Blackheart]

This rebounding argument will be around as long as Shaka is. It's length may rival the NM thread in length before it's over. 

Over his 13 year coaching career, his teams have averaged a 31% OR rate or 146. In Power 5 where he retired Havoc, it's 28% with an average rank of 184. Like the Badgers, the defense stresses getting back versus crashing the boards. The overall defense scheme's have rated tops, though.

Similarly, his teams have averaged 32% DR over 13 years, same as this MU team. For P5, it's 30%.  Overall, his teams are ranked 242 for all and 252 for P5.

Why? MU has a a defensive focus that pressures the ball to cause turnovers, deflections, and disrupt the offense. It employs various schemes within a possession (zone trap to man), various switching schemes to confuse the offense including a triple switch seen in the NBA. These are essential zones and zone teams are notoriously bad rebounding teams.

While we can get better on rebounding, look at the total defensive rating.

[tower912]

I agree with you Dr.B.  The same defense that creates the deflections, turnovers, and contested shots, does not lend itself to great rebounding.   I particularly like that you noticed the switching schemes.  I first mentioned them at Villanova.   It is almost as if he is using zone principles on the weak side to keep the defenders from picking themselves and to attempt to keep size down low.   
It did not work as well against UConn.  Give the Huskies props.

Yes, MU could be stronger with the ball.  That is probably not going to get fixed this year.    Ride the wave as long as we can and enjoy.

[Lennys Tap]

This rebounding argument will be around as long as Shaka is. It's length may rival the NM thread in length before it's over. 

Over his 13 year coaching career, his teams have averaged a 31% OR rate or 146. In Power 5 where he retired Havoc, it's 28% with an average rank of 184. Like the Badgers, the defense stresses getting back versus crashing the boards. The overall defense scheme's have rated tops, though.

Similarly, his teams have averaged 32% DR over 13 years, same as this MU team. For P5, it's 30%.  Overall, his teams are ranked 242 for all and 252 for P5.

Why? MU has a a defensive focus that pressures the ball to cause turnovers, deflections, and disrupt the offense. It employs various schemes within a possession (zone trap to man), various switching schemes to confuse the offense including a triple switch seen in the NBA. These are essential zones and zone teams are notoriously bad rebounding teams.

While we can get better on rebounding, look at the total defensive rating.

Excellent explanation - Thanks, Dr. B.

[PGsHeroes32]

This rebounding argument will be around as long as Shaka is. It's length may rival the NM thread in length before it's over. 

Over his 13 year coaching career, his teams have averaged a 31% OR rate or 146. In Power 5 where he retired Havoc, it's 28% with an average rank of 184. Like the Badgers, the defense stresses getting back versus crashing the boards. The overall defense scheme's have rated tops, though.

Similarly, his teams have averaged 32% DR over 13 years, same as this MU team. For P5, it's 30%.  Overall, his teams are ranked 242 for all and 252 for P5.

Why? MU has a a defensive focus that pressures the ball to cause turnovers, deflections, and disrupt the offense. It employs various schemes within a possession (zone trap to man), various switching schemes to confuse the offense including a triple switch seen in the NBA. These are essential zones and zone teams are notoriously bad rebounding teams.

While we can get better on rebounding, look at the total defensive rating.

Yeah with the D we run itll never be elite or even very good rebounding.

But a lot of the issue this year is just really, really poor and/or weak hands. We drop a lot of balls or have them taken away. That can be fixed/improved

[wadesworld]

Just won't win games when you're doubled up on the boards.

[wadesworld]

Nevermind. Not doubled up. 12-2 in rebounds.

[fjm]

Nevermind. Not doubled up. 12-2 in rebounds.

Something something something "turnovers vs rebounds"

[wadesworld]

Something something something "turnovers vs rebounds"

Yup. Losing the boards is one thing. Losing the boards by 20 is completely different.

[jfp61]

In our 5 worst defensive rebounding games we are 4-1.... but please lets just continue talking about rebounding when it is not even a top 5 problem right now.

[wadesworld]

In our 5 worst defensive rebounding games we are 4-1.... but please lets just continue talking about rebounding when it is not even a top 5 problem right now.

It isn't? We were outrebounded by 20 in a loss last game and are being outrebounded by 10 at half while being blitzed tonight. Not to mention the offensive rebound that won Providence the game 4 games ago.

[jfp61]

It isn't? We were outrebounded by 20 in a loss last game and are being outrebounded by 10 at half while being blitzed tonight. Not to mention the offensive rebound that won Providence the game 4 games ago.

5 worst defensive rebounding games. Illinois, Home against providence, Depaul, Home againist SHU, and @ Uconn.

Biggest problem right now is transition defense. I think in the last two games its north of 1.4 ppp. Honestly the offensive boards are worse than the defensive boards. Morsell is an offensive liability on the road. Plus we're finally getting unlucky with opponent three point shooting.

[wadesworld]

Rebounding is very, very clearly our biggest issue. Not even close with anything else.

[4everwarriors]

Wear'd ewe goe two dental skool, hey?

[jfp61]

Rebounding is very, very clearly our biggest issue. Not even close with anything else.

Season wide, sure.
At the moment, no.

Granted. We rebound a little worse than an average shaka smart team. So i doubt we'll ever be happy with a 70% defensive rebounding rate.

[nyg]

Season wide, sure.
At the moment, no.

Granted. We rebound a little worse than an average shaka smart team. So i doubt we'll ever be happy with a 70% defensive rebounding rate.

In last four games, including this one, Kur/Oso have a total of 11 rebounds.  So, at the moment, yes.

Lose this game and its 3 out of last 4 and rebounding has been major reason. 

[jfp61]

In last four games, including this one, Kur/Oso have a total of 11 rebounds.  So, at the moment, yes.

Lose this game and its 3 out of last 4 and rebounding has been major reason.

Yes because only centers can rebound.

Providence game, i would argue our poor three point shooting and offensive rebounding was worse than our defensive rebounding.

Villanova game, we won, played our second best game of the year, rebounded well.

Uconn game, the problem was defensive boards, but that's against the second best offensive rebounding team in the country.

Butler game, the offensive is worse than our rebounding so far.

[We R Final Four]

The concerning thing for me is seeing the opposing shot go up, and JLew doesn't even consider boxing out Nze. Nze crashes the board untouched. Same thing can be said for DM, GE and OMax at times throughout the season. For such a strong emphasis on defense, this surprises it now even more than when I saw it in December.

[jaygall31]

In our 5 worst defensive rebounding games we are 4-1.... but please lets just continue talking about rebounding when it is not even a top 5 problem right now.

This is the most absurd thing Ive read on here today.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

In our 5 worst defensive rebounding games we are 4-1.... but please lets just continue talking about rebounding when it is not even a top 5 problem right now.

I understand your point, but overcoming our worst defensive rebounding games doesn't mean that defensive rebounding isn't a problem.

Here are the OR% of our opponents in our losses:

St. B: .212
@Wis: .219
UCLA: .383
@XAV: .283
UCONN: .207
CREI: .333
@PROV: .368
@UCONN: .452
@BUT: .314

On the season, we are averaging .317 OR% allowed. So in 4 of our losses, we were above our season average and one of them we were right at our season average. And you'll notice that the last 4 losses were all at our average or higher, so it may be a growing problem.  That may not be significant, except our average ranks 309th in the country and 10th worst amongst high majors. The 9 below us are: Nebraska, Oklahoma St, Florida, Arizona St, St. John's, Oregon State, Texas A&M (hi Buzz), West Virginia, and Washington. We are the only ones in that group solidly in the tournament and Florida is the only one with any real chance.

Now I don't think we need to be great at offensive rebounding or even good at it to be a solid team. Shaka's teams have NEVER been good on the defensive glass at any of his stops. But we do have to be better than we have been this season. OR% is the third most important of the 4 factors. We do really well in the top 2 factors (eFG% and TO%) which covers for the rebounding on most nights. but we've got  to improve at least a little bit on the boards if we want to be a real contender.

[4everwarriors]

Rebounds no matta, aina?