lightning1
Well-Known Member
Sports Reference.
Iowa averages 1.12 points per possession as a team, this season. When you grab 9 rebounds (as TC did), you are providing 9 possessions for your team, worth 10.08 points. 9 X 1.12 = 10.08
Loved the fight. We COULD learn a lot from it.
- Thread starter NikeHawk21
- Start date
Iowa averages 1.12 points per possession as a team, this season. When you grab 9 rebounds (as TC did), you are providing 9 possessions for your team, worth 10.08 points. 9 X 1.12 = 10.08
lightning1
Well-Known Member
I didn't see they had the game stats up already. Admittedly, some of it doesn't make sense. How can Garza's 3pt efficiency rating be .308 when he went 3 for 4 from 3 pt range? I might have to stop citing that for a source until I can get someone to explain some of that to me.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Now your criteria is flawed haha. For considering yourself an astute basketball guy your application of rebounding is astoundingly stupid.
Are you saying if TC isn’t out there we automatically don’t get those 9 rebounds?
Rebounds by default are a very tricky statistic for several reasons and are especially hard to look at on a one game basis. Moss had 6 yesterday does that mean he’s a better rebounder than Joe W? The ball can bounce anywhere, 4 guys can have great box outs with the fifth player running into grab the board, they also are dependent on the amount of missed shots.
Cook is the best rebounder on this particular team and he no doubt has improved in that area, but still given his size and strength I think most would agree he’s actually an underwhelming rebounder.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
That’s not an efficiency rate it’s an attempt rate. .308 of his attempts were from 3.
That would be speculation and I wouldn't be able to guess that. I do know we did win without him.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
It's got nothing to do with whether or not he's out there. You have to apply value to stats. That's like saying you can't give Garza credit for scoring points because someone else would do it if he wasn't in the game.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
OK. I get why you'd track that. They need a more detailed key for how/why they track and apply the stats they use.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
I agree 9 rebounds yesterday was good, and should be valued. All told he ranked 8th in offensive rating and 6th in defensive rating yesterday.
It wasn’t his best day, and that’s okay. I still like TC and think he’s a huge piece of our team, and we will need him going forward. We just need him to play a little bit more within himself and knock down FTs.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Glossary right above each tab should provide information of each stat. I use it often.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
I need a more detailed key on how/why they are applying the stats they have. I don't track that 3pt stat because that comes out in the wash of points per possession and FG% combined. At least the way I was taught how to track it.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I can get behind the fact that Garza, Baer, and Moss had better games than Cook did. Yet to act like the loss is on Cook, when Jordan and Weiskamp did absolutely nothing is kind of harsh. Cook still did A LOT of very good things vs Minnesota. He scored, was 8-14 from the floor, had 9 rebounded, hit open players to the tune of 4 assist. He didn't shoot well from the FT's line and he turned it over 2 more times than normal. I mean people are acting like Cook is some sort of detriment to the team, it is flipping crazy.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
I can see that but I can't see how they weight some of those to total the Offensive and Defensive totals.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
You’re misinterpreting me for one of those guys. I’ve never said any of that. Cook had a rougher day yesterday but he’s still a huge asset to this team. We will need him going forward, he just needs to limit the turnovers and hit his FTs.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Moss had a horrible defensive breakdown late in the game when he missed from the top of the key and didn't notice Curry, the man guarding at the time, leaking back on the break. Bohannon tried futily to chase Curry but had no chance.
I don't know much but I do know that when you miss a shot and the other team rebounds a defensive player becomes an offensive player. And when you miss from the top of the key you better be aware of where that player is. It was as bad, or worse, than Wiescamp trying to crash the offensive board outside the free throw line earlier in the year.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Ok, fair enough, you weren't the one saying that.
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
For clarification of how the formula works, defensive rebounds are included in the DRtg and offensive rebounds are included in the ORtg.
Cook's ORtg for the game was bad because he had no offensive boards, 5 turnovers, and shot 2-7 from the line. Those numbers drug his ORtg down even though he had efficient shooting and assist numbers.
Cook's ORtg for the game was bad because he had no offensive boards, 5 turnovers, and shot 2-7 from the line. Those numbers drug his ORtg down even though he had efficient shooting and assist numbers.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
Is there a page source describing how they come to this rating? I'd like to read the details. Offensive rebounding is as much as symptom of what kind of team you are playing, what kind of shots they are missing, etc. I certainly wouldn't ding a player's offensive impact due to lack of offensive rebounding. Unless I'm keeping track of play by play action and see where another player gets a rebound from him due to his lack of effort. This is the problem with trying to assign stat value on something a player does not do. Unless you can specifically point to play by play instances. And maybe SR did just that, when they chose to ding his OR numbers. I don't know how/why they applied that.
Which is probably why I never liked coming up with a +/- that isn't based on a play by play basis. You can't possibly look at JW's impact on the game on the offensive end and compare it favorably to TC's impact. But that's what Sports Reference did here. 134 for JW and a 130 for TC. At some point, you have to take into account minutes played + actual points scored. This is where Sports Reference fails.
Last edited:
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
It's an advanced statistic, like others, that has its flaws and should not be taken as complete gospel on how good a player is.
The formula isn't the easiest to read but if you want to dig into it, be my guest.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html
lightning1
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I think I'll probably just consider it incomplete and go about doing my +/- as I was taught. On a per game, per play basis.
Knight78
Well-Known Member
To be fair, I only wish that TC would not dribble the ball up the floor. As a former player of average talent, my role was to 1) get the rebound, 2) get it to the guard at the wing as quickly as possible, and 3) fill the trail lane (the two wings on the fast break should already be filled by the players not actually getting the rebound). Every time it should be "Get it to a guard!". The reason is that the guard on the outside is not in the middle of traffic and if TC does actually bring the ball up he is in the middle of the floor and in traffic, greatly increasing his chances of a turnover. He handles the ball OK for a big, but he is definitely NOT a guard.
The reason coaches like Painter, Izzo, Self, Krzyzewski are successful is that 1) they recruit top flight talent and 2) they sell that talent on playing a role. Rarely to any of the top teams have a "do it all" kind of player. Their point guard isn't leading the team in rebounding; their power forward isn't leading the team in assists. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions. These coaches then get that talent playing a role to their strengths and demand nothing less than that player's devotion to that role. That's what Fran has to do to get the best out of his players.