Just how good was MSU’s rebounding this season?
Posted by kj on Sunday, April 12th, 2009
From a four factors perspective, rebounding was clearly the dominant strength of this year’s MSU basketball team. The team ranked 6th nationally in offensive rebounding percentage and 11th nationally in defensive rebounding percentage. In none of the other six offensive/defensive four factor components did MSU rank higher than 50th nationally.
It seems clear that, given the fact MSU ranked in the top 20 nationally in adjusted efficiency on both sides of the ball, the combined level of rebounding the team sustained over the course of the season must have been among the nation’s best. But just exactly how good was it?
Here’s a list of the top ten BCS conference teams in the country in rebounding percentage margin (offensive rebounding percentage minus defensive rebounding percentage; figures include all games):
| Michigan St. | 13.4 |
| Pittsburgh | 12.3 |
| Washington | 10.8 |
| Kansas St. | 10.2 |
| Connecticut | 9.8 |
| West Virginia | 9.2 |
| Kansas | 7.8 |
| North Carolina | 7.2 |
| Tennessee | 6.8 |
| Louisiana St. | 6.8 |
Only nine other major conference teams in the country had a margin equal to even half of MSU’s. (And MSU’s margin of 13.4% still ranks #1, even if you include all Division 1 teams in the rankings.)
One thing that jumped out at me in looking at the rebounding data is that offensive and defensive rebounding percentages are not as highly correlated as I might have thought:
- Of the top 25 teams in the country in defensive rebounding percentage, only 5 also ranked in the top 25 in offensive rebounding percentage.
- Looking at just the top 10 defensive rebounding teams , only one team ranked higher than 150th in the nation in offensive rebounding percentage (Albany).
- Looking at the top 10 offensive rebounding teams, only three teams ranked higher than 100th in the nation in offensive rebounding percentage (MSU, Pittsburgh, Washington).
- The statistical correlation between team offensive and rebounding percentages is a relatively modest 12.1%.
It would appear that, for the majority of college basketball teams, excellence on the boards is a skill that can only be maximized on one end of the court or the other. To some extent, that may be a function of strategy: teams with conservative approaches to the game secure defensive rebounds before they send players down court and eschew crashing the offensive glass so they can get back on defense. It may also have something to do with personnel: defensive rebounding is more about size and position, while offensive rebounding is more about quickness and aggressiveness.
As a visual aid, here’s where MSU falls in a scatterplot of rebounding percentages for all 344 Division 1 basketball teams this season:
Because of the emphasis Tom Izzo has placed on rebounding during his tenure as head coach, I’d come to assume that top-notch offensive and defensive rebounding generally went hand in hand. Last season, I was puzzled as to why MSU only ranked 104th nationally in defensive rebounding percentage when they ranked 8th in offensive rebounding percentage.
This season, the team put it all back together in terms of crashing the boards with abandon on both ends of the floor. And our appreciation for that statistical combination should be even more heightened than perhaps it has been.
Filed in stats analysis9 responses so far
9 Responses to “Just how good was MSU’s rebounding this season?”
Adamon 13 Apr 2009 at 3:11 am 1Awesome.
Rewertson 13 Apr 2009 at 8:41 am 2I am going to miss this blog. You cannot get this kind of material anywhere else. Kudos KJ, and thank you.
huberton 13 Apr 2009 at 8:51 am 3I suspect that Gray’s minutes declined over the course of the year and relative to last year in part because his rebounding was no longer needed, particularly on the defensive end, as the rest of the team really picked it up. Suton and Morgan became more consistent on the glass, and the wing players started to go after it as well. Green’s emergence then relegated Gray to the bench for good. Defensive rebounding (and the occasional slam) had been Gray’s only real contribution to the team.
Mark in Chicagoon 13 Apr 2009 at 9:07 am 4Very good analysis, KJ. My question for you is: how much will this team miss Goran Suton next year. He was a terrific position rebounder at both ends. Draymond Green seems to have a nose for the ball; same for Delvon Roe, but is there any way we can replace Suton?
Chrison 13 Apr 2009 at 9:18 am 5Green & Roe will see their rebounding numbers increase with Suton’s departure. The X factor is Summers. I think he has the potential to be the best rebounding guard since Charlie Bell if he gets more minutes.
kjon 13 Apr 2009 at 9:22 am 6There’s not much drop off from Suton to Roe/Green (OffReb%/DefReb%):
Suton: 12.8/23.9
Roe: 13.3/20.4
Green: 10.8./23.0
Questions: Can Roe/Green sustain those numbers with increased minutes? Can at least one of Herzog/Nix/Sherman provide solid rebounding off the bench? Does the rebounding suffer if we play Morgan at the 4 more? (Although Morgan’s rebounding numbers of 9.3/17.9 are still very good.)
Mark in DCon 13 Apr 2009 at 9:54 am 7Green is an amazing rebounder especially considering his height. Roe is excellent as well. I still think we will miss Suton’s bulk and height up front next year unless we can finally get Herzog to fill out a little or Nix or Sherman can play significant minutes. I’m not sure how much teams focussed on limiting Suton’s rebounding – it could be that he was taking some attention away from the other guys. With them being rebound option 1 and 1a we may see a drop off.
Right now we could bring Green in off the bench, but assuming he is the starter, who do we bring off the bench to maintain rebounding percentages? Swapping him in for Roe left us with two outstanding rebounders on the floor, but if he or Roe have to come out, who picks up the slack next year? As KJ noted, that is the big question. Roe should be more mobile, athletic, and stronger next year as he completes his recovery from knee surgery, so if anything you would figure his numbers would go up.
I hope we can get something out of Herzog, Sherman or Nix next year so we don’t have to go undersized up front with Roe, Green and Morgan. Roe is more athletic than Suton but he doesn’t have the height or bulk of Suton. If Herzog can finally fill out enough it would be fun to see what Izzo could do with a legit 7 footer in the paint. Whatever the case I worry about our defensive efficiency if we are starting Roe, Morgan and Green as a front line, simply due to lack of height.
DP99on 13 Apr 2009 at 12:01 pm 8Seems like Roe/Green should be able to step up in the rebounding AND passing for Suton. Both guys showed very good ability in both aspects. I haven’t seen what Sherman looks like, but based on a couple of pictures of Nix in the Freep, that looks like a beefy dude who should be another rebound eater, at least defensively (with commitment to conditioning).
In depressing news, I now think the Penn State loss last November was well deserved.
http://noise.typepad.com/hey_j......html#more
zacharyon 14 Apr 2009 at 11:56 am 9we seem to be forgetting that suton was our best 3 point shooter. roe or green will not step into those rolls. its so much better having a big man that can step out and hit long range shots, it totally changes the defense for other teams. suton was able to do that the last few years and that will be HUGELY missed.