Athleticism vs. Talent vs. Coaching

[SDakaGordie]

I have yet to watch any other D1 Power 5 college basketball game in the last few years and see a team that is overall less athletic (combination of speed, quickness, size, jumping ability) than NU. Audige is our most athletic guy, but most teams’ lineups are loaded with guys with his athleticism or better.

While we have some above average talent in Nance (now, having developed) and (uniquely, and also developed) Young, and the more than occasional raw outbursts of Audige and Buie, it’s hard to say we are distinctively and noticeably more talented overall than most all teams I see. Our shooting percentages certainly don’t reflect it.

Let’s keep recruiting (and, hopefully, lineup usage) out of the discussion.

It’s been a rougher few years of late, but a team with less athleticism and talent and less experience is doomed. This year should be better for us, but let’s not kid ourselves how hard it will be to make the tourney. I know at least Gato will disagree, but I really do think Collins (and his entourage) get a lot out of our guys, and he should not be viewed as a slouch of a coach.

 

[lunker35]

I have yet to watch any other D1 Power 5 college basketball game in the last few years and see a team that is overall less athletic (combination of speed, quickness, size, jumping ability) than NU. Audige is our most athletic guy, but most teams’ lineups are loaded with guys with his athleticism or better.

While we have some above average talent in Nance (now, having developed) and (uniquely, and also developed) Young, and the more than occasional raw outbursts of Audige and Buie, it’s hard to say we are distinctively and noticeably more talented overall than most all teams I see. Our shooting percentages certainly don’t reflect it.

Let’s keep recruiting (and, hopefully, lineup usage) out of the discussion.

It’s been a rougher few years of late, but a team with less athleticism and talent and less experience is doomed. This year should be better for us, but let’s not kid ourselves how hard it will be to make the tourney. I know at least Gato will disagree, but I really do think Collins (and his entourage) get a lot out of our guys, and he should not be viewed as a slouch of a coach.

I strongly disagree. I think we’re incredibly athletic as evidenced by some of the best dunks NU has ever seen today. Simmons is an incredible athlete. Nance is far more athletic than most players his size. I could go on and on but even Beran is a plus athlete who doesn’t seem to be able to consistently use it. The only guy who is not a great “athlete” is Young but he’s incredibly crafty with great pace.

 

[Max_Power]

Buie, Roper, Simmons, Berry and Audige are quick enough to play with anyone. But you right that at forward teams will have superior athletic depth. What has been missing from recruiting is that 6’6 to 6’7 athlete. Beran is a plus athlete and does a ton on the floor but Collins could use two more guys in the same mold. Barnhizer looks to be a better athlete than many thought in his few minutes a game. Also if Simmons gains 15 lbs of muscle watch out. Best pure jumper at NU in a long time.

 

[Catreporter]

DePaul has a first five of a lot of really good athletes. We'll see Saturday how we match up. Gotta shoot better than we did yesterday.

 

[GatoLouco]

Based on limited viewing and a bias that is is speed that hurts us the most as our offense relies mostly on the backcourt:
-Illinois - More athletic but not by much in the backcourt. Plummer, Curbelo or Frazier are fairly comparable.
-Indiana - A bit more athletic, mostly based on Xavier Johnson's speed and Jackson Davis inside
-Iowa - Less athletic than us
-Maryland - Same level
-Michigan - More, but frankly have not watched much
-Michigan State - More than us
-Minnesota - Less than us
-Nebraska - Same level
-Ohio State - More, not by much
-Penn State - Less, have not watched much
-Purdue - Definitely more
-Rutgers - Less athletic than us. Harper is not good based on athleticism. Mulcahy looks like NU 2005.
-Wisconsin - Same

Not going to go into other P6 teams as I have not watched nearly enough. But I follow Butler and they have not been more athletic than us for 3 years.

Though understandable we do not need to have any inferiority complex this year. No imposter syndrome needed.

 

[clarificationcat]

I strongly disagree. I think we’re incredibly athletic as evidenced by some of the best dunks NU has ever seen today. Simmons is an incredible athlete. Nance is far more athletic than most players his size. I could go on and on but even Beran is a plus athlete who doesn’t seem to be able to consistently use it. The only guy who is not a great “athlete” is Young but he’s incredibly crafty with great pace.

We are incredibly athletic compared to some prior NU teams but not the better teams that we compete against. Our below average athleticism is apparent in our inability to finish at the rim. You really have to shoot well and run your offense well when you don't have guys that can just beat their man off the dribble and finish at the rim or draw fouls. And fast breaks are an adventure, a lot of times ending up with the other team scoring after a block or a missed layup. Taking into account positions and comparing them against B1G athletes, I would rate Buie as a slightly below average athlete (below average strength and size, below average explosiveness and average quickness), Berry a slightly below average athlete (average size and strength, below average quickness and average explosiveness, Audige a slightly above-average athlete (average size and strength, slightly above average explosiveness and average quickness), Beran a slightly below average athlete (average size and strength and slightly below average explosiveness and quickness), and Nance an above-average athlete (average size and strength, average explosiveness and above average quickness). When Simmons gets stronger, he will definitely be an above-average athlete. And I am hoping that when Roper gets more confidence, his athleticism will start to show more.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

Buie, Roper, Simmons, Berry and Audige are quick enough to play with anyone. But you right that at forward teams will have superior athletic depth. What has been missing from recruiting is that 6’6 to 6’7 athlete. Beran is a plus athlete and does a ton on the floor but Collins could use two more guys in the same mold. Barnhizer looks to be a better athlete than many thought in his few minutes a game. Also if Simmons gains 15 lbs of muscle watch out. Best pure jumper at NU in a long time.

This is odd to me, because it seemed like, for a while, 2/3 of our team was guys like this.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

This is odd to me, because it seemed like, for a while, 2/3 of our team was guys like this.

Yeah. Simmons is listed at 6'6" so the comment struck me as odd too.
I would love to see Beran occasionally at the 3 with Young and Nance.
Go big and see if Beran can be effective at small forward.
Collins did play them together two years ago and the results weren't great, but that was two years ago. They played a grand total of zero seconds together last year.

 

[Kat burglar]

Based on limited viewing and a bias that is is speed that hurts us the most as our offense relies mostly on the backcourt:
-Illinois - More athletic but not by much in the backcourt. Plummer, Curbelo or Frazier are fairly comparable.
-Indiana - A bit more athletic, mostly based on Xavier Johnson's speed and Jackson Davis inside
-Iowa - Less athletic than us
-Maryland - Same level
-Michigan - More, but frankly have not watched much
-Michigan State - More than us
-Minnesota - Less than us
-Nebraska - Same level
-Ohio State - More, not by much
-Penn State - Less, have not watched much
-Purdue - Definitely more
-Rutgers - Less athletic than us. Harper is not good based on athleticism. Mulcahy looks like NU 2005.
-Wisconsin - Same

Not going to go into other P6 teams as I have not watched nearly enough. But I follow Butler and they have not been more athletic than us for 3 years.

Though understandable we do not need to have any inferiority complex this year. No imposter syndrome needed.

I wonder if Collins has changed his target recruit. He used to go after tall wings that could shoot well in high school. I'm thinking of Falzon, Rap, Kopp, Beran and probably others. Given their size they could easily shoot over defenders, but, unfortunately, at the college level, they needed more moves to get open. That did not pan out, even though they were highly ranked out of high school. The lack of speed on defense also hurt.

The last few years, the recruits have been medium sized guards/wings. Buie, Audige, Berry, Simmons, Roper and Barnhizer (Brumbaugh coming in). Whether the target changed or that is just who we were successful recruiting, I'm not sure.

It feels like we are going more toward a Loyola look instead of a Purdue look.

It does look like we continue to get more athletic than in the past which I think is a good thing.

 

[GatoLouco]

I wonder if Collins has changed his target recruit. He used to go after tall wings that could shoot well in high school. I'm thinking of Falzon, Rap, Kopp, Beran and probably others. Given their size they could easily shoot over defenders, but, unfortunately, at the college level, they needed more moves to get open. That did not pan out, even though they were highly ranked out of high school. The lack of speed on defense also hurt.

The last few years, the recruits have been medium sized guards/wings. Buie, Audige, Berry, Simmons, Roper and Barnhizer (Brumbaugh coming in). Whether the target changed or that is just who we were successful recruiting, I'm not sure.

It feels like we are going more toward a Loyola look instead of a Purdue look.

It does look like we continue to get more athletic than in the past which I think is a good thing.

I am not sure there is a concerted effort one way or another. It might be that the tall wings we offered did not come. I don't know. I am not that deep in the weeds of offers.

But I suspect this season's success will depend on our ability to rebound decently. We did not last year, and we lost the tall wing. What the effect that has on rebounding in conference remains to be seen. If this was last year I suspect it would be bad. But it's this year, players more mature and different opponents.

 

[IdahoAlum]

I don’t think NU is n the position to dictate style of preferred recruits. Collins has a much smaller list of NU-acceptable kids who are also talented enough to play in the BIG. He offers those kids and then the pool gets even smaller as most of them turn us down. Finally he signs whoever is left in that pool, no matter how they “fit” with the existing roster. Rarely are there enough left in this pool to completely fill the roster with BIG capable players. And frequently there are positions or skills that are left lacking.

I have been critical of Collins as a coach, but honestly I can’t think of a much tougher job than trying to recruit BIG quality basketball players to NU.

 

[phatcat_rivals223240]

I am not sure there is a concerted effort one way or another. It might be that the tall wings we offered did not come. I don't know. I am not that deep in the weeds of offers.

But I suspect this season's success will depend on our ability to rebound decently. We did not last year, and we lost the tall wing. What the effect that has on rebounding in conference remains to be seen. If this was last year I suspect it would be bad. But it's this year, players more mature and different opponents.

Just asking, because I know bupkus about basketball. Do you mean Kopp leaving and that his shorter replacements would average less than him? because he averaged like 3 boards a game. Can't imagine much of a drop off from that.

 

[GatoLouco]

Just asking, because I know bupkus about basketball. Do you mean Kopp leaving and that his shorter replacements would average less than him? because he averaged like 3 boards a game. Can't imagine much of a drop off from that.

No, I don't know if we will rebound worse than last year. Or better. I am hoping for better.

Per 40 min, Kopp averaged 3.6 rebounds while Berry, who is replacing him in the starting lineup, averaged 2.7. Greer, who is taking some of those minutes, averaged 4.1.

If you just replace one's numbers for the other's, it's not a good look. The 0.9 difference might not seem like a big deal until you consider that we did not rebound well at all last year. So a drop, or even just maintaining the status quo, sounds problematic.

But we can't just assume it will be a swap of players' number. Ultimately it will be about the intangibles. The players on the floor are more mature, so they might make better decisions, box out better, etc. Additionally, they are not facing the same teams of last year. So, who knows, we might be a better rebounding team than last year. The games we had against better competition so far we were OK.

 

[SDakaGordie]

I am not sure there is a concerted effort one way or another. It might be that the tall wings we offered did not come. I don't know. I am not that deep in the weeds of offers.

But I suspect this season's success will depend on our ability to rebound decently. We did not last year, and we lost the tall wing. What the effect that has on rebounding in conference remains to be seen. If this was last year I suspect it would be bad. But it's this year, players more mature and different opponents.

Rutgers got out rebounded by 7 in beating Purdue. I was surprised that, as noted by PWB, rebounding happened to correlate with teams’ W/L record for one year in the BIG10 (last year). But, I don’t think it’s the key issue behind our success nor explains how wins occur.

 

[Username Not Available]

If you make the basket, you don't need to rebound.
If you prevent the shot, you don't need to rebound.

So the Cats will definitely need to rebound better this year.

 

[GatoLouco]

Rutgers got out rebounded by 7 in beating Purdue. I was surprised that, as noted by PWB, rebounding happened to correlate with teams’ W/L record for one year in the BIG10 (last year). But, I don’t think it’s the key issue behind our success nor explains how wins occur.

I quickly ran some numbers, and, for 2020/2021, in conference play I found the following correlations to wins:

1. FG% - 80.6%
2. Rebounds - 66.2%
3. Assists -56.7%
4. 3 PT FG% - 53.4%
5. Free Throws Made - 39.2%
6. Turnovers - 26.2%
7. Offensive Rebounds - 23.1%

 

[DaCat]

We are incredibly athletic compared to some prior NU teams but not the better teams that we compete against. Our below average athleticism is apparent in our inability to finish at the rim. You really have to shoot well and run your offense well when you don't have guys that can just beat their man off the dribble and finish at the rim or draw fouls. And fast breaks are an adventure, a lot of times ending up with the other team scoring after a block or a missed layup. Taking into account positions and comparing them against B1G athletes, I would rate Buie as a slightly below average athlete (below average strength and size, below average explosiveness and average quickness), Berry a slightly below average athlete (average size and strength, below average quickness and average explosiveness, Audige a slightly above-average athlete (average size and strength, slightly above average explosiveness and average quickness), Beran a slightly below average athlete (average size and strength and slightly below average explosiveness and quickness), and Nance an above-average athlete (average size and strength, average explosiveness and above average quickness). When Simmons gets stronger, he will definitely be an above-average athlete. And I am hoping that when Roper gets more confidence, his athleticism will start to show more.

From a pure athleticism standpoint, I would rank our top players as follows:

1. Audige
2. Simmons
3. Nance
4. Beran
5. Roper

 

[GatoLouco]

I quickly ran some numbers, and, for 2020/2021, in conference play I found the following correlations to wins:

1. FG% - 80.6%
2. Rebounds - 66.2%
3. Assists -56.7%
4. 3 PT FG% - 53.4%
5. Free Throws Made - 39.2%
6. Turnovers - 26.2%
7. Offensive Rebounds - 23.1%

Pretty potent regression model, with an R Square of 94.9% would predict wins by

Wins = -33.1 + FG%*1.16 + Reb*0.80 - ****0.22 - 3ptFG%*.46 - FTM*.13 - TO*1.12 - ORrb*0.14

 

[clarificationcat]

From a pure athleticism standpoint, I would rank our top players as follows:

1. Audige
2. Simmons
3. Nance
4. Beran
5. Roper

That's pretty similar to my list. If Simmons gets a lot stronger, I think he will top the list. And I would probably put Roper ahead of Beran. Beran was a 4-star, I think, because he was expected to be a true stretch 4. He's a decent athlete for his size in my opinion.

 

[clarificationcat]

DePaul has a first five of a lot of really good athletes. We'll see Saturday how we match up. Gotta shoot better than we did yesterday.

I don't think we match up well with DePaul. I am not optimistic but, as you say, it should be a really good test.

 

[PURPLECAT88]

I quickly ran some numbers, and, for 2020/2021, in conference play I found the following correlations to wins:

1. FG% - 80.6%
2. Rebounds - 66.2%
3. Assists -56.7%
4. 3 PT FG% - 53.4%
5. Free Throws Made - 39.2%
6. Turnovers - 26.2%
7. Offensive Rebounds - 23.1%

For rebounds I wonder if causation works the other way. Most rebounds are defensive rebounds. Thus the team that misses more shots is likely to give up more rebounds. Thus the team that makes more shots will likely get more rebounds. The team that makes more shots will likely win (duh). Thus, the team that wins will likely get more rebounds.

It's similar to running the ball in football. The team that's ahead usually runs the ball more. The team that's ahead usually wins. Thus, the team that wins tends to run the ball more.

 

[CappyNU]

I quickly ran some numbers, and, for 2020/2021, in conference play I found the following correlations to wins:

1. FG% - 80.6%
2. Rebounds - 66.2%
3. Assists -56.7%
4. 3 PT FG% - 53.4%
5. Free Throws Made - 39.2%
6. Turnovers - 26.2%
7. Offensive Rebounds - 23.1%

MAKE SHOTS also get rebounds

 

[ThatadultfromHolland]

For rebounds I wonder if causation works the other way. Most rebounds are defensive rebounds. Thus the team that misses more shots is likely to give up more rebounds. Thus the team that makes more shots will likely get more rebounds. The team that makes more shots will likely win (duh). Thus, the team that wins will likely get more rebounds.

It's similar to running the ball in football. The team that's ahead usually runs the ball more. The team that's ahead usually wins. Thus, the team that wins tends to run the ball more.

You can miss a lot of shots if you always get offensive rebounds. Rebounds keep you playing offense and lessen the amount of possessions the other team has.

Rebound, take care of the basketball, take smart shots, and play defense. You should win the game.

That’s the order I would have thought for stat correlation.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Pretty potent regression model, with an R Square of 94.9% would predict wins by

Wins = -33.1 + FG%*1.16 + Reb*0.80 - ****0.22 - 3ptFG%*.46 - FTM*.13 - TO*1.12 - ORrb*0.14

why not use rebounding margin?

also, Effective FG% seems better as a single input (as opposed to breaking out FG% and 3 pt FG%)
EFG% = .4 * FG% on 2 pointers + .6 FG% on 3 pointers
you'd need the overall shots made and attempted and the 3 pointers made and attempted.

 

[GatoLouco]

why not use rebounding margin?

Can use and probably makes more sense. Just went with what I had readily available from a quick search

 

[GatoLouco]

For rebounds I wonder if causation works the other way. Most rebounds are defensive rebounds. Thus the team that misses more shots is likely to give up more rebounds. Thus the team that makes more shots will likely get more rebounds. The team that makes more shots will likely win (duh). Thus, the team that wins will likely get more rebounds.

It's similar to running the ball in football. The team that's ahead usually runs the ball more. The team that's ahead usually wins. Thus, the team that wins tends to run the ball more.

That makes sense.

Here's our stats, relative rank out of #14, and averages:

NU/Average/Rank

Wins - 6/9.6/12
FG% - 43.2/43.3/8
Rbs - 29.5/34.5/14
*** - 13.4/13.6/5
3 pt FG% - 33.8/34/7
FTM - 9.8/12.8/14
TO - 12.1/11.4/11
O Reb - 6/9/13

 

[NUThump]

That makes sense.

Here's our stats, relative rank out of #14, and averages:

NU/Average/Rank

Wins - 6/9.6/12
FG% - 43.2/43.3/8
Rbs - 29.5/34.5/14
*** - 13.4/13.6/5
3 pt FG% - 33.8/34/7
FTM - 9.8/12.8/14
TO - 12.1/11.4/11
O Reb - 6/9/13

Those are last season, correct? So far this season:
FG% - 45.7
Rbs - 38.3
Assists - 18.6
3FG% - 36.2
FTM - 12.4
TO - 8.8
ORbs - 9

Better across the board, but against lower competition so far.

 

[GatoLouco]

Those are last season, correct? So far this season:
FG% - 45.7
Rbs - 38.3
Assists - 18.6
3FG% - 36.2
FTM - 12.4
TO - 8.8
ORbs - 9

Better across the board, but against lower competition so far.

Last season and just conference play

 

[Catreporter]

Gotta hit the boards hard on Saturday. DePaul has some leapers on that team. May finally have found the right coach.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

For rebounds I wonder if causation works the other way. Most rebounds are defensive rebounds. Thus the team that misses more shots is likely to give up more rebounds. Thus the team that makes more shots will likely get more rebounds. The team that makes more shots will likely win (duh). Thus, the team that wins will likely get more rebounds.

It's similar to running the ball in football. The team that's ahead usually runs the ball more. The team that's ahead usually wins. Thus, the team that wins tends to run the ball more.

I tend to view defensive rebounds as a reflection of three things really -
1. your team's overall defense (You force tougher shots, opponent tends to miss more often)
2. your team's actual rebounding ability relative to your opponent's.
3. the other team's ability to "throw the ball into the basket" (as Al Franken might say)

 

[techtim72]

Today's preferred style of play, more shooting beyond the 3 point line with most players positioning on the perimeter with rotations through, doesn't lend itself to many offensive rebounds. Couple this with players basically directed to retreat in defense of the fast break immediately once a shot goes up. Use to be the direction was for the shooter to follow his shot and others to crash the boards. I don't know how this translates to stats analysis, but I have to believe rebounds have become a less impactful stat over time.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Today's preferred style of play, more shooting beyond the 3 point line with most players positioning on the perimeter with rotations through, doesn't lend itself to many offensive rebounds. Couple this with players basically directed to retreat in defense of the fast break immediately once a shot goes up. Use to be the direction was for the shooter to follow his shot and others to crash the boards. I don't know how this translates to stats analysis, but I have to believe rebounds have become a less impactful stat over time.

I know there was a study that said because of the 3 pointer bombardment, the rebounds tended to go all over the court and guards were getting more rebounds....

 

[GatoLouco]

Today's preferred style of play, more shooting beyond the 3 point line with most players positioning on the perimeter with rotations through, doesn't lend itself to many offensive rebounds. Couple this with players basically directed to retreat in defense of the fast break immediately once a shot goes up. Use to be the direction was for the shooter to follow his shot and others to crash the boards. I don't know how this translates to stats analysis, but I have to believe rebounds have become a less impactful stat over time.

3 point shots also tend to generate longer rebounds. And those are easier to be offensive rebounds. I do not have any data, but the importance of rebounds is very very high.

Imagine we have an EFG%, both defensive and offensive, of 50%. Which is not far from reality.

Last year we averaged:
Defensive rebounds: 29.5 (average was 34.5)
Offensive rebounds: 6 (average was 9)

Had we just been average we would have:
+5 defensive rebounds - which means less 5 offensive rebounds for our opponents, or -5 points at 50% Def. EFG
+3 offensive rebounds - +3 points at 50% EFG

That's an 8 point swing.

We averaged 66.7 PPG. Would have averaged 69.7
We allowed 73.5 PPG. Would have averaged 68.5

This is simplistic, other factors change, but it's an idea of how a bit of rebounding helps a lot

 

[techtim72]

I will buy rebounds are important but are they as important in relative terms to years past when a different style of play was coached? Intuitively - and I know that is a dangerous term - if 3-4 perimeter players are being coached to immediately retreat upon a shot going up from the perimeter - doesn't this suggest that a coach believes offensive rebounds are less meaningful? The last game I attended was NU at Maryland two years ago and NU played this style of defensive retreat the entire game. A little more difficult to see on TV.

 

[CatJones]

I can’t think of a much tougher job than trying to recruit BIG quality basketball players to NU.

I would think a tougher job would be coaching the ones you get.