Rebounding at Duke

[ChapelTower]

I have been watching Duke basketball for more than 20 years. I can only remember one team (2010) that was good in rebounding.

I don't have the actual stats, but just based on my ad-hoc recollection, maybe Duke lost the rebounding battle in about 65% of games played over this 20-year span (not counting 2010 or all those exhibit cupcake games).

Does anyone have any insight on the reason(s) that we have been consistently and chronically weak in this area? Is this a necessary evil we have to endure, as a trade-off for something else that is more important?

 

[Dad2ze]

I have been watching Duke basketball for more than 20 years. I can only remember one team (2010) that was good in rebounding.

I don't have the actual stats, but just based on my ad-hoc recollection, maybe Duke lost the rebounding battle in about 65% of games played over this 20-year span (not counting 2010 or all those exhibit cupcake games).

Does anyone have any insight on the reason(s) that we have been consistently and chronically weak in this area? Is this a necessary evil we have to endure, as a trade-off for something else that is more important?

That stat is interesting. I wonder what the Off vs Def Rebounding numbers are with Duke/Opponent missed shots figured in are.

 

[dukiejay]

Go back and look at the stats. You'd be surprised.

 

[Dad2ze]

Go back and look at the stats. You'd be surprised.

I'd also be curious to know how many rebounds after a single shot attempt and did it lead to a bucket. I'm a defensive minded guy and stats like that boggle my mind.

 

[jamsession3]

Our rebounding becomes an issue when Amile is absent. In comparison to other teams, this team rebounds well 'if' Amile is on the floor.

Could Sean or Chase take up the slack? We really don't know, Coach K has so far gone with a 6 man rotation and I believe for offensive purposes and ball movement.

 

[ChapelTower]

Go back and look at the stats. You'd be surprised.

I went back a few seasons.
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/total-rebounding-percentage?date=2008-04-08

On the surface, it seems we almost always got more than 50% of the rebounds over the course of a season. But these numbers were greatly inflated by exhibit games and early NCAA games. For example, in the two first-round losses, we actually had great rebound %s, because the opposing teams were undersized.

So in terms of the rebound % in games that really mattered, we were not good. I do not know of any stats for this but I think the national rank is a good proxy. Rebounding seems to be the one area where Duke had the worst national ranks. Another good proxy is the Last 3 game and Last 1 game rebound %.

There is a "self-selection" bias for these two numbers. Since the Last 1 game is mostly a loss, so the conditional expectation is for a poor rebound % number. But for the Last-3, more likely than not, we won the first two. So the conditional expectation would be for a good rebound % number. But the truth is that our Last-3 rebound% numbers were also bad, despite of the "self-selection" bias in our favor, and that most likely the last 3 games included first round NCAA games against "midgets".

So, Duke has truly been a poor rebounding team, in games that really mattered. This is very consistent with my personal TV-watching experience.

Season Rank Season Last3 Last1
07-08 166 Duke 50.1% 48.4% 39.2%
08-09 67 Duke 52.1% 49.5% 41.0%
09-10 15 Duke 54.2% 52.4% 51.4% (Beat Butler)
10-11 84 Duke 51.9% 52.1% 40.3% (Loss to AZ)
11-12 80 Duke 51.9% 50.7% 55.3% (1st Round Loss)
12-13 206 Duke 49.1% 48.8% 45.6% (Loss to UL)
13-14 100 Duke 51.5% 52.0% 56.5% (1st Round Loss)
14-15 23 Duke 53.9% 48.5% 52.2% (Beat WI)
15-16 70 Duke 52.7% 48.1% 46.5%

 

[politicsasusual21_rivals176516]

The only thing I know outside of all these confusing numbers is, when we have bangers, we we out rebound everybody

 

[ChapelTower]

To keep it simple, just look at the historical rank of competing teams like UNC, Mich St or Conn. Their numbers were much better than ours. We fell out of top 100 way too often, even back in the late 90s and early 2000 dominant days.

 

[Dad2ze]

Our rebounding becomes an issue when Amile is absent. In comparison to other teams, this team rebounds well 'if' Amile is on the floor.

Could Sean or Chase take up the slack? We really don't know, Coach K has so far gone with a 6 man rotation and I believe for offensive purposes and ball movement.

Sean and Vrank could be used for that muscle and body to beat and bang to give other guys a breather. They also would wear down guys like Brice and Meeks when we play them. Then again, I don't know anyone that can stop Meeks, not even a Tim Duncan.

 

[Anon1728003274]

Sean and Vrank could be used for that muscle and body to beat and bang to give other guys a breather. They also would wear down guys like Brice and Meeks when we play them. Then again, I don't know anyone that can stop Meeks, not even a Tim Duncan.

Dad I like your thinking about Sean and Vrank, especially considering Jeter's foul machine prowess of late....What have we got to lose from standpoint you referenced? Loved Sean's ferocity yesterday in short stint yesterday of rebound he snagged!

 

[Dad2ze]

Dad I like your thinking about Sean and Vrank, especially considering Jeter's foul machine prowess of late....What have we got to lose from standpoint you referenced? Loved Sean's ferocity yesterday in short stint yesterday of rebound he snagged!

Take 2-3 fouls a piece which would lessen the fouls on MP3, Ingram and Jefferson when he returns. Again, I'll quote what I think dbav said in another post. Coach has 5 banners and we have 0.

 

[Anon1728003274]

Take 2-3 fouls a piece which would lessen the fouls on MP3, Ingram and Jefferson when he returns. Again, I'll quote what I think dbav said in another post. Coach has 5 banners and we have 0.

Well said!! And none of our five banners are coming down either!!

 

[dbav]

Dad I like your thinking about Sean and Vrank, especially considering Jeter's foul machine prowess of late....What have we got to lose from standpoint you referenced? Loved Sean's ferocity yesterday in short stint yesterday of rebound he snagged!

What we stand to lose is more games.

Would I like to see guys given a shot? Sure, but only if they earn it. I think the best person to judge if they earn it is K since he's the coach and sees what they can do.

This sounds like when some thought Silent G was the answer to all our problems, or Semi, or any other player that didn't get the time that poster wanted. I trust the coach that watches them every day. If the player is not on the Court, there's a reason.

We've tended to play smaller lineups. As a result we tend to not dominate on the boards. If the margin was 70-30, I'd be worried.

 

[df64]

The thing that I cannot understand is the turning your back on the offensive player as soon as the shot goes up and star gazing at the ball. Far too many of our guys have been doing this for as long as I remember. Centers, forwards, guards, they all do it. To me, this is one of the easiest things in all of sports to fix and it just hasn't been.

 

[dukiejay]

I went back a few seasons.
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/total-rebounding-percentage?date=2008-04-08

On the surface, it seems we almost always got more than 50% of the rebounds over the course of a season. But these numbers were greatly inflated by exhibit games and early NCAA games. For example, in the two first-round losses, we actually had great rebound %s, because the opposing teams were undersized.

So in terms of the rebound % in games that really mattered, we were not good. I do not know of any stats for this but I think the national rank is a good proxy. Rebounding seems to be the one area where Duke had the worst national ranks. Another good proxy is the Last 3 game and Last 1 game rebound %.

There is a "self-selection" bias for these two numbers. Since the Last 1 game is mostly a loss, so the conditional expectation is for a poor rebound % number. But for the Last-3, more likely than not, we won the first two. So the conditional expectation would be for a good rebound % number. But the truth is that our Last-3 rebound% numbers were also bad, despite of the "self-selection" bias in our favor, and that most likely the last 3 games included first round NCAA games against "midgets".

So, Duke has truly been a poor rebounding team, in games that really mattered. This is very consistent with my personal TV-watching experience.

Season Rank Season Last3 Last1
07-08 166 Duke 50.1% 48.4% 39.2%
08-09 67 Duke 52.1% 49.5% 41.0%
09-10 15 Duke 54.2% 52.4% 51.4% (Beat Butler)
10-11 84 Duke 51.9% 52.1% 40.3% (Loss to AZ)
11-12 80 Duke 51.9% 50.7% 55.3% (1st Round Loss)
12-13 206 Duke 49.1% 48.8% 45.6% (Loss to UL)
13-14 100 Duke 51.5% 52.0% 56.5% (1st Round Loss)
14-15 23 Duke 53.9% 48.5% 52.2% (Beat WI)
15-16 70 Duke 52.7% 48.1% 46.5%

If there's one thing you can do it's make the numbers look good for any argument you're trying to make....most of the time. Duke has never been a great rebounding team. They're not "truly poor" as you stated, though either. For the most part, we tend to remember the "bad" more than the good.

Going back to the 2001-02 season, a 15-year span, Duke has finished in the top half of rebounding efficiency in the ACC 10 times, or two-thirds of the time. There's been four times where we finished in the bottom third of the league, the most recent being 2013-14. Prior to that, the previous time we finished that low was 2008-09. Surprisingly, to me at least, one of the times was also 2005-06, or during Shelden's senior year when he was one of the leading rebounders in the country and NDPOY. But I remember our team struggles well that year rebounding the basketball. It was frustrating.

Historically every team has what I would call "program" strengths. UNC has always been a good rebounding team. Virginia, for the past five or six years, has made defense their specialty. We've been an efficient offensive team that likes to spread the floor and our overall stats reflect our success in doing so.

Again, I don't think Duke's rebounding numbers are truly poor. That said, they're not exceptional either. Even in 2009-10, the year you labeled as our only "good" rebounding team of the last 20 years we finished just fourth in the ACC.

Lastly, to your point about picking games that "really mattered" I don't understand that rationale. Who gets to select the games that matter? I can cherry-pick a lot of stats and make them good or bad using that as my basis.

 

[Anon1728003274]

Point is, its a weakness in the PRESENT....As a wise old football coach once said:"The future is now." Hence its gotta get better starting tonite...

 

[2 skerz 3_rivals208847]

If there's one thing you can do it's make the numbers look good for any argument you're trying to make....most of the time. Duke has never been a great rebounding team. They're not "truly poor" as you stated, though either. For the most part, we tend to remember the "bad" more than the good.

Going back to the 2001-02 season, a 15-year span, Duke has finished in the top half of rebounding efficiency in the ACC 10 times, or two-thirds of the time. There's been four times where we finished in the bottom third of the league, the most recent being 2013-14. Prior to that, the previous time we finished that low was 2008-09. Surprisingly, to me at least, one of the times was also 2005-06, or during Shelden's senior year when he was one of the leading rebounders in the country and NDPOY. But I remember our team struggles well that year rebounding the basketball. It was frustrating.

Historically every team has what I would call "program" strengths. UNC has always been a good rebounding team. Virginia, for the past five or six years, has made defense their specialty. We've been an efficient offensive team that likes to spread the floor and our overall stats reflect our success in doing so.

Again, I don't think Duke's rebounding numbers are truly poor. That said, they're not exceptional either. Even in 2009-10, the year you labeled as our only "good" rebounding team of the last 20 years we finished just fourth in the ACC.

Lastly, to your point about picking games that "really mattered" I don't understand that rationale. Who gets to select the games that matter? I can cherry-pick a lot of stats and make them good or bad using that as my basis.

Great stuff here! I would also add that I believe our offensive efficiency is always among the best in the ACC and nationwide so there are less rebounds to be had offensively.

 

[dukiejay]

Point is, its a weakness in the PRESENT....As a wise old football coach once said:"The future is now." Hence its gotta get better starting tonite...

For the most part, I agree. But I didn't start the thread stating our rebounding has been "truly poor" for the past 20 years. All I did was debunk his myth.

But yes, we're not a great rebounding team. And it's not going to get significantly better with our current personnel. So that means while we focus on improvement in that area, we also make sure we're being sharp and doing the things we do well on a more consistent basis. Last year's team had weaknesses. In 2010, we had weaknesses. But if you're able to mask said weaknesses with your strengths you can still be successful.

 

[ChapelTower]

Debating whether we were "poor" or just "non-exceptional" is merely semantics and is rather meaningless. If any of you thinks your choice of word is better, fine with me.

Look, I started this whole thread trying to pick people's brain as so why our teams tend to have national ranking in those numbers I showed you. Maybe we emphasize offense skills a lot (as a result, we have always been an offense powerhouse) and AS A RESULT we have to put up poor rebounding skills (as maybe there is some kind of negative correlation between these two skills?), or whatever other basketball ideas you may have.

Didn't expect so many English majors more interested in picking on my choice of words than offering some basketball analysis.

So please, just basketball insights or additional factual information (e.g. ACC stats Dukiejay offered).

Dukiejay: you seem to have access to some good stats. Maybe you can share more or at least point out the link to such info.

 

[Dattier]

Look, I started this whole thread trying to pick people's brain as so why our teams tend to have national ranking in those numbers I showed you...

Didn't expect so many English majors more interested in picking on my choice of words than offering some basketball analysis.

So please, just basketball insights...

If I asked for basketball insight into why Kyle Singler's number isn't retired despite being the all-time leading scorer in Duke history, I think it would be pretty reasonable for people to be a wee bit distracted by correcting me about his actual standing on that list. Similarly, when people disagree w/ your premise, they're not going to spoonfeed you the answer you seem to feel entitled to.

What is there to defend improper or careless use of words over better use?

To the extent that we've only rebounded like you want 1 time in all your many, many years as a Duke fan, I'd attribute at least some of it to overplaying by design on D. We overplay passing lanes, which has made us susceptible to backdoor cuts at times, and could put us in worse position to box out. We also challenge every shot we can, meaning we're closing out on the shot instead of giving up a more open look and establishing rebounding position.

 

[Anon1728003274]

Debating whether we were "poor" or just "non-exceptional" is merely semantics and is rather meaningless. If any of you thinks your choice of word is better, fine with me.

Look, I started this whole thread trying to pick people's brain as so why our teams tend to have national ranking in those numbers I showed you. Maybe we emphasize offense skills a lot (as a result, we have always been an offense powerhouse) and AS A RESULT we have to put up poor rebounding skills (as maybe there is some kind of negative correlation between these two

For the most part, I agree. But I didn't start the thread stating our rebounding has been "truly poor" for the past 20 years. All I did was debunk his myth.

But yes, we're not a great rebounding team. And it's not going to get significantly better with our current personnel. So that means while we focus on improvement in that area, we also make sure we're being sharp and doing the things we do well on a more consistent basis. Last year's team had weaknesses. In 2010, we had weaknesses. But if you're able to mask said weaknesses with your strengths you can still be successful.

skills?), or whatever other basketball ideas you may have.

Didn't expect so many English majors more interested in picking on my choice of words than offering some basketball analysis.

Chapel I thought you made a valid point overall and no offense taken by this subscriber...

DukieJay likewise makes a good point and would like his insights on how we can go about "masking said weaknesses with our strengths" starting tonite at 7pm...

 

[dukehokie]

When you play spread man D and 4 out 1 in, your rebounding numbers are low. I don't think there's any conspiracy or deficit or horrible coaching here. Just style of play.

 

[wcu1113]

The rebounding is alarmingly bad.

 

[ChapelTower]

If I asked for basketball insight into why Kyle Singler's number isn't retired despite being the all-time leading scorer in Duke history, I think it would be pretty reasonable for people to be a wee bit distracted by correcting me about his actual standing on that list. Similarly, when people disagree w/ your premise, they're not going to spoonfeed you the answer you seem to feel entitled to.

Saying Kyle Singler being the all-time leading scorer is factually wrong. Regarding Duke's historical national ranking in rebounding (often in 100s and 200s) as being "truly poor" is my personal opinion, which by definition can never be wrong. You and your friends might have a different standard and feel otherwise. That is of course your right.

But I do not need any of you to "correct" my opinion.

Just as I appreciated the additional ACC stats I learned from another poster, I thank your for your insights in your post starting from "I'd attribute at least some of it to ..." They are well thought out and help me appreciate our basketball program from new perspectives.

Can we all just please keep all future discussions to basketball going forward? All the choice words like "spoonfeed" and "ridiculous" (from another post of yours), and sarcasticsm ("many, many years as a Duke Fan") are uncalled for. Our Univeristy certainly taught us not to act as such.

I bid you a good night.

 

[dukiejay]

Lighten up, Francis.

 

[ChapelTower]

Certainly.... just keep your meat-hooks off.