Living and dying on the defensive rebound

[EarthIsMan]

This team lives and dies on the defensive rebound. It is the #1 way to beat this team and the data supports this assertion.

1. This home loss vs. Baylor is frustrating to the same ilk as @iowa, @Baylor, KSU, and TCU. The common thread is the inability to get defensive rebounds.

2. If this team defensively rebounds at a rate ~70% or better this team will likely win most games it plays. For reference the best teams average defending rebound rate is around 80% and the worst is 65%. In summary, ISU only needs to be an average to slightly below average defensive rebounding team to win.

3. This is one the better defensive teams in sometime at ISU, but it has been slipping in defensive efficiency as of late. Often forgotten is that you end a defensive possession by getting a defensive rebound. Defensive rebounds is a major component of a defensive possession, and it happens to be ISUs glaring weakness.

4. Per KenPom, ISU's defensive efficiency is correlated around 65% to its defensive rebounding rate- which is a fairly significant correlation. FWIW no team in KenPom top 25 has as high of a correlation as ISU (ISU currently sits at #13 in KenPom).

ISU's success (AKA winning games) is majorly dependent on the ability (or lack there of) of getting defensive rebounds. Basketball can be pretty simple.

I could write much more on personnel adjustments, observations of player positioning, strategy of how many players to crash for defensive rebounds, but that may be for another day.

 

[UnCytely]

We already have a thread for post-game talk about the Baylor game.

Mods, please merge.

 

[Cat Stevens]

I think you’re right on this. Just not getting the ball off the boards. Too much scramble on defense, and everyone’s out of position.

Tough loss last night. Gonna be a long week here for us fans. At least a bunch of people will be happy. So for the folks living in Iowa, they can use their “passion” to stay warm, I guess.

 

[CyBobby]

I agree with some of your premise Earth is Man.....The team that usually wins is the tougher team and this ISU team is very weak at home...My idea is that they cant take the pressure of playing inside Hilton Colisem, thus leading to very few points at the end of games......re: rebounding and defense ...very little of either last nite, too many uncontested shots by Baylor for 3 pointers and Rebounding was a complete disaster ...also this team blows very hot and very cold on Offense and if the 3 pointers are falling they win, if not they Lose...The way this team plays defense and rebounds none of them would see the playing floor for Larry Eustacy......You may not like it but thats the honest truth.....

 

[Knownothing]

We already have a thread for post-game talk about the Baylor game.

Mods, please merge.

I would say this is more of a topic and not a post game thread. Plus he put a lot of thought into this post with numbers. I say let the topic stand and people can comment on it.

I get so frustrated about rebounding. However, the type of offense we run is also very rebounding unfriendly. I would like to see what Nova does on rebounding. They run a similar 4 guard lineup. Are they getting destroyed on the rebounds also or does the system lend itself to getting back on defense? I honestly don't know

 

[Cyclonepride]

I think you’re right on this. Just not getting the ball off the boards. Too much scramble on defense, and everyone’s out of position.

Tough loss last night. Gonna be a long week here for us fans. At least a bunch of people will be happy. So for the folks living in Iowa, they can use their “passion” to stay warm, I guess.

It's really a gamble (by the other team) to hit the boards so hard, as that leaves less guys back to defend against our break. If you don't get the boards, you're susceptible to being run out of the building due to fast break points. They got the boards though, over and over.

I do agree with the thought that we need to try going with two bigs in that situation (not all game, but once it's apparent that they're eating our lunch on the offensive boards), at least until you get it stabilized.

I think our guys got deflated by the continuous put backs and extended possessions.

 

[tigershoops31]

It's really a gamble (by the other team) to hit the boards so hard, as that leaves less guys back to defend against our break. If you don't get the boards, you're susceptible to being run out of the building due to fast break points. They got the boards though, over and over.

I do agree with the thought that we need to try going with two bigs in that situation (not all game, but once it's apparent that they're eating our lunch on the offensive boards), at least until you get it stabilized.

I think our guys got deflated by the continuous put backs and extended possessions.

Good point. Unfortunately last night we had some great opportunities on run outs with 2 on 1, etc where we came up empty.

 

[UnCytely]

I would say this is more of a topic and not a post game thread.

So was my thread asking about why we are so uncompetitive in Hilton. That was a general thread not specific to any particular game. Nevertheless, it got deleted and the content merged into the Baylor post-game thread.

If the refs were as fair as the mods here, we'd be winless on the season.

 

[Cardinal2001]

We don't live and die by the defensive rebound. If we did, there would be more effort into obtaining them. We wait for the ball to come to us. Other teams go get the ball.

 

[dafarmer]

I was always taught that rebounding was about effort, the blocking out and going for the ball. It seemed last night we forgot about getting your butt into them and forcing them back.

 

[EarthIsMan]

We don't live and die by the defensive rebound. If we did, there would be more effort into obtaining them. We wait for the ball to come to us. Other teams go get the ball.

I would say all other things being equal, ISU is losing most of it games because of allowing too many offensive rebounds (aka not getting defensive rebounds).

ISU's defensive efficiency is about 65% correlated to its defensive rebounding rate- which is an anomaly compared to other CBB good teams.

The problem is we do not have a consistent rebounder. Jacobsen disappears in his rebounding role some games whereas most games he is great. Lard is inconsistent in this role too, and he often gives up offensive rebounds by over helping to block shots leaving his defensive assignment to feast on the glass.

Our guards actually do a solid job on defensive rebounds, but do get caught too often letting opposing guards crash the glass when our 5 has done their job. And while THT is undersized at the 4 he has been quite excellent at rebounding too. I think last night would have worth getting Conditt some run or maybe trying some spot minutes of Jacobsen and Lard on the floor together.

Rebounding is not sexy, but for this team to max out it needs some one relish in that role.

 

[EarthIsMan]

I would say this is more of a topic and not a post game thread. Plus he put a lot of thought into this post with numbers. I say let the topic stand and people can comment on it.

I get so frustrated about rebounding. However, the type of offense we run is also very rebounding unfriendly. I would like to see what Nova does on rebounding. They run a similar 4 guard lineup. Are they getting destroyed on the rebounds also or does the system lend itself to getting back on defense? I honestly don't know

Since ISU primarily plays man defense we should generally be in good position to get defensive rebounds (or prevent offensive rebounds). ISU switches a lot on defense which might create some "rebounding" mismatches, but I think this is a non-factor. Also, our guards actually do a pretty good job rebounding.

For whatever reason Prohm has never field great defensive rebounding teams while at ISU. I don't know if that is simply personnel or scheme. My hunch is it a bit of both.

 

[Knownothing]

Since ISU primarily plays man defense we should generally be in good position to get defensive rebounds (or prevent offensive rebounds). ISU switches a lot on defense which might create some "rebounding" mismatches, but I think this is a non-factor. Also, our guards actually do a pretty good job rebounding.

For whatever reason Prohm has never field great defensive rebounding teams while at ISU. I don't know if that is simply personnel or scheme. My hunch is it a bit of both.

I was thinking about this. Every team sucks at something. Our team sucks at rebounding. Duke sucks at three point shooting, Iowa sucks, Texas sucks at Developing talent. Every team has a fan base that is pissed at something that teams does not well. Hopefully it don't hurt us in the tourney.

 

[MK24Cy]

I would say all other things being equal, ISU is losing most of it games because of allowing too many offensive rebounds (aka not getting defensive rebounds).

ISU's defensive efficiency is about 65% correlated to its defensive rebounding rate- which is an anomaly compared to other CBB good teams.

The problem is we do not have a consistent rebounder. Jacobsen disappears in his rebounding role some games whereas most games he is great. Lard is inconsistent in this role too, and he often gives up offensive rebounds by over helping to block shots leaving his defensive assignment to feast on the glass.

Our guards actually do a solid job on defensive rebounds, but do get caught too often letting opposing guards crash the glass when our 5 has done their job. And while THT is undersized at the 4 he has been quite excellent at rebounding too. I think last night would have worth getting Conditt some run or maybe trying some spot minutes of Jacobsen and Lard on the floor together.

Rebounding is not sexy, but for this team to max out it needs some one relish in that role.

I appreciate the statistics and your posts show quite a staggering correlation.

That being said, I can't get on board with saying Jacobson is a great rebounder most games. I'm sure he's got decent numbers for the season, but the eye test shows he is completely over-matched athletically by basically every Big XII big man we've faced and I don't recall many occasions where he's competing for a rebound and he wins the battle and snatches it cleanly out of the air. I posted something similar in another thread. I'm not knocking his effort and am not by any means blaming him for our rebounding struggles as he does what he can with his god-given athleticism and I applaud the effort, but defensively he is always going to be a liability at this level.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Last night (and a couple of other games) is where Solomon would have been perfect for plugging the leaks (in both rebounding and toughness). Since he's not out there, it has to be a team effort. Lard battled, but the guards absolutely have to stick their noses in there and box out (not just run in waiting for the ball to drop).

 

[EarthIsMan]

I appreciate the statistics and your posts show quite a staggering correlation.

That being said, I can't get on board with saying Jacobson is a great rebounder most games. I'm sure he's got decent numbers for the season, but the eye test shows he is completely over-matched athletically by basically every Big XII big man we've faced and I don't recall many occasions where he's competing for a rebound and he wins the battle and snatches it cleanly out of the air. I posted something similar in another thread. I'm not knocking his effort and am not by any means blaming him for our rebounding struggles as he does what he can with his god-given athleticism and I applaud the effort, but defensively he is always going to be a liability at this level.

"Great" is overstating it, but I would argue Jacobson is currently the team's best rebounder- which is probably why are even talking about rebounding.

Jacobson does not rebound outside his area, but he is the best at getting in position and has pretty good hands. It is important to note that rebound positioning is as much about being in good defensive position even long before the basketball clangs off the rim. Young and Jacobson are very comparable in this regard.

Lard and Conditt have the best rebound and defensive potential, but potential does not mean much until it actually happens.

 

[jbindm]

Last night (and a couple of other games) is where Solomon would have been perfect for plugging the leaks (in both rebounding and toughness). Since he's not out there, it has to be a team effort. Lard battled, but the guards absolutely have to stick their noses in there and box out (not just run in waiting for the ball to drop).

Lard was good; great energy and hustle. I do wish he had stayed home a little more often instead of chasing blocks and taking himself out of the play. But other than that I can't complain about his game.

 

[MK24Cy]

"Great" is overstating it, but I would argue Jacobson is currently the team's best rebounder- which is probably why are even talking about rebounding.

Jacobson does not rebound outside his area, but he is the best at getting in position and has pretty good hands. It is important to note that rebound positioning is as much about being in good defensive position even long before the basketball clangs off the rim. Young and Jacobson are very comparable in this regard.

Lard and Conditt have the best rebound and defensive potential, but potential does not mean much until it actually happens.

I can agree that fundamentally he does a better job than our other bigs and outside of the Iowa game where Cook and Pemsl had their way, he was as important as anyone in our Non-Conference success with the suspensions, injuries, and youth we were dealing with at that position. I also think it's been pretty evident as Cam gets back to full strength that if Prohm isn't comfortable throwing a second big out there, our ceiling is much higher with Cam on the court and we should see how things look with Cam starting. His fouling is getting much better and the more playing time he gets, the less he'll feel the need to make that spectacular block and make his mark on the game and the more he'll stick to the fundamentals and pick his spots on the high risk plays. He wouldn't have fouled out last night if Wigginton wasn't trying to play patty cake with the guy he was guarding which forced Cam to come from off the ball and commit the intentional foul that Prohm was screaming for.

With regard to the 2 big scenario, if Prohm is dead set on only having one of Lard/Jake/Conditt in the game at a time, then he still has Talley to add some size/length/defense and that's really his only other option as a potential change of pace. Zoran proved last year that he's very capable of playing quality minutes at this level and I think he's similar to Lard earlier this year where he just needs consistent minutes and a defined role and we'd get much better production as he'd settle into the game flow much better. I don't think he needs more than 10-15 min a night, but the skill set he showed last year is almost exactly what we point out this team is missing after these tough losses.

 

[CyCloned]

Lard was good; great energy and hustle. I do wish he had stayed home a little more often instead of chasing blocks and taking himself out of the play. But other than that I can't complain about his game.

Lard really does go for the block a little too often. Thought they waited too long to get him in there last night. There was no excuse for what happened last night, Baylor was just throwing up shots and crashing the boards. Just wish the clones had one guy like Melvin or Hogue that decide the rebound was theirs and go get it. Lard was fighting for rebounds, but had several knocked out of his hands.

 

[jbhtexas]

I'm quite certain that if you go back and look through the basketball threads during the Hoiberg years, you will find the same discussions regarding ISU's rebounding issues, and how the rebounding problem costs a few games a year, which holds the team back from having that special season. I don't think it is a rocket science thing to figure out that "small ball" has this potential drawback.

I see the same thing now that I did during the Hoiberg years...the rebounding technique and "instinctiveness" is just not consistent enough among the guards. When ISU encounters a team that crashes the offensive boards, the ISU guys often look lost. When a shot goes up, guys are standing and looking, maybe thinking about what they need to do, or even leaking out for fast breaks, instead of instinctively seeking out an opponent to box out.

This is not surprising to me. In high school or AAU, the "small ball" guys probably didn't have to rebound much, or had sufficient athletic ability to get by with mediocre technique. Just like shooting, rebounding has to be instinctive; the pace of the game doesn't allow the defender to slowly contemplate which of several scenarios to execute once a shot goes up. The defender is often at a rebounding disadvantage to start with because his back is many times toward the game action. Actions become instinctive through practice and repetition.

I don't know if it is a practice thing, a mindset/attitude thing, or staff thing, but I think that If ISU wants to remain a small ball team, and wants to seriously contend for conference/NCAA titles, then the guard types are going to have to be better rebounders, and be better prepared to deal with physical teams that crash the boards, whether it be Baylor or UAB.