With the offseason in full force, I figured this might be an opportune time for some "summer reading". So for our hoops readers on the board, we're doing a series diving into all the analytics used on Kenpom.com that are so frequently referenced in many of my stories.
For those that already know what all the "advanced" stats are, this should be a good refresher. For those new to the idea, enjoy, and any questions are welcome!
Part 1: Kenpom Basics (link)
Part 2: Effective Field Goal Percentage (link)
Part 3: Turnover Rate (link)
What is rebounding rate? In one sentence, rebounding rate is just a more accurate version of offensive/defensive rebounds per game.
This one is actually a more crucial one to understand than the others so far, because rebounds per game is inaccurate for more reasons than just pace. Rebounds per game ALSO can vary depending on the # of missed shots.
Looking at this stat as a rate/percentage - # of offensive (or defensive) rebounds in the opportunities you had to grab one - eliminates the variable of both pace and # of missed shots.
Example:
Game A: Notre Dame vs. Duke.
Summary: The Irish shoot a very high percentage in the game. Notre Dame grabs 8 offensive rebounds and Duke snags 12 defensive rebounds.
Game B: Notre Dame vs. Georgia Tech
Summary: The Irish shoot very poorly from the field. Notre Dame grabs 12 offensive rebounds and Georgia Tech snags 28 defensive rebounds.
If you looked ONLY at offensive rebounds per game, you see...
8 offensive rebounds in Game A for ND, 12 offensive rebounds in Game B.
You might conclude that Notre Dame was stronger on the offensive glass in Game B, because they had four more offensive rebounds than Game A.
In reality, Notre Dame only grabbed more offensive boards in Game B because there were a ton more missed shots.
Game A: Notre Dame's 8 offensive rebounds in 20 tries (Duke snagged 12 defensive rebounds) = 8/20 = 40 percent offensive rebounding rate.
Game B: Notre Dame's 12 offensive rebounds in 40 tries (Georgia Tech snagged 28 defensive rebounds) = 12/40 = 30 percent offensive rebounding rate.
In these two scenarios, Notre Dame was actually stronger on the offensive glass in Game A. They grabbed offensive rebounds on 40 percent of their chances in Game A, compared to just 30 percent in Game 2.
Rebounds per game can also be affected by pace, not just # of missed shots. Teams who play very fast naturally have a chance to take more field goals in a game than a team who plays a slow pace.
More FGA's per game = chance for more rebounds per game.
With rebounding rate, it doesn't matter how fast or slow teams play. All that matters is how many rebounds did you grab in the chances you had, whether those chances be few or many.
How can I calculate rebounding rate? Very easy.
For offensive rebounding rate: (# of offensive rebounds) / (# of offensive rebounds + # of opponent's defensive rebounds).
For defensive rebounding rate: (# of defensive rebounds) / (# of defensive rebounds + # of opponent's offensive rebounds)
Where did Notre Dame rank this year? The Irish checked in at 71st nationally with a 32.7 percent offensive rebounding rate, and 285th nationally allowing opponents to earn a 32.1 percent offensive rebounding rate.
This is one of the defensive numbers that puzzled me this year. I understand this team's defensive identity is not get up in an opponent's grill and lock them up, which is a risk to foul, and they don't spend a lot of energy pressing.
So all things considered, I feel like with how efficient the offense is and how much energy (or lack of it) is spent on defense, your mission is simple: Prevent second opportunities.
You might not shut down opponents with Notre Dame's defensive style. And you might not force a lot of turnovers. But you can prevent them from getting second opportunities by keeping them off the offensive glass, and if you just do that much, your offense scores at a high enough rate that most nights should turn out well.
ND couldn't do execute that this year, though. They struggled mightily on the defensive glass a lot of nights.
Zach Auguste's individual defensive rebounding rate was 27.5 percent - 18th nationally among all Division 1 players.
The next closest, though, was Bonzie Colson with 18.7 percent. Seemed like ND pretty much left it up to Auguste to fend for himself on the glass, and that might make his individual rebound #'s look very pretty - but the team's ended up very bad.
What is good and bad? Here's a tier to go by.
2016 offensive rebounding rate rankings:
No. 1 nationally: West Virginia, 42.0%.
No. 25: New Mexico State, 36.0%.
No. 100: Hofstra, 31.9%
No. 234: Princeton, 28.0%
No. 351 (Worst in D1): Northern Iowa, 17.7%
Three takeaways:
For those that already know what all the "advanced" stats are, this should be a good refresher. For those new to the idea, enjoy, and any questions are welcome!
Part 1: Kenpom Basics (link)
Part 2: Effective Field Goal Percentage (link)
Part 3: Turnover Rate (link)
What is rebounding rate? In one sentence, rebounding rate is just a more accurate version of offensive/defensive rebounds per game.
This one is actually a more crucial one to understand than the others so far, because rebounds per game is inaccurate for more reasons than just pace. Rebounds per game ALSO can vary depending on the # of missed shots.
Looking at this stat as a rate/percentage - # of offensive (or defensive) rebounds in the opportunities you had to grab one - eliminates the variable of both pace and # of missed shots.
Example:
Game A: Notre Dame vs. Duke.
Summary: The Irish shoot a very high percentage in the game. Notre Dame grabs 8 offensive rebounds and Duke snags 12 defensive rebounds.
Game B: Notre Dame vs. Georgia Tech
Summary: The Irish shoot very poorly from the field. Notre Dame grabs 12 offensive rebounds and Georgia Tech snags 28 defensive rebounds.
If you looked ONLY at offensive rebounds per game, you see...
8 offensive rebounds in Game A for ND, 12 offensive rebounds in Game B.
You might conclude that Notre Dame was stronger on the offensive glass in Game B, because they had four more offensive rebounds than Game A.
In reality, Notre Dame only grabbed more offensive boards in Game B because there were a ton more missed shots.
Game A: Notre Dame's 8 offensive rebounds in 20 tries (Duke snagged 12 defensive rebounds) = 8/20 = 40 percent offensive rebounding rate.
Game B: Notre Dame's 12 offensive rebounds in 40 tries (Georgia Tech snagged 28 defensive rebounds) = 12/40 = 30 percent offensive rebounding rate.
In these two scenarios, Notre Dame was actually stronger on the offensive glass in Game A. They grabbed offensive rebounds on 40 percent of their chances in Game A, compared to just 30 percent in Game 2.
Rebounds per game can also be affected by pace, not just # of missed shots. Teams who play very fast naturally have a chance to take more field goals in a game than a team who plays a slow pace.
More FGA's per game = chance for more rebounds per game.
With rebounding rate, it doesn't matter how fast or slow teams play. All that matters is how many rebounds did you grab in the chances you had, whether those chances be few or many.
How can I calculate rebounding rate? Very easy.
For offensive rebounding rate: (# of offensive rebounds) / (# of offensive rebounds + # of opponent's defensive rebounds).
For defensive rebounding rate: (# of defensive rebounds) / (# of defensive rebounds + # of opponent's offensive rebounds)
Where did Notre Dame rank this year? The Irish checked in at 71st nationally with a 32.7 percent offensive rebounding rate, and 285th nationally allowing opponents to earn a 32.1 percent offensive rebounding rate.
This is one of the defensive numbers that puzzled me this year. I understand this team's defensive identity is not get up in an opponent's grill and lock them up, which is a risk to foul, and they don't spend a lot of energy pressing.
So all things considered, I feel like with how efficient the offense is and how much energy (or lack of it) is spent on defense, your mission is simple: Prevent second opportunities.
You might not shut down opponents with Notre Dame's defensive style. And you might not force a lot of turnovers. But you can prevent them from getting second opportunities by keeping them off the offensive glass, and if you just do that much, your offense scores at a high enough rate that most nights should turn out well.
ND couldn't do execute that this year, though. They struggled mightily on the defensive glass a lot of nights.
Zach Auguste's individual defensive rebounding rate was 27.5 percent - 18th nationally among all Division 1 players.
The next closest, though, was Bonzie Colson with 18.7 percent. Seemed like ND pretty much left it up to Auguste to fend for himself on the glass, and that might make his individual rebound #'s look very pretty - but the team's ended up very bad.
What is good and bad? Here's a tier to go by.
2016 offensive rebounding rate rankings:
No. 1 nationally: West Virginia, 42.0%.
No. 25: New Mexico State, 36.0%.
No. 100: Hofstra, 31.9%
No. 234: Princeton, 28.0%
No. 351 (Worst in D1): Northern Iowa, 17.7%
Three takeaways:
- Rebounding rate is a really important stat to look at when it comes to evaluating performance on the glass, because rebounds per game is inaccurate due to variables with both pace AND # of missed shots.
- The best teams in the country grab an offensive rebound nearly 4 times every 10 tries.
- In terms of key categories, Notre Dame's second-worst defensive stat of the year was the offensive rebounding rate they allowed. They only ranked worse nationally in forcing turnovers.
