October 28, 2012 at 3:37 am #7650
Last year Lehigh pulled down nearly 36 rpg – good for #1 in the league and a big reason for our success. Repeating won’t be easy, considering our height-challenged roster (4 players standing 6’6″ or higher*) and the makeup of our team (11 schollies and 2 walkons able to play).
The facts are:
> 7.5rpg or 35.9% of our rebounds last year came from our departed seniors (JH, JA, and JM)
> 19.8rpg or 55.1% came from 4 returning starters (CJ, GK, HG, and MM). With luck – and a lot of it – we might see the same again from them this year. More? Get real.
So, if we’re looking to repeat our 36 boards/game and thankful to get a repeat 20 (round numbers) from our returning stars, where will the other 16 come from? As Obama would say, the math doesn’t add-up?
(a) Assume we get a handful of boards out of BJ, AD, SC, and CS – let say a 20% increase over last year’s 4.3 per game or 5.2 this year.
(b) While Conroy Baltimore was our top rebounder (boards per minute of playing time) last year @ .35r/minute, can he do it again and can he do it for longer – much longer – periods of time. He may have to and do even more. But let’s be more realistic in our forecast and give him what Gabe was able to do last year, i.e., .22r/min and increase his playing time from 4.9 to 16 minutes/game. That’ll bring in 3.5 rpg.
(c) As for Goldsborough, let’s say the freshman can hold his own and sees 12 minutes a game and contributes at the Knutson/Baltimore rate (.22r/min) – both somewhat optimistic terms. But if able, he’ll bring down 2.6 rpg.
(d) That leaves only freshman PG Devon Carter and senior walk-ons Staggers and Goodman. Let’s give the trio an over-the-top estimate of 1.5 rpg.
The result (19.8 + 5.2 + 3.5 + 2.6 + 1.5 = 32.6) is scary and it assumes no injuries or substantial loss of playing time. Mr. Chuku, you will be missed.
I can only assume the Good Doctor is preaching proper positioning, crashing the offensive boards, and the need to retreat quickly on defense. To me “this will tell the story” – not CJ’s shooting percentage or who will be the first off the bench – and dictate our title chances in 2013.
Anyone else concerned?
* Around the PL (Roster Players 6’6″ or higher)
Army – 10
HC – 8
BU – 8
LC – 7
CU – 6
AU – 6
Navy – 5October 28, 2012 at 6:31 am #7652
I am putting my money on Baltimore. Can he handle to pressure and the big lights? I think so. A few minutes in the game is a whole lot different that the entire game. I just hope he is hungry. Now BJB is a great rebounder. Greiner and CJ will get quite a few. Let’s go LU!October 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm #7654
Chuku would alleviate issue but w/o him rebounds will be a problem but not as dire as you posit.. CB will be a factor as will both the frosh. We will be able in PL to do enuf. OOC always tough will be harder this yr.October 28, 2012 at 4:51 pm #7655
Here are a few other metrics that may give a better reading on how the PL teams rebounded last year. I have only included PL games, since there were huge differences in the strength of ooc schedules.
Two problems with looking just at total rebounds are (a) number of rebounds is very dependent on the pace of play; and (b) it is dependent on how many shot are missed at each end. Fast pace of play = more total rebounds. More misses at your own end = more offensive rebounds. More misses by your opponent = more defensive rebounds. Also more steals = less rebounds.
To put things on a level playing field, here are the pct of available offensive rebounds that each team got last year (national average = 32.2%), followed by by the pct of available defensive rebounds that each team got.
Holy Cross 28.9%
And here are each team’s pct of available defensive rebounds (national average = 67.8%):
Holy Cross 72.1%
Putting the two together, it looks like this:
Holy Cross 101.0
One thing that is very clear is that the PL is very oriented towards defensive rebounding. Offensive rebounding ranges from average to awful, while defensive rebounding ranges from exceptional to average.
One other way to look at rebounding – although somewhat flawed – is rebounding margin. For PL-only games last year, it looked like this:
REBOUNDING MARGIN G Team Avg. Opp. Avg. Margin
1. Bucknell 14 511 36.5 402 28.7 +7.8
2. American 14 471 33.6 434 31.0 +2.6
3. Lehigh 14 494 35.3 461 32.9 +2.4
4. Holy Cross 14 493 35.2 465 33.2 +2.0
5. Navy 14 426 30.4 436 31.1 -0.7
6. Colgate 14 418 29.9 467 33.4 -3.5
7. Army 14 420 30.0 494 35.3 -5.3
8. Lafayette 14 402 28.7 476 34.0 -5.3October 28, 2012 at 6:00 pm #7656
Personally, I don’t see the dropoff in rebounding unless we go predominately small ball. I’ve always said that size was my 4th criteria when it comes to rebounding attributes. Our leading rebounder last year was 6-3 (2nd in the PL, I believe. I want a rebounder that has 1.)Intuition, a nose for the ball. That can’t be taught. CJ has it big time. 2.) Agressiveness/Attitude. He needs to think that every rebound should be his. 3.) Technique. He needs to be able to establish his position, in other words box out. and the 4.)Size.
Jordan Hamilton had certain skill sets but rebounding was not one of them. Even going small with Bailey increases our rebounding edge. Adams and Manieri were fine rebounders but IMHO, Baltimore is better than both and Goldsborough averaged 13 rpg last year so I think he has skills in this area.
I know I’m going out on a limb and I have no idea how Dr. Reed is going to play it but CB would be a perfect role player for this Lehigh team. His intuition, assertiveness and technique is as good or better than anyone on this team. If given the minutes, he will be among the league leaders in rebounding. Last season was no fluke statistically, he had over 1,000 rbs in HS. Defensively, he was by far the team leader in blocks/min. IMO, Chuku would have given us much needed depth but I don’t think his talent level at this stage is far superior than what we will be already putting on the court.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.