Bear Down Wildcats

This is more of a general basketball question I guess but it relates... Now I've been watching hoops for a long time, I even played in high school (yes, a 5'2" girl played basketball and yes we were terrible) but I'm by no means an expert, far from it, when it comes to how the game is played... that being said:

When a team is shooting, especially when playing man-on-man, with the possible exception of a shooter if he's taken a long 3pt shot, but let's assume not...shouldn't the statistical possibility of either team to get the rebound be 50%? Perhaps maybe more 60-40 given that perhaps the defense doesn't have to worry that if the ball goes in they need to hustle back to the other side of the court to set their D but other than that....shouldn't the effort be the same on both teams? Or am I missing something...Cause there is nothing more infuriating than watching one guy take a shot and the rest of the team all but totally conceding the rebound to the other team...?

when the other team is playing man to man the defense should have inside position for the rebound as they are playing between their man on offense and the basket

Quick answer: advantage here should almost always be to the defensive team. Each defensive player should be between the man he is covering and the basket. As soon as shot goes up, each defensive player needs to Box Out, securing rebounding advantage. In general only long rebounds should be up for grabs.

That's why there are far fewer offensive boards than defensive rebounds in every game.

If the UA is on offense the 2 guards always get back on defense so they won't get beat on the fast break. That leaves the 3-4-5 to crash the boards where the defensive team may have 4 or 5 players go after the ball. And like Machine said, the defender is supposed to be between the hoop and the player he is guarding, so should have a better chance at the ball if the ball bounces like it should.

3 point shots excepted of course, they carom back at the shooter if it has a good roll on it.

Winger raised the valid question of why Miller has been harping on offensive rebounds this year when A) last year's O-boards were an anomaly in Miller's history, and B) offensive rebounding prevents you from getting back to set up the pack-line. I couldn't understand it, either, but I was reminded of what Miller is talking about during the Colorado game. Arizona will face better competition than Colorado, but I think the idea is that Arizona's length and athleticism should be able to crash the boards, disrupt the backcourt passing lanes on the way back, and still get back into the pack-line. This wasn't the case before last year, and Miller apparently thinks it's still the case this year.

Thanks guys...all makes sense and all things I knew independent of each other just didn't put it together. I think a lot of my confusion comes from frustration when I'm watching the guys take terrible shots and rather than acknowledging it the second it leaves the shooters hands and get at least 3 of em to make an effort and try disrupt the other team and make them work for the rebound, they just look like they're giving up even though it's somewhat clear that they're not gonna get the bucket this time.

In addition to all the things already mentioned, the 3-second rule for offensive players in the lane keeps them moving through there, while
the defensive players can camp out in the lane the whole possession.

I always liked this site to better understand rebounding...

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

And as we learned last year, good shooting is only for teams that don't know how to grab offensive rebounds.

40 to 20 rebounding edge tonight against Utah. It was nice to see us control the glass like that.

Even more so:

just stellar rebounding tonight. wish we could do that every game

Rebounding has been our biggest problem all year, I think Gumby has rightly zeroed in on that also. It has been a huge problem and very disappointing when we see Tarc with 0 and Ash with only 3, you have to get more boards out of those two slots. However, I think there is a reason we see a box score where PJC has 8 and Tarc has 0, this may be largely due to the fact that because we are so big in the middle we force teams to shoot further out which results in ball coming off rim harder and thus longer rebounds up for grabs by guards instead of bigs. So that may explain some of what we are seeing but there is no question Tarc bobbles a lot of rebounds and does not use both hands to get up and grab them, instead trying to tip them around with one hand/arm. But even so, you cannot under-estimate the importance of Tarc in the middle, I think everything we do starts with him clogging the lane up.

18 offensive rebounds allowed to Washington yesterday. Gotta clean that up quickly.

The last two posts in this thread say a lot about our focus and intensity vs UW.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:The last two posts in this thread say a lot about our focus and intensity vs UW.

The one before Impointed out that the Cats gave up 18 offensive boards was from 2 years ago so not sure I get it.

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:The last two posts in this thread say a lot about our focus and intensity vs UW.

The one before Impointed out that the Cats gave up 18 offensive boards was from 2 years ago so not sure I get it.

I'm stupid and missed that the other post was 2 years ago.

Or I'm making deep metaphysical points about the transience of rebounding in a digital world.

You'll rebound.

There is something to the idea that a shot is sooo bad, it is likely to be an O board. One, the really bad shot does not do what most shots do, so the steps taken by defensive rebounder are often incorrect. Two, the shooter knows it is bad and reacts, knowing exactly where to go because they felt the shot slip and know what overcorrection should be. Three, it is way short and hits front rim, careening back to where the shooter is closing and where the defenders aren't, knowing that most rebounds at an angle go over the rim. Four, if it does catch enough rim to bounce, but not a "shooter's touch" bounce you get with most close shots, the rebounder may jump too early, allowing the secondary (offensive rebounder) the best chance. And Five...if the shot is a force from distance, most rebounding position is negated because the distance of the shot and force of the heave (a three usually has long rebounds...a forced three has wildly careening rebounds. Even though the distance of that rebound is only increased by one foot on long threes, one foot means a LOT on a rebound).

This is an interesting article on rebounding from the old Grantland site

http://grantland.com/features/how-rebounds-work/

We used to see it a lot when this thread was started...the 34 seconds of defense, a heave, and an otherwise excellent rebounding team is giving up a 2nd chance.

Rebounds are largely effort and technique, and sometimes what the other team gives you. The more we get zoned, the more offensive boards we will get.

We are going to get killed on the offensive glass a lot with Dusan. That is not going to change and we have discussed this a lot already. That could be mitigated if the dude would just understand the basic get your ass on somebody, but that seems to be asking too much. Chance and Lauri have to step up and do a better job picking up the slack. I'll have to check the numbers later, but Trier may be our leading rebounder since he has returned.