Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rebound Effect

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Pelton
    ... Hmm, I suppose I never thought about that. Obviously, though they re treated the same in the stats, not all rebounds are created equally. Some just bounce
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
      > Rodman was the worst in that sense. His claim as the greatest
      > rebounder of all time, which makes sense from a purely individual
      > perspective, can be questioned based on what you found.
      > The other way to look at it is how his teams rebounded with and
      > without him (which will show that his teams were good rebounding
      > teams, but the best? I dunno.)

      Hmm, I suppose I never thought about that. Obviously, though they're
      treated the same in the stats, not all rebounds are created equally.
      Some just bounce into a player's hands, while others require a great
      deal of effort in terms of positioning and boxing out. Is it
      possible that the reason we see what we see here is that a higher
      percentage of Rodman's rebounds were these "easy" rebounds that any
      of his teammates could have claimed had he not been there?

      Either way, assuming the Rodman effect holds in general on more
      observation, it's another factor diminishing the value of rebounding
      specialists like Fortson. Rebound rate would overstate their real
      contribution to the team in that area (and, in the same sense,
      really bad rebounders might be undervalued, I suppose, if they're
      leaving more boards for teammates. Which makes me wonder -- did
      Wallace's rebound rate go up when he got Clifford Robinson as a
      teammate? To answer my own question - no, he went down from 18.3
      rp48 to 17.1. Though I'm not sure how exactly to explain his off-the-
      charts 20.2 rp48 this season save sample size.)
    • Mike G
      ... Available rebounds is surely a key concept in such discussions. In 1991, Toronto s team rebound differential was 44.3-41.5, so they were a good
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "monepeterson" <mone@s...> wrote:
        > > To try to get some idea, I took a look at players' rebound rates
        > pre-
        > > , with, and post-Wallace on Detroit and Orlando:
        > >
        > > Corliss Williamson:
        > > pre (2000-01 w/Toronto): 8.29 rp48
        > > with (2000-01 w/Detroit): 10.08 rp48
        > >
        > > Well, that's strange. A major boost.
        >
        > I gotta think that these results (and some of your other ones) are
        > affected by the number of rebounds available on each team. Perhaps
        > they're moving to a situation where more rebounds are available?

        'Available rebounds' is surely a key concept in such discussions.

        In 1991, Toronto's team rebound differential was 44.3-41.5, so they
        were a good rebounding team. Detroit averaged 45.0-44.5, just above
        average, and with more rebounds around.

        Saying there were 85.8 rpg in Toronto and 89.5 rpg in Detroit would
        imply that one's rebounds per minute should be higher in Detroit.

        A further distinction might be made between rebounds gathered by your
        own team vs. opponents. I have come to believe in scaling only the
        opponents' rebound totals.

        In this case, considering total rebounds gives Corliss a per-36 rate
        in Toronto of 5.75, and 7.29 in Detroit.

        Considering only opponent rpg yields a change from 5.94 to 7.33.

        The difference is now less dramatic ( +23% rather than +27%)

        It's my belief that making this adjustment would tend to smooth the
        majority of transitions from one team to another, for most players.
        And I would consider this evidence that it's a viable adjustment.

        In this case, the Pistons apparently needed scoring even more than
        they needed rebounding, and this is what the guy does (did) well.
        Even his turnovers dropped about 20%, despite the increased offense.
        Such across-the-board improvement can never be predicted by mere
        statistics.


        About 10 years ago, I did look at Rodman's effect on his teammates.
        I'm sure it was on paper and now lost; not sure how I did it, but it
        seemed clear he was depriving teammates of rebounds, once he decided
        to be a 'specialist'.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.