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

Re: Rebound Effect

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.