 |
|
| A10 BY THE NUMBERS Recent Articles 02/11/10: 2/11 A10 Postseason Odds Report 01/09/10: 1/9 A10 Postseason Odds Report 01/05/09: The Effect of the Unbalanced Schedule on the 2010 A10 Conference Season 12/30/09: A10 Postseason Odds Report 12/23/09: The Effect of Melquan Bolding's Absence on Duquesne 12/22/09: A10 Postseason Odds Report 12/18/09: A10 Postseason Odds Report 12/11/09: Quantifying the Rebounding Problems of St. Joe's Basketball Links NIT-ology Ken Pomeroy Mid-Majority Yoco Hoops Bracket Board College Hoops Net A10 Forum Storming the Floor College Chalktalk Villanova by the Numbers Valley Ledger March Madness All Season Contact mikebscullin@gmail.com | Quantifying the Rebounding Problems of St. Joe's December 11, 2009 by Mike Scullin I took a look at the statistics so far to pinpoint exactly how the poor rebounding of Saint Joseph's has hurt the team's overall performance this year. For those who haven't been counting, they rank worse than 300th among all Division I schools in terms of both offensive and defensive rebounding percentage. My goal is to express in numbers how severe of a downward effect this lack of success on the glass has had on the offensive and defensive ends of the floor for St. Joe's. Rebounding percentages for the Hawks vs. D1 average through 8 games: .242 offensive (67 offensive rebounds in 277 chances) / .332 D-1 avg (92 expected rebounds in 277 chances) .625 defensive (200 defensive rebounds in 320 chances) / .668 D-1 avg (214 expected rebounds in 277 chances) hawks on offense - 25 extra chances lost hawks on defense - 14 extra chances given 569 points for in 581 possessions = offensive efficiency of .979 points per possession with 25 extra chances lost, 24.5 points lost on offense 613 points against in 581 possessions = defensive efficiency of 1.055 points per possession against with 14 extra chances given, 14.8 points given on defense net effect: 3.06 ppg lost on offense, 1.85 ppg gifted on defense (negative 4.91 ppg total). actual scoring rates vs. expected with average rebounding: offensive: .979 ppp. expected with avg. rebounding: 1.022 defensive: 1.055 pppa. expected with average rebounding: 1.030 pppa adjusted for schedule: actual offensive efficiency: 1.03 ppp (139th in D1) expected with average rebounding: 1.08 ppp (74th in D1) actual defensive efficiency: 1.025 pppa (203rd in D1) expected with average rebounding: 1.00 pppa (168th in D1). Conclusion: The stats to date show that the Hawks, in D1 in terms, are above average offensively and below average defensively. Poor rebounding is enough to degrade their offense from very good to a bit above average, and to degrade their defense from average to below average. In reality, they are around the 165th best team in the country. with average rebounding, they would be around the 115th best team. It's also important to note that this is a conservative projection of how much the rebounding problem has hurt the team. I used overall offensive and defensive efficiencies for the extra possessions lost and given to the opposition, but the efficiencies following offensive rebounds are almost certainly higher. This is something we will revisit in the future. |