OWH: Nebraska Doesn't Need a Big Man

[Mavric]

Quote

It's added wings and forwards between 6-4 and 6-9, 10 in total on next year’s roster so far. And that's where the fixes will come from — those three transfers who sat the bench in street clothes last season and those in the 2020 class enrolling this summer.

 

Recent history suggests teams do not need to have a dominant, or even productive, center in order to win in college basketball. The job can be done by a team of rebound-conscious wings and guards.

 

And that’s Nebraska’s plan.

 

“When I look back at my time in Iowa State, some of the most successful teams I had were when I had five really skilled players on the floor, but with that, they had the ability to compete and rebound from all five spots,” Hoiberg said.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Well, it will be interesting.  Fred obviously knows way more about basketball than I do.

 

One thing though that drives me crazy is when we are on offense and someone puts up a shot and all 5 guys immediately take off to the other end without even thinking about rebounding.  If we are going to rebound with 5 guards and wings, then that can't be the case.  I know you have to get back on defense.  But....offensive rebounds are important especially when you're throwing up threes all game.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Well, it will be interesting.  Fred obviously knows way more about basketball than I do.

 

One thing though that drives me crazy is when we are on offense and someone puts up a shot and all 5 guys immediately take off to the other end without even thinking about rebounding.  If we are going to rebound with 5 guards and wings, then that can't be the case.  I know you have to get back on defense.  But....offensive rebounds are important especially when you're throwing up threes all game.

 

NU was near the bottom in NCAA offensive rebound percentage in '19-20, and with the lack of big guys, it will always rank near the bottom.  That's why Hoiberg looks for efficient scoring (layups and open 3's) on offense, and limiting easy scores on defense.  If Hoiberg has a smallish team crash the boards, that creates more problems than it's worth.  Because they are so small, it's unlikely NU will get the offensive rebound, and if there are 2 or 3 guys trying for offensive rebounds, it creates fast break and easy scoring opportunities for the opponent.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

 

NU was near the bottom in NCAA offensive rebound percentage in '19-20, and with the lack of big guys, it will always rank near the bottom.  That's why Hoiberg looks for efficient scoring (layups and open 3's) on offense, and limiting easy scores on defense.  If Hoiberg has a smallish team crash the boards, that creates more problems than it's worth.  Because they are so small, it's unlikely NU will get the offensive rebound, and if there are 2 or 3 guys trying for offensive rebounds, it creates fast break and easy scoring opportunities for the opponent.

Great....so we are waving the white flag on offensive rebounds.  Glad to know that.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Great....so we are waving the white flag on offensive rebounds.  Glad to know that.

Most teams wave the white flag on offensive rebounds anyway.  Unless the team has a ton of big men, crashing the offensive boards is a low percentage play and it creates too many easy scoring opportunities for the opponent.  It's the analytics game which Hoiberg is heavily into.

[ECisGod]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Great....so we are waving the white flag on offensive rebounds.  Glad to know that.

It also depends who you are playing.  For example, Michigan State rarely gives up offensive rebounds and will run when they get the board you probably send everyone/almost everyone back.  If you are playing Wisconsin who rarely runs, you can probably crash the offensive boards and only send one or two back.

 

This year they didn't crash the boards much because they didn't have guys who were good offensive rebounders and it made more sense to prevent the break than to hope that 3% chance of getting the offensive board worked.

[ColoradoHusk]

13 minutes ago, ECisGod said:

It also depends who you are playing.  For example, Michigan State rarely gives up offensive rebounds and will run when they get the board you probably send everyone/almost everyone back.  If you are playing Wisconsin who rarely runs, you can probably crash the offensive boards and only send one or two back.

 

This year they didn't crash the boards much because they didn't have guys who were good offensive rebounders and it made more sense to prevent the break than to hope that 3% chance of getting the offensive board worked.

Thanks for expanding on my comments on offensive rebounding.  The last thing you want is a bunch of guys running from the outside-in to try and get an offensive rebound.  All that does is waste energy of your players and create transition buckets for your opponent.

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Great....so we are waving the white flag on offensive rebounds.  Glad to know that.

 

We were #237 in offensive rebounding last year.  Which isn't good.

 

One more offensive rebound per game would have moved us up nearly 100 spots.  It's a pretty tight pack.

 

Team below us: Butler (#23 team in the country), Texas (two 6-11 guys on the roster), Texas Tech (national championship game last year), Villanova (small-ball champions), Michigan (four guys 6-10 or better), Oklahoma (four guys 6-9 or taller), Wisconsin (bet you would have guessed a long time before naming them) and Creighton (#7 team in the country)

 

We probably get a little bump because of pace-of-play but perhaps we can dispense with the melodrama.

[ECisGod]

3 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Thanks for expanding on my comments on offensive rebounding.  The last thing you want is a bunch of guys running from the outside-in to try and get an offensive rebound.  All that does is waste energy of your players and create transition buckets for your opponent.

I was working on my response when you posted.

[BigRedBuster]

5 hours ago, Mavric said:

We probably get a little bump because of pace-of-play but perhaps we can dispense with the melodrama.

Excuse me?  Melodrama?  Im discussing a part of the game. For which I wish we were better than 237th. 

[Mavric]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Excuse me?  Melodrama?  Im discussing a part of the game. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Mavric said:

 

How about dispensing with the attitude. 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Excuse me?  Melodrama?  Im discussing a part of the game. For which I wish we were better than 237th. 

It’s a minimal part of the game, where if the team doesn’t have the size to grab an extra 2-3 offensive boards a game, it’s not worth chasing with guards crashing the boards. It’s especially true with Hoiberg’s 4 out system where guys from outside the arc would be crashing the boards. It’s just not worth it. 

[GBRFAN]

19 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Great....so we are waving the white flag on offensive rebounds.  Glad to know that.

I think last year thst was the case - its a numbers game if you crash and have a 10% chance of a rebound but you create a 15% chance of a fast break then you back away.  As the team gains size the % will change and so will positioning of the players on missed shots

[BigRedBuster]

On 5/1/2020 at 11:19 PM, ColoradoHusk said:

It’s a minimal part of the game, where if the team doesn’t have the size to grab an extra 2-3 offensive boards a game, it’s not worth chasing with guards crashing the boards. It’s especially true with Hoiberg’s 4 out system where guys from outside the arc would be crashing the boards. It’s just not worth it. 

Here’s the thought that goes through my mind on that though, we continue to have problems with teams getting second and third shots on their end of the court. If teams aren’t thinking offensive rebounds are important, why is that?