Shot volume wins championships + Do people realize how good is ISU's offense?

[EarthIsMan]

For my analytic friends.....interesting read from Gasaway's Tuesday Truths: "Final Four teams are way better than taking shots than making them"

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, not every great offense generates a high volume of shots. Kansas and Duke, for example, look pretty vanilla in terms of volume, but the true outlier in this discussion is plainly Iowa State.

The Cyclones clearly have an outstanding offense (No. 1 in Big 12 play, at 1.14 points per trip), yet they rank No. 53 out of 75 major-conference teams in terms of shot volume. This is primarily due to poor offensive rebounding which, in ISU’s case, appears to be purely a function of ineptitude and not volition. (Iowa State is equally awful on the defensive glass.) Feel free to draw one or both of two mutually compatible conclusions. If Steve Prohm’s guys ever pull down a few misses, this offense will be unstoppable; if the Cyclones’ shots don’t fall, they’ll be at a loss for Plan B.

This is probably nothing new to anyone who has been following this team. ISU has a narrow margin to win games due the inability to grab offensive rebounds and turnover people over. It does help that ISU commits few turnovers, but unlike years past they have been quite poor in limiting opponent's offensive rebounds. Gasaway tries to illustrate the idea of teams having a thin margin of error with "Easy Shot Volume Solver" (ESVS). Simply the ESVS is high when you create alot of offensive rebounds and limit turnovers. If you do these two things you get away with a lower shooting % because your are simply taking more shorts. Despite ISU's offensive prowess, it falls at #51 in ESVS, but for the record Virginia is #49, Oklahoma is #50, and Villanova is #57. This is far far from a panacea metric, but nonetheless it is an interesting approach to look at a team's ability to "weather" a poor shooting performance.

Further, ISU has been lackluster in offensive rebounding % defense (they were the best in 2015 B12 play btw). Kirk Haaland addressed some of ISU's rebounding issues in his article today and put a positive spin on our ability to rebound by adjusting it to opponents. Ultimately, if ISU can rebound even just a little bit better it will help soooo much. Obviously, creating more opportunities at shots is going win you games (look at Press Virginia's model or how North Carolina is winning games this year).

ISU's offensive proficiency, Morris's wizardry, and Niang's brilliance are known quantities. BUT If ISU is going make some major noise it comes down to rebounding (both offensive and defensive rebounding). People rail on ISUss lackluster defense, but people forget to realize how much rebounding factors into this. An inordinate amount of this responsibility comes down on McKay, therefore we need the likes of Burton and Nader to really step up.

If you have suffered through this pontification, I applaud you. The short is I cannot wait for postseason play begin...some reason I have a good feeling about these next couple of weeks.

 

[ClonesTwentyOne]

Too long. Didn't read.

 

[GTO]

Too long. Didn't read.

^^^^ TL;DR

 

[cstrunk]

I read it; too many big words; couldn't understand.

:twitcy:

 

[NorthCyd]

Sorry, but this isn't some kind of revelation. People have been talking about ISU's inability to rebound on both ends as a major issue with this team quite a bit.

 

[EarthIsMan]

Sorry, but this isn't some kind of revelation. People have been talking about ISU's inability to rebound on both ends as a major issue with this team quite a bit.

Never intended to be a revelation. Just sharing an article that discussed elements of teams that advance to the elite 8 and discussed ISU a little bit.

 

[EYEoftheSTORM]

I appreciate the enthusiasm but feel like I read the same paragraph about 6 different times....


USE YOUR WORDS!!!

 

[Spanky]

Well I liked it.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I think we purposely don't crash the offensive boards to protect our transition defense. The key to me is defensive boards.

 

[NorthCyd]

Never intended to be a revelation. Just sharing an article that discussed elements of teams that advance to the elite 8 and discussed ISU a little bit.

I was mainly responding to the comment that people "forget to realize" what a factor rebounding is.

 

[Cardinal2001]

I think we purposely don't crash the offensive boards to protect our transition defense. The key to me is defensive boards.

This. Dates back to the Hoiberg era, and what made us a transition team, we release very early. It's the focus on offense.

 

[EarthIsMan]

I think we purposely don't crash the offensive boards to protect our transition defense. The key to me is defensive boards.

Agreed. Transition offense is the equalizer to opponent's offensive rebounding and it has worked great for us in the past. This year not so much. The difference between ISU 2016 and 2013, 2014, 2015 is defensive rebounding %. ISU's MO has never been to get offensive rebounds, but it is to definitely limit transition offense.

You can only get into your transition offense if you are getting defensive rebounds.

There is a lot of debate on how many players should send on the offensive glass in lieu of giving up offensive transition points (great Zach Lowe article on this topic here).

 

[Cardinal2001]

There is a lot of debate on how many players should send on the offensive glass in lieu of giving up offensive transition points (great Zach Lowe article on this topic here).

Heh, beginning of that article sounds like what every team has done to try and slow down the Cyclones. Except they also seem to be getting more than their fair share of offensive rebounds.

 

[Cardinal2001]

Also from the same article:

Kickout 3s immediately after an offensive rebound are among the very best shots in the game.

How many times have we been burned by that this year?

 

[EarthIsMan]

...... I read the same paragraph about 6 different times....


USE YOUR WORDS!!!

That is then a problem with your reading comprehension. Like most paragraphs should be, each paragraph has its own topic.....revolutionary! :GEEK:

 

[jbhtexas]

I agree with the OP's statement that if ISU could rebound just a little better, it would help out alot. Unfortunately, this needed improvement just hasn't happened. Going back over ISU's box scores, there have been some rather gaudy (in a bad way) offensive rebounding differentials, which basically is just handing the opponent extra offensive possessions, which in turn really puts pressure on ISU's offense to make up for the extra possessions that the opponent is getting.

 

[Cyclonepride]

It's possible that our former frenetic pace forced teams to abandon the offensive boards in favor of limiting our transition opportunities.

Coach Prohm has tempered that to an extent in an attempt to limit some of our quick forced shots, which has helped prevent the other teams getting some easy run outs.

It would be interesting to see him turn them loose a bit and see if they are better at recognizing when the numbers are or aren't there.

 

[jbhtexas]

It's possible that our former frenetic pace forced teams to abandon the offensive boards in favor of limiting our transition opportunities.

Coach Prohm has tempered that to an extent in an attempt to limit some of our quick forced shots, which has helped prevent the other teams getting some easy run outs.

It would be interesting to see him turn them loose a bit and see if they are better at recognizing when the numbers are or aren't there.

I would suggest that teams aren't really "crashing" the offensive boards against ISU. It's their bigs who are getting the offensive rebounds. For example, in the last KU game. KU got 16 ORB, 14 were credited to the players, 2 were team. Of the 14 credited to players, 10 were by their 6'8"-6'10" forwards.

ISU has a basic rebounding deficiency, and opponents don't really have to go out of their way to exploit it. It seems to get worse in the latter stages of the second half, which could very well be fatigue from the short bench.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I would suggest that teams aren't really "crashing" the offensive boards against ISU. It's their bigs who are getting the offensive rebounds. For example, in the last KU game. KU got 16 ORB, 14 were credited to the players, 2 were team. Of the 14 credited to players, 10 were by their 6'8"-6'10" forwards.

ISU has a basic rebounding deficiency, and opponents don't really have to go out of their way to exploit it. It seems to get worse in the latter stages of the second half, which could very well be fatigue from the short bench.

I agree that fatigue plays a part. However, when we were running more, I'm quite certain that it put pressure on everyone on the opposing team to get back. Not the whole problem obviously, but I think it's a factor. We had been one-foot-out-of-bounds and zipping it down the court fast. We walk it up much more than we used to, especially on made baskets.

 

[Kurttr]

I'd go pretty simple with why we stink at rebounding - we don't give the effort on D or for rebounding, which puts us in poor position, and we can't out-athlete/out-muscle most of our opponents to get boards. I expect both aspects of this (positioning/athleticism) will change in future years. I sure hope so.