Rebounding worse than I thought

[Pony_Fan]

That would be an interesting look with Castro, Rack, Simpson, Hop, and Lowe or Isham just for a brief period. Like Simpson, I wish the Rack would be more aggressive inside and fight.

[Charleston Pony]

those rebounding stats are miseading. Defensive boards were dead even at 26 and Nevada gained their advantage on the offensive boards. Island Boy is right that it was part of the game plan and Dement admitted that on post game radio show. We were dopping 4 guys after every shot to get back on defense and therefore very few offensive boards for SMU.

I do agree this team will be better next year when Rack, Pearson and possibly Reay figure to see more minutes in the rotation. Keep the big guys fresh.

[Hal]

I didn't make to the game last night, but sometimes a team has a lot of rebounds -- especially offensive rebounds -- because that team is having a horrible shooting night, and therefore is clanging shots off the rim all night, creating more rebound chances.

I haven't looked at the box score -- did Nevada shoot badly last night? (If they only had four fast-break points, I bet their percentage wasn't too impressive.)

[PK]

37% vs 48% for SMU.

[Charleston Pony]

Dement was funny last night in the post game interview. When asked about the rebounding stats, he quickly provided that explanation. I forgot what the next question was but his response was something like; "let's not feel like we have to analyze this game too much...it was a good win".

Bottom line is that from here on out, teams will have to beat SMU at a "slugfest" pace. I'm resigned to that, because winning ugly sure beats the alternative. Anyone remember that game against Patrick Ewing/Georgetown when SMU lost that slow down 38-37 game? It was exciting to me because we actually had a chance at upsetting them!

Anyone think we might draw 3,000 Sat nite?

<small>[ 02-06-2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Charleston Pony ]</small>

[Hoop Fan]

First, the stats do not tell the whole picture because there are rebounds available on only live missed free throws. Therefore, the stats do not tell you how many free throw misses were on dead balls, ie the first of a two shot foul. Having said that, there is no disputing that when Nevada takes 67 field goal attempts and SMU only takes 55, you cannot compare defensive rebound totals and say we did an adequate job on the defensive end because both teams had 26 total. Sure, if a team misses enough, you will eventually get a rebound out of it. Its the rate at which you convert field goal misses by the opponent to rebounds and in that regard we simply got whipped. Anybody that was at the game saw it too. Hell, we won anyway, but this is a serious problem that is not explained by Dements comments, not hardly. To put is simply, the problem is not that we only got 7 offensive boards, its that we let Nevada get 19. They should have to take 100 shots to get 19 offensive boards.

<small>[ 02-06-2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Hoop Fan ]</small>