Posted by emy1013 on 10/8/2010 5:07:00 PM (view original):

I think rebounding has been changed a lot.  When I first started playing HD, I would routinely see teams outrebounding their opponents for the season by double digit margins, sometimes by as much as 16-18 per game.  When I first read KMason's post above about 6 being a fairly significant margin, my first thought was that he was WAAAY off base, but after checking the team leaders in Tark (through 12 games, about half the season), he's right on the mark.  A +6 advantage would land you in the top 25 for rebounding margin in all 3 divisions.  Not at all what I expected to see and frankly, I was a bit shocked that the margins were so low.

Many of the old-timers around here would tell you that "back in the day", rebounding was probably the single biggest key to success.  Outrebound your opponents had you had a HUGE leg up on winning the game.  It would appear that might not be the case so much anymore.  Damn, I need to start paying a little more attention because apparently the game has passed this old man up!!

I'll take your word for it, but that's ludicrous.  How would one player's rebounding vs the player he's rebounding against be irrelevant to who gets the rebound?

But even so, my 89/99 guy should have a farily sizeable advantage on his 60/75 guy, right?  Whatever determines rebounding, he should have an advantage, right?

And for what it's worth, for all of the people who feel the need to look real life, there are four or five teams each in D2 and D3 who had double digit rebounding advantages.  In Allen, there are none in D3 over 7.5, only one over 8.2 in D2, and none over 8.5 in D1.  In Wooden, there are none between D2 and D3.  So for the real-life contingent, HD is on the very low end.

Posted by isack24 on 10/9/2010 10:09:00 AM (view original):
The comparisons to real life rebounding are just off base.  This default to, "well, look at real life margins," is monumentally flawed.  They don't have reb ratings in real life, so we don't know if there is any comparison. 

What I know is, if both teams are playing man, and my guy is 89 ath/99 reb matched up with his 60 ath/75 reb guy, my guy should consistently outrebound his guy by more than one or two per game, otherwise the ath/reb ratings are pointless, at least with respect to rebounding.

Isn't real life what we are trying to imitate?  What other baseline are we going to use, if not real life numbers?

Posted by arssanguinus on 10/10/2010 3:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 10/9/2010 10:09:00 AM (view original):
The comparisons to real life rebounding are just off base.  This default to, "well, look at real life margins," is monumentally flawed.  They don't have reb ratings in real life, so we don't know if there is any comparison. 

What I know is, if both teams are playing man, and my guy is 89 ath/99 reb matched up with his 60 ath/75 reb guy, my guy should consistently outrebound his guy by more than one or two per game, otherwise the ath/reb ratings are pointless, at least with respect to rebounding.

Isn't real life what we are trying to imitate?  What other baseline are we going to use, if not real life numbers?

 

I don't think so, at least not in some strict it-must-be-line-with-real-life way.  What's the point of ratings if the end result is some set deviation from the real life mean?

Even if you disagree with me, as I posted earlier, rebound margin is way low compared to real life anyway.

Posted by Rails on 10/10/2010 11:43:00 AM (view original):
The number of rebounds isn't what matters.  The % of rebounds is what matters.  And you cannot equally value a defensive rebound on a missed FT the same as a missed FG.  To me, the best formula is Offensive Rebounds/missed FG.  That will give you an offensive reb %.  That still doesn't account for offensive rebounds on a missed FT, but those should much less common than offensive boards off a missed FG.  I think you need to compare %, not raw numbers.

Yeah, that's a good point.