"Rebirth" of press at D3 Topic

zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/11/2011 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Wooden D3 is definitely the press happy world. I made a thread about it in Wooden's last NT where all Elite 8 and almost the entire Sweet 16 were press. Tark is where you see parity between man/press/zone and Rupp is pretty balanced between man and press. This is just a quick look at the A+ prestige teams. 

Current Top 10 in Tark
Press - 2
Man - 4
Zone - 1
Press/Man - 1
Press/Zone - 2

A+ Teams in Tark (14)
Press - 6
Man - 6
Zone - 2
Press/Man - 0
Press/Zone - 0

By the way, thanks to jon_hart for transitioning from Press to Zone, so that I am not the only fool in Tark running a plain zone defense.
 

1/11/2011 9:40 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
This kind of got lost in the thread, but no one ever really responded to the rebounding issue.

It's my experience that rebounding is still slightly (or more than slightly) off.  Well, the press is a poor reboundign defense, so in the past, you used to be able to combat an ath/spd discrepancy with high reb ratings (more second chance points, putbacks, etc.).  Now, because rebounding is off (in my opinion), the press is less prone to giving up a lot of offensive boards to lower spd/higher reb guys.

That's my contention, anyway.  Thoughts?
1/13/2011 12:11 PM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
I feel rebounding is off across the board.  Previously, it was too strong and you could concentrate on great rebounding bigs and do OK.   Now, it seems to be more team-rebound orientated  and the great individual rebounders aren't as dominant  asperhaps  they should be.
1/13/2011 12:24 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by alblack56 on 1/13/2011 12:24:00 PM (view original):
I feel rebounding is off across the board.  Previously, it was too strong and you could concentrate on great rebounding bigs and do OK.   Now, it seems to be more team-rebound orientated  and the great individual rebounders aren't as dominant  asperhaps  they should be.
Do you think that has much to do with the difference in rebounders? That is, at D1, you have relatively few 10+ rpg guys because almost every team has at least one very good rebounder. At D3, you have many more rebounders at 10+ rpg, because when you are a 85, 90, 95 rebounding skill (coupled with some ath) at D3, you are likely to have a significant advantage over many of your opponents. D2 falls in between and also has an intermediate number of dominant (10+ rpg) guys.
1/13/2011 12:42 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect

Z: I don't think that's the reason.  Since the new engine, I've played in all three divisions, and I don't see that as the issue.  I can't tell you exactly what the issue is, but I don't think that's the reason for the apparent discrepancy.

I have had multiple guys whose ath/reb were the best on the court in nearly ever matchup end up averaging mediocre reb totals.  Take Randall Alexander for instance.  Playing man, he should be pretty dominant on the boards, even at D2.  But he's not.  And I see this all the time.

I don't want this to necessarily turn into a rebounding thread.  But I do think that rebounding logic problems are helping the press, especially at D3 where, as you stated, it should be easier to have dominant rebounders if that's what you're recruiting for; only I (again, not this year) generally do have big ath/reb guys, and I'm not seeing dominant rebound totals.

1/13/2011 1:55 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Oh, rebounding is broken. This Indiana team with ONE PLAYER OVER 62 REB actually outrebounding its opponents by ~ 3 per game whlie playing in the very tough Big Ten. My jaw basically hit the floor when I noticed this the other day:

Yr. Pos. A SPD REB DE BLK LP PE BH P WE ST DU FT TOT
Eric Strang Sr. SG 75 75 15 75 10 54 98 51 59 74 79 68 B+ 733
Kenneth Glick So. SG 82 65 15 84 6 41 65 78 72 77 82 75 B+ 742
Lewis Hadley So. SG 88 84 31 96 11 70 60 78 87 72 78 76 A- 831
Isaac Mikkelsen Fr. SG 88 78 57 88 40 53 86 74 56 83 74 49 B+ 826
John Stanley Sr. SF 97 68 62 97 52 78 46 56 80 63 84 43 B- 826
Jason Owens Fr. SF 92 73 62 82 57 47 69 53 78 61 69 47 C+ 790
Tracy Lor Sr. PF 75 55 53 85 41 28 64 49 70 33 77 50 C+ 680
Ming-Hoa Tang Jr. PF 93 60 98 96 72 71 38 65 61 71 67 84 B- 876
George Ramey So. PF 67 59 49 85 62 45 51 60 53 75 70 72 B 748
Samuel Billington Fr. PF 49 46 55 50 50 51 10 31 56 45 72 20 B+ 535
David Johnson Fr. PF 74 33 45 72 35 62 12 40 56 73 76 35 C+ 613
1/13/2011 2:44 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Well, I think that has a HUGE effect on press teams, which typically don't have goo reb ratings at D3.  If they can recruit crappy rebounders without suffering consequences, doesn't that give them an advantage?
1/13/2011 3:51 PM
4green2
Posts: 284 (0)
All Star
30
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 1/13/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Oh, rebounding is broken. This Indiana team with ONE PLAYER OVER 62 REB actually outrebounding its opponents by ~ 3 per game whlie playing in the very tough Big Ten. My jaw basically hit the floor when I noticed this the other day:

Yr. Pos. A SPD REB DE BLK LP PE BH P WE ST DU FT TOT
Eric Strang Sr. SG 75 75 15 75 10 54 98 51 59 74 79 68 B+ 733
Kenneth Glick So. SG 82 65 15 84 6 41 65 78 72 77 82 75 B+ 742
Lewis Hadley So. SG 88 84 31 96 11 70 60 78 87 72 78 76 A- 831
Isaac Mikkelsen Fr. SG 88 78 57 88 40 53 86 74 56 83 74 49 B+ 826
John Stanley Sr. SF 97 68 62 97 52 78 46 56 80 63 84 43 B- 826
Jason Owens Fr. SF 92 73 62 82 57 47 69 53 78 61 69 47 C+ 790
Tracy Lor Sr. PF 75 55 53 85 41 28 64 49 70 33 77 50 C+ 680
Ming-Hoa Tang Jr. PF 93 60 98 96 72 71 38 65 61 71 67 84 B- 876
George Ramey So. PF 67 59 49 85 62 45 51 60 53 75 70 72 B 748
Samuel Billington Fr. PF 49 46 55 50 50 51 10 31 56 45 72 20 B+ 535
David Johnson Fr. PF 74 33 45 72 35 62 12 40 56 73 76 35 C+ 613
in this case wouldn't that three rebound edge have more to do with their shooting percentage vs that of their opponents?  Just back of the envelope math has them having 134 more defensive rebounding opportunities off of missed field goals but only 70 more rebounds total.

1/14/2011 7:25 AM
4green2
Posts: 284 (0)
All Star
30
Prospect
IN my case, yes I have 188 more defensive rebound opportunities - but also have 134 more rebounds than my opponents, thus accounting for my good rebounders(The two 95's) in the post.

1/14/2011 7:30 AM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by 4green2 on 1/14/2011 7:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 1/13/2011 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Oh, rebounding is broken. This Indiana team with ONE PLAYER OVER 62 REB actually outrebounding its opponents by ~ 3 per game whlie playing in the very tough Big Ten. My jaw basically hit the floor when I noticed this the other day:

Yr. Pos. A SPD REB DE BLK LP PE BH P WE ST DU FT TOT
Eric Strang Sr. SG 75 75 15 75 10 54 98 51 59 74 79 68 B+ 733
Kenneth Glick So. SG 82 65 15 84 6 41 65 78 72 77 82 75 B+ 742
Lewis Hadley So. SG 88 84 31 96 11 70 60 78 87 72 78 76 A- 831
Isaac Mikkelsen Fr. SG 88 78 57 88 40 53 86 74 56 83 74 49 B+ 826
John Stanley Sr. SF 97 68 62 97 52 78 46 56 80 63 84 43 B- 826
Jason Owens Fr. SF 92 73 62 82 57 47 69 53 78 61 69 47 C+ 790
Tracy Lor Sr. PF 75 55 53 85 41 28 64 49 70 33 77 50 C+ 680
Ming-Hoa Tang Jr. PF 93 60 98 96 72 71 38 65 61 71 67 84 B- 876
George Ramey So. PF 67 59 49 85 62 45 51 60 53 75 70 72 B 748
Samuel Billington Fr. PF 49 46 55 50 50 51 10 31 56 45 72 20 B+ 535
David Johnson Fr. PF 74 33 45 72 35 62 12 40 56 73 76 35 C+ 613
in this case wouldn't that three rebound edge have more to do with their shooting percentage vs that of their opponents?  Just back of the envelope math has them having 134 more defensive rebounding opportunities off of missed field goals but only 70 more rebounds total.

The problem with your point is that it doesn't hold up to apples-to-apples comparisons. When you check them out vs. other comparable teams in their conference w. similar rebounding opportunities (MSU, Mich, Minn, etc.) and other BCS conferences, their rebounding margin is mostly as good or better despite having (by FAR) no rebounding in comparison. This is the worst rebounding team in the BCS, and maybe the worst-human coached rebounding team in Allen. They should be getting destroyed.
1/15/2011 1:50 PM
◂ Prev 1234
"Rebirth" of press at D3 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.