Other than REB, ATH and IQ, what goes into the equation of who gets a REBOUND? (Trentonjoe - Hall of Famer - 3:01 PM)

That's essentially it, other than things like fatigue and health.

Well, I guess there's no point in ever experimenting with anything. Thanks for your input.

Despite TJ's extensive knowledge, I'm doing it anyway.

Jansen, 84 ATH, 85 REB(+3)
Tebo, 68 ATH, 87 REB(+1)

Posted by Benis on 12/30/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):
You're not even measuring it properly. You need to use Reb %

I wish there was one metric to measure rebounding to include minutes played and tempo.

OK, here's one: Minutes played is listed. Jansen/Tebo have played slowdown all season and will continue to do so.

One guy has 15 more stamina. Pretty important info to mention don't cha think.

Not to me. Both set at fairly fresh and, quite shockingly, the higher stamina guy is playing more.

OK, I know some simply like to be annoying jerks but, sometimes, I'm getting at something.

In addition to these two guys, I've got two at WCSU with similar REB ratings. They have been running in lockstep wrt IQ and the 40ish point better ATH PF outrebounded the C(4-5+ REB) last season and, thru 3 games, is doing so again.

Thru three games since swapping to zone, where IQ is the same, the more athletic PF is outrebounding the C 26-17. I still have at least 7 games but I'm beginning to think ATH is simply far more important than IQ at least in REB.

Assuming that's correct, the question is......Why wouldn't we start more athletic PF at C if REB is similar? I'm assuming similar DEF but lower BLK from the PF. With 3-4 blocks per game, is shot alteration, that we can't put a number on, the difference?

Looking a little further, the lower BLK/higher ATH PF are close/better in blocks despite the huge difference in ratings(20some and almost 50). I'd assume any sort of shot alteration would be similar.

What am I missing?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):
OK, I know some simply like to be annoying jerks but, sometimes, I'm getting at something.

In addition to these two guys, I've got two at WCSU with similar REB ratings. They have been running in lockstep wrt IQ and the 40ish point better ATH PF outrebounded the C(4-5+ REB) last season and, thru 3 games, is doing so again.

Thru three games since swapping to zone, where IQ is the same, the more athletic PF is outrebounding the C 26-17. I still have at least 7 games but I'm beginning to think ATH is simply far more important than IQ at least in REB.

Assuming that's correct, the question is......Why wouldn't we start more athletic PF at C if REB is similar? I'm assuming similar DEF but lower BLK from the PF. With 3-4 blocks per game, is shot alteration, that we can't put a number on, the difference?

Full disclaimer: I haven't read all 11 pages of this. ATH is incredibly important, especially at the lower levels. Whenever I mentor a new D3 coach I always tell them I'd rather take a 65 ath/75 reb guy over a 40 ath/100 reb guy. And you could change "reb" to LP or BLK and I'd say the same thing. Some of this is probably mitigated in 3.0 because we're seeing D3 teams that would have won D2 titles had they played in the 2.0 system.

I don't know if he still does it but mfnmyers racked up about 15 titles at D3 running FB/FCP and recruiting nothing but ATH and DEF while completely punting the other categories (his team BH and P on some of those championship teams was in the low 20's!). He just had so much more athleticism than anyone else and beat his teams into submission.

Hopefully I answered at least part of the question you were asking.

"I still have at least 7 games but I'm beginning to think ATH is simply far more important than IQ at least in REB."

It is. Significantly. No one is going to argue the opposite.

"Why wouldn't we start more athletic PF at C if REB is similar? "

I don't understand this question.

Why wouldn't I start the two PF:

Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Sr.	C	39	37	99	41	100	83	37	27	43	64	67	46	C	683
Jr.	PF	70	31	96	78	52	66	54	36	29	86	79	64	C	741
So.	PF	58	22	82	46	62	68	36	39	36	45	61	30	C-	585
So.	C	37	25	81	22	83	71	10	36	52	37	60	40	B-	554

Or, better phrased, what would be the downside of starting both PF and using the C as back-ups? And what is the purpose of recruiting low ATH C if you can find equally skilled, more ATH PF with weaker BLK skills?

Posted by darnoc29099 on 1/13/2018 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):
OK, I know some simply like to be annoying jerks but, sometimes, I'm getting at something.

In addition to these two guys, I've got two at WCSU with similar REB ratings. They have been running in lockstep wrt IQ and the 40ish point better ATH PF outrebounded the C(4-5+ REB) last season and, thru 3 games, is doing so again.

Thru three games since swapping to zone, where IQ is the same, the more athletic PF is outrebounding the C 26-17. I still have at least 7 games but I'm beginning to think ATH is simply far more important than IQ at least in REB.

Assuming that's correct, the question is......Why wouldn't we start more athletic PF at C if REB is similar? I'm assuming similar DEF but lower BLK from the PF. With 3-4 blocks per game, is shot alteration, that we can't put a number on, the difference?

Full disclaimer: I haven't read all 11 pages of this. ATH is incredibly important, especially at the lower levels. Whenever I mentor a new D3 coach I always tell them I'd rather take a 65 ath/75 reb guy over a 40 ath/100 reb guy. And you could change "reb" to LP or BLK and I'd say the same thing. Some of this is probably mitigated in 3.0 because we're seeing D3 teams that would have won D2 titles had they played in the 2.0 system.

I don't know if he still does it but mfnmyers racked up about 15 titles at D3 running FB/FCP and recruiting nothing but ATH and DEF while completely punting the other categories (his team BH and P on some of those championship teams was in the low 20's!). He just had so much more athleticism than anyone else and beat his teams into submission.

Hopefully I answered at least part of the question you were asking.

Totally agree with this.

myers doesn't go balls out for ath/def anymore. He's able to get high ath/def still but now because of the changes with 3.0, he gets more complete players. I saw the other day he had a PG on his team with 80 pass. unheard of!

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2018 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Or, better phrased, what would be the downside of starting both PF and using the C as back-ups? And what is the purpose of recruiting low ATH C if you can find equally skilled, more ATH PF with weaker BLK skills?

The Sr. Center is better than the Sophomore PF....I would start the two older players.

Post players defense is a combination of ATH, DEF, and BLK. The simplest way of figuring out who the best defender is to add all three together. In zone, they are probably all more or less equal. They aren't but I don't have real confidence in saying this is 10% more important. In man and press, I use something like a 2/1.5/1 (DEF/ATH/BLK) as multipliers but that's a rough guess. To put another way, I would trade 2 points of block for 1 point of Def in most situations in man and press.