I've complained a few times (maybe too many times) that I disagree with Groce's philosophy to send all (most) guys back on defense after the shot goes up instead of crashing the offensive boards (sending at least two or three). I know many of you disagree and that's ok.
I wanted to post this interesting study by MIT - "To Crash or Not to Crash: A quantitative look at the relationship between offensive rebounding and transition defense in the NBA".
And if you want to see the slides they're here:
I know this is an NBA study and not NCAAM but basically it says sending more players to crash boards instead of getting back in transition defense pays off, resulting in a net +4 points difference per game. And I know there are a ton of other caveats (style of play, your personnel, etc) but in general I agree that the gamble pays off more often than not. As bad as our transition defense is, our offensive rebounding is virtually non-existent which I think hurts us worse. I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
I wanted to post this interesting study by MIT - "To Crash or Not to Crash: A quantitative look at the relationship between offensive rebounding and transition defense in the NBA".
And if you want to see the slides they're here:
I know this is an NBA study and not NCAAM but basically it says sending more players to crash boards instead of getting back in transition defense pays off, resulting in a net +4 points difference per game. And I know there are a ton of other caveats (style of play, your personnel, etc) but in general I agree that the gamble pays off more often than not. As bad as our transition defense is, our offensive rebounding is virtually non-existent which I think hurts us worse. I'll hang up and listen to your answer.