How Ashlynn Shade became UConn's best rebounding guard: 'The kid works pretty hard'

[oldhusky]

I focused on Ash's total rebounds because I think that was a rhetorical hook in the article linked in the OP. The writer alleges that, this year, "Shade has carved out her own unique impact as one of UConn’s most dependable rebounders."

It happens to be my personal opinion that 3.1 TRBs a game is not a "unique [rebounding] impact," so I researched and posted comparative TRB stats for other players.

I was not commenting on any of Shade's other skill contributions. Others have made all those points.



Why? That seems like an arbitrary and overly selective cherry pick. Defensive rebounds count, too, so that's why I chose T boards to measure and challenge Ash's "unique impact" via rebounding. (But I have no objection to using TRB%, discussed below.)

Shade happens to be UConn's top guard in TRB per game, as I noted (and third on the team), but she's second best guard in ORB% (after Fisher's "insignificant"? minutes) as your stats show. When we get to DRB%, Ash is the fourth best guard (assuming BQ and CD are not guards) and 11th on the team. Why not use TRB% to capture her "unique impact" on all rebounding? With that more comprehensive rebound % stat, Ash is the second best guard on the team (after Heckel) and ninth on the team.

I think my use of TRB instead TRB% or the arbitrarily selective ORB% actually makes Shade look like a better statistical rebounder—but hardly "unique" in the grand scheme of WCBB.

You say Torvik has Shade as the 16th best combo guard in the nation in ORB%. Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with Torvik and don't know how to use all his variable parameters. But your linked table seems to show only conference play not national play. What are Torvik's national rankings for guards in ORB% and, more important for my focus, TRB%? HHS shows me that Shade ranks nationally 858th for guards in TRB%.



Given UConn's success to date, I'm not "worried" either about the team rebounding. I just thought I'd point out where UConn ranks in ORB, DRB and TRB—none high.

BTW, @NycUcWbbFan, I enjoy your statistical posts and your interest in discussing and explaining them.

I think there are several good points on both sides. Do I think there has been a greater priority on Ash rebounding this year? Yes, and largely because of who is not here this year. I believe Paige was far more the 3 than the 4 last year, but two years ago it was just the opposite.

Anyway Paige at the 3 is not small-ball. With her length and athletic ability she was an above average rebounder for the position, and way above average on blocked shots, the two stats most related to size. This year using any of the pure guards at the 3 was going to be a drop off from Paige on rebounding and blocks, and the team would be even more small ball so to speak.

Morgan if she was available would be an exception to that, and Blanca is a natural 3, but the others are 1's or 2's being asked to play the 3. Of those options Ashlynn is the best bet for rebounding and to play the 3, but while Paige is a guard she didn't give up anything at the 3 in terms of rebounds and blocks.

This team is a good but far from great rebounding team. I believe in terms of the % of available rebounds (my preferred measure) they were somewhere around 50th in the nation. Compared to most of their other stats for this team, it is a relative weakness, but one by choice to a certain extent. Because of small ball and the pressing defense our turnover differential is exceptional, so we get extra possessions more that way than from rebounds, but that is the trade off.

Most of that is due to strategic decisions. We do not play C's or 5's 40 minutes a game. Serah and Jana's minutes fall short of that because we use Sarah some at the 5. That is small ball. Not so much because of Sarah at the 5, because she can be great there too, and still be a good rebounder/shot blocker for the position, but because when she is there, we usually have a 3 playing the 4 (Blanca) and a 2 playing the 3 (Ashlynn). We trade off rebounds for turnovers by choice with small ball.

I wish Geno had the players and confidence in them to go large as an option more often, and have both strategies in the toolbox to use depending on game needs or the opponent. If the Big O is great from the start, and we added say Okeke and she similarly was an immediate impact player, then playing Sarah some at the 3 and Blanca at the 2 is a distinct possibility. I think both of them could be very good down a position at times, but the obstacle is far more getting high enough play from the 5's and 4's, other than Sarah to enable Geno to consider the big options.

 

[Gael]

I'll continue this discussion of questionably relevant advanced rebounding stats with @NycUcWbbFan for my edification and for the minority members who may be interested.

REMEMBER: My only purpose of posting in this thread is to challenge the article writer's hyperbolic claim that Shade, this season, has had a "unique impact" on rebounding.

ORB%/ DRB% and TRB% are rate stats (per possession stats). It’s good at normalizing comparisons.

I'll agree with that. So let's look at all three of those stats for Shade re the guards on UConn, in the BEC, and nationally. Then we can have data to see whether Shade is having a unique rebounding impact.

The reason why I didn’t include DRB% is that it is usually highly correlated to how that player is being used in defense. . . . This year, there’s plenty of taller players at UConn for DRB%

I don't follow this logic. Are you saying that ORB% is not correlated with how the player is used on offense? Or that Shade plays closer to the basket on offense this year than she does on defense? Or that Shade plays closer to the basket on offense this year than she did her prior two years? Or that UConn's plenty of taller players this year don't go after ORBs?

While any or all of these may be true, I don't how anyone would prove them.

More importantly, I still don't understand why one would ignore Shade's DRB% and TRB% to ascertain her overall "unique impact" on rebounding. I begin to suspect that Shade's DRB% and TRB% are ignored mainly because they don't look very good compared to her ORB%.

Let's find out.

Actually, we have a statistical unicorn: Shade's ORB%, DRB% and TRB% are all the same: 7.3%.

ORB% is one of the things that sets Ash apart this year

Sets her apart from whom?

To compare Shade's three RB% stats among guards, I used HHS and set the minimum criteria at 12 for games played and at 12 for minutes played per game. This flushes out Kelis Fisher and other low game and low minute players.

This season among 5 UConn guards, Shade is: 1 in ORB%, 4 in DRB% (behind Heckel, KK, AZ), and 2 in TRB% (behind Heckel).

This season among 62 BEC guards, Shade is: 10 in ORB%, 52 in DRB%, and 33 in TRB%.

This season among 1915 national guards, Shade is: 190 in ORB%, 1535 in DRB%, and 791 in TRB%.

Assuming these RB% stats are meaningful (and correct), I would conclude from them that Shade is:

• Doing a top job in ORB% among UConn guards, and significantly above average among BEC guards and national guards.
• Doing significantly below average in DRB% among UConn guards, BEC guards and national guards
• And in my preferred TRB% stat, doing second to Heckel among UConn guards, about average among BEC guards, and somewhat above average among national guards.

I leave it to others to decide for themselves whether these RB% stats show that Shade has had a "unique impact" on rebounding this season.

 

[Skeets]

I'm going to post something that at least 2 people (probably more) will not like or agree with. With all the myriad of advance analytics being discussed, in my opinion, the most fun and dependable is your Mark 1 eyeball. Not everything can be measured and analyzed.

 

[AmeriConn]

This is exactly what we’ve been talking about.