Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="auror, post: 3352861, member: 1329"] Yes, you're correct. Anyone still using raw "rebounding margin" is a fool and intentionally ignorant at this point. The KenPom stuff is based on %'s as you thought it might be. For individuals it's based on the number of rebounds while you're on the court and the percentage that you get. For teams it's the overall % of gotten vs. available as a team. It's usually split into offensive and defensive. And your guess is correct. We were more effective rebounding our chances on both ends of the court (offensive and defensive) against Maine despite "losing the rebounding battle" in the game. We just had less opportunities. We rebounded ~81% of their misses, which is quite good actually. They grabbed 78%, so we did not do a very good job on the offensive glass despite them being in a zone, but we still did rebound better than them. We missed Sid Wilson in that zone oreb department. It's definitely not perfect. There's some sort of secret sauce algorithm for the positions. It's mostly sorted by height and weight, with some deference for assist rate for PG. Vital has a much higher assist rate and is shorter. Vital actually has an assist rate higher than 30+ teams' starting PG. [/QUOTE]