NCAA and team stats as of 1/13/24

[HuskyNan]

Re: the national rankings, keep in mind the toughest part of the Huskies’ schedule is behind them and other teams are just coming into theirs

 

[Jackalope]

If you have a four guard height challenged starting lineup, you better lead the NCAA in field goal percentage if you want to win!

 

[HuskyNan]

 

[DEpup]

Does anyone know if they do team stats by quadrant? It would probably be more valuable to see the stat comparison of say the top 100 teams.

 

[Notyetready]

It folllows that we are #275 in off rbs when we are #1 in field goal %. It also follows that our off rbs would be higher if we missed more shots. So to some extent our rb numbers are affected by our excellent shooting. Glass half full view of it.

 

[Skeets]

It folllows that we are #275 in off rbs when we are #1 in field goal %. It also follows that our off rbs would be higher if we missed more shots. So to some extent our rb numbers are affected by our excellent shooting. Glass half full view of it.

Wow, good point. I was going to post something stupid about being ranked #275 before I read your post. You saved me from an embarrassment.

 

[Jackalope]

It folllows that we are #275 in off rbs when we are #1 in field goal %. It also follows that our off rbs would be higher if we missed more shots. So to some extent our rb numbers are affected by our excellent shooting. Glass half full view of it.

Is there a stat like offensive rebounds per missed shot / offensive rebound opportunity ? It is likely we would be fairly low on that also.

 

[HuskyNan]

Is there a stat like offensive rebounds per missed shot / offensive rebound opportunity ? It is likely we would be fairly low on that also.

You can calculate the percentage you’re looking for.

1,070 total shots taken
. 551 total shots made
. 519 offensive rebound opportunities
. 169 successful offensive rebounds

169 / 519 = 32.6%

 

[Zarathustra]

You can calculate the percentage you’re looking for.

1,070 total shots taken
. 551 total shots made
. 519 offensive rebound opportunities
. 169 successful offensive rebounds

169 / 519 = 32.6%

Thanks for the calculation. Is there a point of reference for other teams in this regard?
I would assume our "success" in getting rebounds would vary quite a bit based on
the " degree of difficulty " = in my definition: how many BIGS the opposition had in
the Post area. I don't question our rebounding intent but the swing between a tall
opponent and "shorter" group would be very hard to calculate with real meaning as
as a bundled figure. It might be more significant comparing how we do against ONE TALL OPPONENT
against how we expect to do against ANOTHER TALL OPPONENT. I think that I'll leave
that stat analysis to the BONEYARD savants and to GENO and his analytics team! GO TEAM, don't
overthink! score, defend, and show your UCONN CHEMISTRY!

 

[HuskyNan]

Thanks for the calculation. Is there a point of reference for other teams in this regard?
I would assume our "success" in getting rebounds would vary quite a bit based on
the " degree of difficulty " = in my definition: how many BIGS the opposition had in
the Post area. I don't question our rebounding intent but the swing between a tall
opponent and "shorter" group would be very hard to calculate with real meaning as
as a bundled figure. It might be more significant comparing how we do against ONE TALL OPPONENT
against how we expect to do against ANOTHER TALL OPPONENT. I think that I'll leave
that stat analysis to the BONEYARD savants and to GENO and his analytics team! GO TEAM, don't
overthink! score, defend, and show your UCONN CHEMISTRY!

I don’t know. Try this site

The #1 source for women's basketball insight used by coaches, broadcasters, players, and fans

Traditional and Advanced Statistics for Teams and Players, Leaderboards, Ranks, Team Comparisons, Schedules, Rosters, Game Logs, and more

herhoopstats.com

 

[Boreifs]

Thanks for the calculation. Is there a point of reference for other teams in this regard?
I would assume our "success" in getting rebounds would vary quite a bit based on
the " degree of difficulty " = in my definition: how many BIGS the opposition had in
the Post area. I don't question our rebounding intent but the swing between a tall
opponent and "shorter" group would be very hard to calculate with real meaning as
as a bundled figure. It might be more significant comparing how we do against ONE TALL OPPONENT
against how we expect to do against ANOTHER TALL OPPONENT. I think that I'll leave
that stat analysis to the BONEYARD savants and to GENO and his analytics team! GO TEAM, don't
overthink! score, defend, and show your UCONN CHEMISTRY!

The point of reference is irrelevant. The stat tells me that UConn gets an offensive rebound one out of every three missed shots. Combined with the nation’s number one field goal percentage and the high rate of forced turnovers, that is an unbeatable combination.

 

[Jackalope]

You can calculate the percentage you’re looking for.

1,070 total shots taken
. 551 total shots made
. 519 offensive rebound opportunities
. 169 successful offensive rebounds

169 / 519 = 32.6%

Nan, Challenge Accepted!! I had to piece together a number of pages off the NCAA stats, and then realized that they were updating the stats while I was downloading data.

I think Offensive Rebounds include those from missed foul shot attempts, correct? I calculated it both ways, and UCONN is ranked 204 out of 348 teams regardless if missed foul shots are included in the calculation.

Texas, Syracuse, LSU, UCLA, and Stamford are all at 40% or more including Missed FTs. UCONN has 28.5%.

South Carolina is just behind UCONN in Overall Field Goal Percentage.

I tried to attach the excel file to this post for others to play around with, and it is not one of the permitted extensions.