(Author's Note--RIP/DFW: I was long a statistical anomaly among QA types, because I actually liked analyzing and trusting small sample sizes others scoffed at for little, tell-tale insights obscured by the blurring mean of large samples. The trick to analyzing small N samples is not to over analyse them, recognize deduction as a legitimate tool that complements induction, resist the temptation of boot strapping oneself into hallucinations, and rely on common sense, rather than flee from it. It is good to use common sense to recognize what small n performances would be likely indicative of large n samples, and which are hopelessly distorted by small n sampling, and then think (but not overthink) about what remains. Why did I like this sort of approach so sacrilegious to doctrinaire quants? Because it moves the element of timeliness of processes front and center in a way large n samples over extended time frames do not do well. Our guys are developing. I want to know where they are right now. Not just the average of their season long performance to date. I am trading off reliability for timeliness, but I am cool with that when I have been watching the process unfold and so already know where we have been. So while this little look at numbers below may seem painfully unsophisticated to most and nearly worthless to those orthodox and religiously faithful to large N stats and their confidence levels, as well as very catholic in their assumptions of normalized distributions imposed on largely unknown distributions of universes, it suggests one tiny little thing that may be worth knowing moving forward.
While going small with Jamari against small bigs may get you some steals, and some mobile defense, even on his best nights he gives up not only likely gives up offense to Hunter and Cheick, but also rebounding.
This small N, one game sample under conditions most favorable for Jamari, suggests that size is part of what keeps Jamari from rebounding well, but that he apparently just doesn't anticipate well against any size of rebounders. And so it is perhaps no coincidence that in a game against a small opponent like SDSU, where Self resorted to Jamari fully 21 minutes, KU was actually out rebounded by SDSU.
Finally, I am not trying to discover anything new here. Anecdotal observation has long suggested that Jamari Traylor is not a very productive rebounder. What I am trying to do is quantify a little of how much he costs the team even in an optional performance not to diss him, but to point out that Self must view his post defense as the source of his net worth to the team against a short team like SDSU. SDSU shot only 42% from the field. So Self was apparently willing to barely lose, or break even on rebounding against such a short team in order to get a team defense in the paint capable of achieving that 42% FG. Its a series of small insights that might help us better understand Coach Self, why Coach Self wins big doing this sort of thing, despite losing the rebounding count, and why a composite center may be such a powerful weapon with this team of extraordinary shooters.)
REBOUNDING OF INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (aka C5) STANDARDIZED TO 30 MINUTES OF ANY PLAYER PLAYING 30 MINUTES AS A STARTER
Name/rebounds/PT*30m =30M Standardized rpg
MICK 3/8*30= 11.25 rpg
TRAY 6/21*30= 8.57 rpg
DIALLO 3/9*30= 9.99 rpg
BRAGG 1/6*30= 5.00 rpg
LUCAS 1/2*30= 15.00 rpg
And now for your visual comparison. Standardized Rebounds per 30 Minutes on the Y axis and player names on the X-axis.
And finally a little pie chart to give one some idea of the proportional contribution to rebounding against small-big man teams of the individuals comprising the The Big Hydra aka C5 aka The Inglorious Basterds.
It would also be interesting to do the above charts for the season, but I wanted a snap shot of where the 5 is in a single late December game that would favor Jamari Traylor, so as to establish a baseline for his largest probable contribution against a short team, realizing that against long teams his role in terms of PT and contribution is apt to diminish.
What interests me here is that against just about about the best match up for Jam Tray and the worst match ups (short, bouncy, high mobility bigs) for Mickelson, Diallo and Bragg, Mick and Diallo still boarded better than Jam Tray, and Bragg suffered about as expected. Lucas performance against short centers is deceptive here, because of from probably significant statistical distortion from how little he played.
Note: Obviously, Landen Lucas' contribution is a bit exaggerated by barely having played, but he does tend to rebound as much or more than the rest against the big teams. In any case, there is not much to be learned about Landen in this particular small sample, and that's that.
