Rebounding or Threes...Why Not Both?
Teams tend to prioritize one or the other, but offensive rebounding enhances the value of three point shooting
It’s pretty widely understood at this point that taking a larger volume of three pointers usually has a positive effect on a basketball team’s offense, all things equal. Three points are more than two, the defense is stretched thinner by having to guard a larger area, and more space is created inside the arc for shots to be taken at the rim. The biggest drawback that’s often cited is the “boom or bust” nature of threes, which go in maybe 35% of the time…meaning they miss about 65% of the time.
The interesting thing about basketball is that when you miss a shot, the other team doesn’t automatically get the ball. You know this, of course, but I just wanted to state this idea very clearly. Teams that are extremely good at offensive rebounding don’t suffer the same punishment as lesser teams do when missing shots, because they can create a new shot for themselves. Kentucky has been a prime example of this. In the 2022-23 season, the Wildcats hit 45.4% of their shots. That ranked 120th in the entire country. Per KenPom.com, Kentucky still ranked 26th in the nation in points per possession (17th when adjusting for opponent) primarily because UK grabbed their own misses more frequently than any other D-1 team. The Wildcats are the absolute poster child for overcoming missed shots, but they still were incredibly hesitant to miss them from three point range…ranking 330th in the frequency of shots coming from deep.
There might be an argument to be made that threes are harder for the offense to rebound so the return isn’t as great, but I haven’t seen any data that backs that up. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I tracked last season’s rebounding and Kentucky rebounding 40% of their missed threes and just 37% of their missed midrange jumpers. Even excluding jumpers shot by Oscar Tshiebwe (since he was mostly the one getting rebounds), UK still rebounding their missed threes at a higher rate than midrange shots. Yes, shots near the rim get rebounded by the offense at a higher rate, but I’m not advocating passing up layups for threes here. If a team decided to turn 15 foot jumpers into 23 foot jumpers, I haven’t seen any evidence that they’d rebound them at a lower rate. When you factor in that teams average about a point per possession after an offensive rebound the trade-off then isn’t just 3 points for two, it’s something like this:
Shoot a three: Get 3 points 35% of the time, miss 65% of the time….then grab an offensive rebound 26% of the time (40% x 65%) and score 1 pt on average = 3 x 35% + 1 x 26% = 1.31 pts/possession
Shoot a jumper: Get 2 points 40% of the time, miss 60% of the time…then grab an offensive rebound 24% of the time (40% x 60%) and score 1 pt on average = 2 x 40% + 1 x 24% = 1.04 pts/possession
That’s the math for a team like Kentucky last season. But what if we’re talking about a team that’s just average on the offensive glass? They got their own miss about 30% of the time:
Shoot a three: Get 3 points 35% of the time, miss 65% of the time….then grab an offensive rebound 20% of the time (30% x 65%) and score 1 pt on average = 3 x 35% + 1 x 20% = 1.25 pts/possession
Shoot a jumper: Get 2 points 40% of the time, miss 60% of the time…then grab an offensive rebound 18% of the time (30% x 60%) and score 1 pt on average = 2 x 40% + 1 x 18% = 0.98 pts/possession
The advantage of threes is still huge, but the additional value of being a good offensive rebounding team makes a three point attempt .06 pts/poss more valuable for Kentucky vs an average team, holding everything else equal. That’s not just in theory, as actual data supports the idea that strong offensive rebounding teams benefit dispropotionately from an uptick in three point volume.
More rebounding = more valuable threes
Over the last 4 college basketball seasons, there have been 72 instances where a Division 1 team increased the proportion of their shots taken from three point range by 7% or more from one season to the next. Sometimes this comes about from a coaching change; for example, when Nate Oats got the Alabama job in 2019-20 the Tide upped their three point frequency from 37% of shots to 49% in 1 season. Other time it’s a shift due to personnel; in 2022-23 Pittsburgh became a more guard-dominated roster and went from taking 33% of their shots from deep to 43%.
None of these increases in 3 point frequency happened in a vaccuum, so not every team saw their offense improve. However, there’s a pretty clear relationship between their offensive rebounding and overall improvement. Teams who were better at offensive rebounding during the season their three point frequency increased saw their offense improve, while poor offensive rebounding teams saw no change or a small decline overall:
Each of these groupings saw a similar increase in the % of their shots taken from 3, from 8.5% to 8.8% on average. Teams who paired an increase in 3 point volume with offensive rebounding skill (to mitigate more frequent misses) were much more likely to see a jump in points scored per possession.
The odd thing is, almost no teams ever try to combine excellent offensive rebounding with high 3 point volume…except for a couple exceptions.
Can you be good at both?
Using KenPom, I looked up the top 25 teams from last season in both offensive rabounding rate and 3 point frequency. The vast majority of teams who were very good at one was terrible at the other. For example, Kentucky was #1 in offensive rebounding and 330th in 3 pt frequency, while Chattanooga was #1 in 3 point frequency and #218 in offensive rebounding. This makes basic sense, as offensive rebounding should favor taller players who aren’t shooting many threes.
There are a couple exceptions, however. Last season 3 teams ranked in the top 25 in both: Baylor (25th in 3pt freq, 22nd in Oreb rate), Charleston (8th in 3pt freq, 18th in Oreb rate), and Alabama (9th in 3pt freq, 24th in Oreb rate). Each of this is a bit of a different case.
Baylor has had not history under Scott Drew of shooting threes frequently. Until last season they hadn’t ranked in the top 100 since 2009 in that stat. They have had a rich tradition of offensive rebounding, however. Maybe last season was a fluke due to very little frontcourt depth, and the Bears will get back to lower volumes of three point shots…who knows?
Charleston is led by Pat Kelsey, who’s been there for 2 years after several successful years at Winthrop. Kelsey’s teams have long been active from deep (top 75 from 2013-2020 and 2023), but over the last 4 seasons (two at Winthrop, two at Charleston) he’s developed offensive rebounding machines. Each of his last 4 teams have ranked in the top 18 nationally in offensive rebound rate, and the 2023 Cougars put it together to finish in the top 25 in both for the first time. Perhaps coincidentally, this was also the first offense Kelsey has ever coached that cracked KenPom’s top 100 in adjusted efficiency. This feels like a coach who’s in the midst of figuring out some things.
Then there’s Alabama and good ole nerdy Nate Oats, the former math teacher. Alabama is the avatar for analytically-friendly basketball with their love for threes and hatred for the midrange, but that’s not the only trick they know. This was the 2nd year in a row where Alabama was in the top 25 in both 3 point frequency and offensive rebounding rate, and Oats has generally found a lot of value in both metrics. In 8 seasons he’s never had a team rank below 114th in ofensive rebounding rate, and 6 of 8 years he’s had his teams in the top 75. His 4 Alabama teams have all ranked in the top 20 in 3 point frequency, and his final 2 Buffalo teams were both in the top 100 as well. Oats is one of the few coaches who’s figured out how to produce teams who can shoot a lot of threes and get a lot of offensive rebounds. But he’s not the only one.
Mississippi State’s Chris Jans has been a college basketball head coach for 7 seasons. His first was with Bowling Green in 2015, but that ended pretty disgracefully for him due to personal issues. He resurfaced at New Mexico State in 2018 and over his 5 years there he developed a pretty interesting approach to offense. His teams were in the top 50 in offensive rebound rate every year, and 3 times ranked in the top 18 in 3 point frequency. From 2019-2021 his Aggies were in the top 25 in both offensive rebound rate and three point frequency every single year. They peaked at #35 in KenPom’s adjusted effiency rankings in 2019, and ranked 11th in unadjusted points per possession that season. The Aggies were never even a top-100 team in 3 point FG%, but rebounded enough of their misses to create a lot of value. Jans’ first SEC team was 14th in offensive rebounding, but 266th in 3 point frequency and dead-by gosh-last in 3pt FG%, so he still needs to work on developing shooters….but I believe that’ll happen.
This obviously has major implications for Kentucky. They have historically been an excellent offensive rebounding team under John Calipari but have been reluctant to shoot threes. The uptick in three point volume during the GLOBL JAM event may have been a product of the limited roster, and came at the expense of offensive rebounding (the Cats were a disaster rebounding in Canada). If (and that’s a big if) Kentucky could maintain something like a top-50 offensive rebounding rate, they would benefit more from increased three point volume than an average team. It’s not impossible to do so, but it does require some creative strategic thought. I don’t know if Kentucky is willing to try something new on offense, but the rewards are there if they do.
I tried to look into this last year in there seemed to be a dearth of data of recent vintage on the college side. I know that 20 years ago team’s rebounded their own 3s at a significantly lower rate. But times have changed and so has the geography of the court, so who knows. Teams have gotten better at forcing rotation and closeouts, which takes a def rebounder out of position, so maybe there is less of a trade off now (or none at all). I’m just surprised at the limited data (at the possession level).