Rebounds Key to Success for CU

This past weekend against Brown and Yale, Columbia had a lot of positives on the offensive end. The Light Blue shot 51.2 percent from the field against Yale while scoring 71 points. On the road against Brown, they scored 63 points and shot 46.2 percent.
Although the absence of Brett Loscalzo against Brown affected the Lions offensively, the major difference was Columbia’s difficulty on the defensive glass. Against Yale, the opposite was true, and the Lions were able to contain one of the league’s best defensive rebounding teams.

After this weekend, Columbia is now ranked number one in the Ivy League in rebounding differential, with an average of .1 per game. But while the Lions do rank highly in rebounding, their inconsistency affected them this weekend.

In New Haven, Columbia held Yale to only 19 rebounds, including seven on the offensive end, well below their average of 10 per contest. The Elis’ poor defensive rebounding can be attributed to Columbia’s high field goal percentage (51.2 percent). The real test was passed, however, when the Lions held the Bulldogs to only eight second-chance points.

The Lions’ tenacity on the boards would have come in handy the following night against the Bears, who run the Princeton offense. That offense dictates a strategy of passing the ball around to take time off the clock, which means additional chances will be that much more taxing on the defensive team. Although Columbia went into halftime with a 35-34 edge, after the Bears took the lead in the second half Columbia was unable to contain Brown second-chance opportunities as the game slipped away.

At the end, the 10 offensive rebounds by Brown allowed them to have approximately two minutes of extra possessions, most of which resulted in points. Rather than out-rebounding Brown, as they did against Yale, Columbia was out-rebounded by five.

Furthermore, the players who contribute in rebounding are often the same as those who help out in scoring. The Lions need to get contributions from many different players to help ease the burden on John Baumann. Against Yale, five players had more than three rebounds. However, against Brown, only two players had more than three rebounds. This difference allows Baumann to also focus on guarding his man, rather than concentrating all of his efforts on rebounding.

This pattern, and the Lions’ defense in general, has changed a lot since last season. Columbia has improved drastically on the defensive end, listening to what coach Joe Jones has preached all season. Thus far, Columbia ranks first in rebounding margin, third in three-point field goal defense, second in field goal defense and second in scoring defense at 65.5 points per game. This improvement from last season has been a positive attribute for the Lions.

Columbia must continue to win the battle of the boards and to improve on defense. The defensive intensity in particular, which was lacking at times this year, must remain in order to compete in the Ivy League.