iblastoff wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is rebounding still all that important?
Collapse
X
-
-
hateslosing wrote: View PostThat one confuses me even more. So the other team shoots a low percentage...so there are more rebounds available and your still unable to grab any. The Fg% and 3-pointers make sense though.
Comment
-
slaw wrote: View PostActually, Toronto gets to the line right around the league average. The problem is that this team simply fouls way too much. It was a huge issue last year and hasn't improved. Opponents are shooting 33 FTAs/game. 6 above the leauge average. Parts ineptitude and philosophy.
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostTake a team like Boston: they almost ignore offensive rebounding. They are making a point of getting back on defense, thus giving up offensive rebounding possibilities. Reason: old. This limits transition points and otherwise easy opportunities due to the defense not being organized good enough / in time. It's usually a trade-off between some different elements of the game. Teams that have speed can probably get away more easily with going for offensive rebounds and still get getting back to limit easy chances. Doc Rivers decided a couple of years ago that they cannot.
Further to your point, I think it would be interesting to see when a veteran team like Boston rebounds. I would assume that their rebounding rate increases quite a bit if looking specifically at the 4th quarter (i.e. when the game is on the line).
EDIT: Meanwhile, a team like the Raptors seem to give up a costly offensive rebound at the most inopportune times....
Comment
-
Nilanka wrote: View PostOh what do you know about rebounding? You're just a soft Euro
Further to your point, I think it would be interesting to see when a veteran team like Boston rebounds. I would assume that their rebounding rate increases quite a bit if looking specifically at the 4th quarter (i.e. when the game is on the line).
EDIT: Meanwhile, a team like the Raptors seem to give up a costly offensive rebound at the most inopportune times....
And, eh, about that Soft Euros stuff and rebounding. We get it very well, much better than you guys. What you guys don't realize is that rebounding takes time and energy. So, on offense, we don't go for offensive rebounds; this allows us to spare energy ánd get back in transition more easily. This way we can jog, not run. On defense, we do it the same way. We stay far away from the basket and we certainly don't box out; this again saves energy and gives us a better position on offense while our dumb opponent is in a terrible position for defense when he goes for the offensive rebound. He might catch up with us if he runs back on defense while we jog, but that costs so much energy; after the game he must be exhausted; we can still go for another game if needed. It's brilliant!
Comment
-
hateslosing wrote: View PostThat one confuses me even more. So the other team shoots a low percentage...so there are more rebounds available and your still unable to grab any. The Fg% and 3-pointers make sense though.
Smarter teams tend to coax more long twos out of their opponents, which causes more of the "better" orebs, which would partly explain why they can get away with such seemingly bad rebounding numbers."Stop eating your sushi."
"I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
"I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
- Jack Armstrong
Comment
-
JimiCliff wrote: View PostOne thing to consider is where these rebounds are happening. If you give up an oreb very close to the basket, that's bad, because it can yield an immediate high percentage shot. But if it's a long oreb, it's better, because that would make it more likely for the team to kick it out and reset their offence - a much less valuable possession than the one that starts two feet from the basket.
Smarter teams tend to coax more long twos out of their opponents, which causes more of the "better" orebs, which would partly explain why they can get away with such seemingly bad rebounding numbers.
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostTake a team like Boston: they almost ignore offensive rebounding. They are making a point of getting back on defense, thus giving up offensive rebounding possibilities. Reason: old. This limits transition points and otherwise easy opportunities due to the defense not being organized good enough / in time. It's usually a trade-off between some different elements of the game. Teams that have speed can probably get away more easily with going for offensive rebounds and still get getting back to limit easy chances. Doc Rivers decided a couple of years ago that they cannot.
Stan Van Gundy was a big proponent of this approach even though he had Dwight Howard. He wanted guys back to defend. Scott Brooks and Eric Spoelstra have the same style. OKC and Miami were both among the NBA's worst offensive rebounding teamsl last year.
Comment
-
slaw wrote: View PostDean Oliver's "Four Factors" has held up pretty well over time. Here are the recent numbers:
http://hoopdata.com/teamff.aspx
You have to look at differentials to understand the impact of certain measurements. Looking at rebounds in isolation tells you, well, not much. Teams like SAS and MIA have poor rebounding differentials but they are extremely efficient teams that get to the line a lot compared to their opponents.
That's very interesting, I hadn't seen that before. Makes a lot of sense, Efficiency and Free throw rate tells you how well a team uses a possession while turn over rate and off reb rate give an indication of how many extra possessions they get and give up. Leaves out defensive rebounds because they don't give you an extra possesion and instead anticipates you getting every defensive rebound, meaning every offensive rebound is a loss of possesion for one team (essentially a turnover) and a new possesion for the other. Good tool to measure total team performance.
Soft Euro wrote: View PostTake a team like Boston: they almost ignore offensive rebounding. They are making a point of getting back on defense, thus giving up offensive rebounding possibilities. Reason: old. This limits transition points and otherwise easy opportunities due to the defense not being organized good enough / in time. It's usually a trade-off between some different elements of the game. Teams that have speed can probably get away more easily with going for offensive rebounds and still get getting back to limit easy chances. Doc Rivers decided a couple of years ago that they cannot.
Also Makes sense, teams choose which of the factors that their teams can excel in then and sacrifice others. Boston does well by sacrificing everything in order to try to keep their defensive efficiency high.
JimiCliff wrote: View PostOne thing to consider is where these rebounds are happening. If you give up an oreb very close to the basket, that's bad, because it can yield an immediate high percentage shot. But if it's a long oreb, it's better, because that would make it more likely for the team to kick it out and reset their offence - a much less valuable possession than the one that starts two feet from the basket.
Smarter teams tend to coax more long twos out of their opponents, which causes more of the "better" orebs, which would partly explain why they can get away with such seemingly bad rebounding numbers.
Edit: unless you numbers that give percentages of where teams give up offensive rebounds...could be interesting, especially in Bostons case. That would be happy
Thanks all, this makes sense to me now."Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
-Churchill
Comment
-
Yeah, I'm not saying that explains all of it, but it could be a contributing factor."Stop eating your sushi."
"I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
"I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
- Jack Armstrong
Comment
-
hateslosing wrote: View PostThat's very interesting, I hadn't seen that before. Makes a lot of sense, Efficiency and Free throw rate tells you how well a team uses a possession while turn over rate and off reb rate give an indication of how many extra possessions they get and give up. Leaves out defensive rebounds because they don't give you an extra possesion and instead anticipates you getting every defensive rebound, meaning every offensive rebound is a loss of possesion for one team (essentially a turnover) and a new possesion for the other. Good tool to measure total team performance.
Also Makes sense, teams choose which of the factors that their teams can excel in then and sacrifice others. Boston does well by sacrificing everything in order to try to keep their defensive efficiency high.
I like numbers... don't make me sad by adding qualitative data to my quantitative world .
Edit: unless you numbers that give percentages of where teams give up offensive rebounds...could be interesting, especially in Bostons case. That would be happy
Thanks all, this makes sense to me now."Stop eating your sushi."
"I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
"I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
- Jack Armstrong
Comment
-
Yes, it's still extremely important, question is, how are the surrounding aspects of the game?
Miami, they have good individual rebounds, great defense, and great offense. Reason they're a terrible rebounding team, yet so good, is because of their overall ability to win games otherwise.
Rebounding depends on what a coach or a system asks you to do, possibly leak out - leading to less defensive rebounders set - or transition D (meaning teams don't worry a lick about offensive boards, or only have 1 player set under the basket). Miami does these very things, and their lineups in general aren't very big.
How about good rebounding teams? OKC, SA, New York, Indiana? A large reason for their success is rebounding.
Point is, rebounding IS still all that important. Using Washington as an example is a bad one, because other than rebounding, their offensive execution is poor, and their defense is sub-par.Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.
Comment
-
If you look at personnel, I'm not surprised Miami struggles with rebounding. They make it up with speedy defense (rotations) and turnovers which they quickly convert into a dunk.
Every team has strengths and weaknesses. Miami has 1 glaring weakness which is why they struggle against a team like Indiana. They do a great job imposing their strengths (and they have plenty) to make up for the lack of size.
One thing to take away is for us to assess our personnel and take advantage of our strengths & I believe its our athleticism. This is where I believe better coaching comes in. I hope Casey can adjust for next year if he remains our coach.“I don’t create controversies. They’re there long before I open my mouth. I just bring them to your attention.”
-- Charles Barkley
Comment
-
Rebounding can be a function of good Defense
But good Defense is not necessarily a function of good Rebounding
Take the Miami game for example:
2nd Q - 3:33 remaing
DD Lay-up shot (missed)
DD ORb
DD Lay-up (missed)
AJ ORb
AJ Tip shot (missed)
DD ORb
DD Lay-up (missed)
Gay ORb
Gay made shot (hook)
Net Totals on ONE play
2 points
1 - 5 = fgm/a
4 ORb
Try another example:
3rd Q - 2:54 remaining
AJ jump shot (missed)
AJ ORb
AJ Tip shot (missed)
AJ ORb
AJ Tip shot (missed)
Net Totals on one play
0 points
0 - 3 = fgm/a
2 ORb
Total from 2 plays
2 points
1 - 8 = fgm/a
6 ORb
A team can't play the #1 team - who are shooting .496 for the season (and even better during the win streak) - and hope to win, all the while missing shots like they did for this game. This is not to pick on Amir, as I believe he's the undisputed Raptor MVP for this season.
Rebounding is one tangible part to a good team. By itself, it is a stat that has its' flaws. Defense, fg%, and 3 point shooting can weigh heavily in how well a team does. Miami is a top defending team, #1 in fg%, and 3rd in Perimeter shooting (12th in defending), while last in Rebound totals (and 3rd last in ORb).
I see rebounding as a number that's been over-stated - relative to others. Take Ed & Amir for example. Ed strikes me as the better Rebounder (Actual + Potential), even as the last 5 - 10 games have skewed Johnson's numbers. Never-the-less, I view Amir as the better Defender. He can handle bigger players, and is a better defender in the Post.
.
Miami's current win streak also seems to be a reflection of their Bench.
January - Ranked 26th [Deff - HoopStats]
Feb / March - 10th [23 games]
http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...7/diffeff/28-1
Toronto's record has somewhat been a reflection of their Bench (besides many other things):
November - 14th
December - 4th
January - 3rd
February - 24th
March - 21st
Looking at the numbers (and digesting all this), I really believe Toronto has a real need for a quality Back-up PG. IMO, that Back-up Point Guard is the #1 priority for the summer, pending Telfair showing something extraordinary.
.
Comment
Comment