KeonClark wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything Jakob Poeltl
Collapse
X
-
Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View PostI don't, he's actually one of the people I like reading his posts more on here.
My issue is that any opinion counter to his gets dismissed as trolling or unresearched or uneducated. So my beef is more with the following than DanH himself. He's one of the best posters here.
I've seen you trying to use analytics to justify why Bebe should be playing (he shouldn't), arguing that we have a 4-deep logjam at C (we don't, Ibaka's use there should be sporadic and Bebe shouldn't be playing at all), and those are just recent arguments you've made where they just reek of confirmation bias. It's fine if you believe those things and try to support it with data, but yeah, dismissing them has nothing to do with DanH, and just because you use data does not mean you're always using it well.
Comment
-
KHD wrote: View Posti miss the guy who used to post all the basketball anime gifs
He hates Michael Jordan for what he did to the real goat Clyde drexler9 time first team all-RR, First Ballot Hall of Forum
Comment
-
-
Top 10 in contested REB% (min 50 contested REB)
— Andy Bailey (@AndrewDBailey) 20. November 2017
1-Jakob Pöltl (68%)
2-Steven Adams (57%)
3-Derrick Favors (52.4%)
4-John Henson (52.1%)
5-John Collins (51.4%)
6-Alex Len (49.7%)
7-Enes Kanter (47.1%)
8-LaMarcus Aldridge (47%)
9-KA Towns (46.7%)
10-Domantas Sabonis (44.8%) pic.twitter.com/o1LJ9jvuy0
Comment
-
gk17 wrote: View PostTop 10 in contested REB% (min 50 contested REB)
— Andy Bailey (@AndrewDBailey) 20. November 2017
1-Jakob Pöltl (68%)
2-Steven Adams (57%)
3-Derrick Favors (52.4%)
4-John Henson (52.1%)
5-John Collins (51.4%)
6-Alex Len (49.7%)
7-Enes Kanter (47.1%)
8-LaMarcus Aldridge (47%)
9-KA Towns (46.7%)
10-Domantas Sabonis (44.8%) pic.twitter.com/o1LJ9jvuy0
In other words, these players a) tend to get offensive rebounds more than defensive rebounds, as offensive rebounds are almost always contested and defensive often are not, and b) are terrible at boxing out, as many of their defensive rebounds are contested instead of just grabbing the easy rebound after sealing your man.
Which lines up with what we've seen from Jak. In spite of the super small sample that some were crowing over early in the year, he's regressed to his low DRB% from last season, once again getting just as many offensive rebounds as defensive ones. His offensive rebounding has been hugely important, with JV's dipping this season, but to suggest that Poeltl is a capable defensive rebounder at this point is just not true, and the misleading "contested rebound" stat doesn't really prove otherwise.
The stat that better describes success rate on rebounds is rebound chance %. A rebound chance is a possession where the player is within 3.5 feet of a tracked rebound location at the time of the rebound being grabbed. There is value in players being energetic and well positioned and just putting themselves in those positions. There is also value in being able to convert those chances into actual rebounds.
JV generates 23.8 rebound chances per 36. Poeltl generates 23.2. Both very active positioning themselves for boards. With rebound stats, it's always worth breaking it down into offensive and defensive to get a better picture though.
7.4 of JV's chances (per 36) are on the offensive glass, and 9.4 of Poeltl's are. Which lines up with perception and the raw stats - Poeltl has been great getting offensive boards this year. At the same time, Poeltl has been absolutely killing it in terms of converting those offensive rebound chances into rebounds - 55% of his chances have landed in his hands, compared to 37% for JV. Last year, both finished at right about 42%, so this may be noise, but definitely something to keep an eye on this year - if Poeltl can maintain a high conversion rate, that's a real skill - guys like Drummond and Dwight Howard posted conversion rates that high over last year's full season. JV needs to step up his activity, as last year he posted the same number of offensive rebound chances per 36 as Poeltl is this year, though it should be noted with the offence humming with him on the court (FG% 4 points higher with JV than with Poeltl), there are fewer opportunities for boards too.
Defensively, the story is very different. JV generates 16.4 defensive rebound chances per 36, and converts on 62% of them (adjusting for rebounds deferred to teammates). Poeltl is in position for fewer defensive boards per 36 (13.5) in spite of the opposing FG% being 2 points lower (and therefore more rebounds being available) with him on the floor, and far more concerning, he only converts on 47% of his defensive rebound chances. Only Fred VanVleet has a lower conversion rate on the team. And of centres who have played at least 100 minutes, it's the third lowest rate in the league, ahead of only Ekpe Udoh and Tyler Zeller.
Now, there are confounding factors - putting yourself in position to contest rebounds that otherwise would not be contested at all is a good thing, but would lower your conversion rate. But we see that Poeltl's overall rebound chance rate is low compared to JV, so that's probably not the explanation. A lot of this is also small sample stuff - last year, Poeltl had an abysmal individual defensive rebound conversion rate (44%, similar to this year), but most of the rebounds he missed went to teammates (his deferred rebound adjusted conversion rate went up to 65%, compared to this year's 47%). Now, that can tell a story that his teammates aren't pulling their weight this year, but at some point you need your biggest player to be grabbing some boards. For example JV has about the same deferred rebound rate as Poeltl this year (ie, not really getting any help on rebounds close to him), but as noted is posting far more successful defensive rebounding numbers.
Anyway, just wanted to offer clarity on what that quoted stat meant, and the better rebound conversion stat to use. Both JV and Poeltl are great rebounders in their own ways, as demonstrated above, but neither replicates what the other does.
Comment
Comment