Another piece on rebounding analytics

[Plainview1981]

Has nothing to do with superstars. It's about having a dominant scorer, or rebounder, or ball handler, whatever. It's about having a team that plays together and achieves numbers together and who play as 1. We're changing that dynamic in the NBA this season and teams are going to copy it, especially if we win the title.

 

History says otherwise. 

 

Like I said, I know the NBA is on the decline as far as superstars goes. I love team ball, but I also love elite talent. So, on one hand, I want to be proven wrong so that a title can be celebrated.... On the other hand, I'm a bit of a elitist and so I can't help but realize that the Hawks wouldn't stack up to the champions of the past if they did win the title.

[RandomFan]

Good article. Another confirmation of what many of us have been saying.

[MaceCase]

I've been saying forever that  teams with an inside presence wins titles. The evidence backs me up on that.

The main exceptions are Chicago (even they had Rodman in the 2nd run) and Miami, but they had the best damn player in the game.

 

The evidence that a team like the Hawks is going to win the title is slim to none. This team is not talented enough to win the title.

 

Elite talent can overcome weaknesses sometimes.

 

Oh, and about the only ones on that list that Sap out rebounds is AC Green and an aging Kareem. Those teams also had the best rebounding PG in the game.

Chuckles, your evidence tells you that Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were "inside" presences?  You took 2 minutes out of your life to put together an incomplete haphazard list of "inside presences" that you think proves a point but Werk's actual RESEARCH doesn't mean anything? 

 

Even taking something as reasonable as scheme out, did you even account for minutes? Pace?  Have neither Al or Sap ever rebounded well in life?  Did they forget how?  Let's try and spend 10 minutes for a deeper look on this.

 

Al Horford: season TRB%: 14.2 / Career TRB%: 16.0    Paul Millsap:  season TRB%: 13.5 / Career TRB%: 15.0

 

1980: Kareem: TRB%:15.4 / Career: 15.7

1981: Bird: TRB%: 15.7 / Career: 14.5

1982: Magic: TRB%: 13.7 Career: 11.1  Kareem: TRB% 13.4  Somehow Mitch Kupchack made your list having only played 26 games that season but what the hell, TRB%: 13.9

1983: Moses: TRB% 21.6  Career: 19.8

1984: Bird: TRB% 14.9  Parish: TRB% 17 career: 17.9

1985: Kareem TRB% 13.5

1986: Bird: TRB% 14.2  Parish TRB%16.5

1987: A.C.: TRB% 15.3  Career: 14.7

1988: A.C.: TRB% 16.4

1989: Laimbeer: TRB% 16.6 Career: 16.7

1990: Rodman: TRB% 19  Career: 23.4

1991: Grant: TRB% 14.7 Career: 14.1

 

What you have here is a hodgepodge of evidence.  You have guys in the range of Al and Sap in Kareem, Magic, Bird, Grant, Green, Kupchack winning titles along with guys who actually outclass them as rebounders in Parish, Laimbeer, Rodman and Moses.  There's nothing definitive there to come up with such a broad conclusion on individual rebounding.  Stick to your talent argument but of course, do it in some other thread because it's still irrelevant here.

[Plainview1981]

Chuckles, your evidence tells you that Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were "inside" presences?  You took 2 minutes out of your life to put together an incomplete haphazard list of "inside presences" that you think proves a point but Werk's actual RESEARCH doesn't mean anything? 

 

Even taking something as reasonable as scheme out, did you even account for minutes? Pace?  Have neither Al or Sap ever rebounded well in life?  Did they forget how?  Let's try and spend 10 minutes for a deeper look on this.

 

Al Horford: season TRB%: 14.2 / Career TRB%: 16.0    Paul Millsap:  season TRB%: 13.5 / Career TRB%: 15.0

 

1980: Kareem: TRB%:15.4 / Career: 15.7

1981: Bird: TRB%: 15.7 / Career: 14.5

1982: Magic: TRB%: 13.7 Career: 11.1  Kareem: TRB% 13.4  Somehow Mitch Kupchack made your list having only played 26 games that season but what the hell, TRB%: 13.9

1983: Moses: TRB% 21.6  Career: 19.8

1984: Bird: TRB% 14.9  Parish: TRB% 17 career: 17.9

1985: Kareem TRB% 13.5

1986: Bird: TRB% 14.2  Parish TRB%16.5

1987: A.C.: TRB% 15.3  Career: 14.7

1988: A.C.: TRB% 16.4

1989: Laimbeer: TRB% 16.6 Career: 16.7

1990: Rodman: TRB% 19  Career: 23.4

1991: Grant: TRB% 14.7 Career: 14.1

 

What you have here is a hodgepodge of evidence.  You have guys in the range of Al and Sap in Kareem, Magic, Bird, Grant, Green, Kupchack winning titles along with guys who actually outclass them as rebounders in Parish, Laimbeer, Rodman and Moses.  There's nothing definitive there to come up with such a broad conclusion on individual rebounding.  Stick to your talent argument but of course, do it in some other thread because it's still irrelevant here.

 

Horford's rebounding has been going down over the last few years. Sap is a good rebounder some nights and a mediocre rebounder in others.

 

You can get away with AC Green leading your team in rebounding when you have the best rebounding PG in the NBA.

 

The bottomline is that championship's teams almost always have a big inside prescence. None of this "research" changes changes that.

 

So, people can spend day and night trying to pretend  this teams weaknesses are not really weaknesses.

 

But I'm a believer in what has actually been proven over some theories that may or may not ultimately pan out. 

Edited March 3, 2015 by Hotlanta1981

[RandomFan]

Stick to your talent argument but of course, do it in some other thread because it's still irrelevant here.

 

[Plainview1981]

 

 

You're impressed very easily.

[DatWerkk]

This article means nothing.

 

This is all the validation I need!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

This is all the validation I need!

 

It's a very well written article.  It's too bad that basketball isn't decided on seasonal rebound percentage rates or per 100 possessions.  It's decided like this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE7RCNjx22g

 

It has been well documented that Miami was the worst rebounding team in the NBA that year.  They were also the best FG% shooting team.  Now anyone can look at this clip and determine what cost the Spurs this game.  Bad FT shooting.  Bad defense.  Etc.  But there's one element to this ending that affected everything

 

Tim Duncan being taken out of the game with 28 seconds left.

 

He's the guy that disrupted Lebron's 2 drives into the paint and saw the Spurs push their lead to 6 points.  But once Duncan was taken out, what did they lose?

 

- Their best paint & rim defender

- Their best defensive rebounder

 

With Miami being down 6, Spolestra took Bosh out and put in Mike Miller.  Popovich countered by taking out Duncan and put in Diaw. Lebron misses a 3, but without Duncan in the paint looking for a rebound, Wade was able to out battle Kawhi Leonard for the rebound, which ended up in Mike Miller's hands.  He passes it to Lebron, and he knocks down the 3.

 

The worst offensive rebounding team in the league got a critical offensive rebound, and cut the lead to 2.

 

Duncan comes back in to inbound the ball only, and is taken out again by POP, after Leonard is fouled.  He makes 1 of 2 FTs and the Spurs are up 3.  Oh . . and one more point.  Chris Bosh just came back into the game.  Now what does he represent?

 

- A capable 3 point threat

- The tallest person on the floor at 6-11

 

Now listen to what Jeff Van Gundy says at 7:21 . . . "With Duncan out . . attack the rim.  They're not going to come off of the 3 point shooters.  You can score quickly."

 

With 19.4 seconds left, this would be a good option. Attack.  Cut the lead to 1.  And foul again.  Maybe the Spurs miss again.   But Lebron is a "hero", so he's going to play "hero ball" and take a 3 on the next trip down the floor.  He rises up and is challenged by Parker and Diaw.   Only one problem with that.

 

6-11 Chris Bosh is now drifting toward the lane . . unguarded . . and only has to battle the 6-6 Danny Green ( who is being pushed underneath the basket by Ray Allen ) and the 6-6 Manu Ginobli ( who has already let Bosh drift in front of him to get the rebound ).   The 6-7 Kawhi Leonard is in a daze on the other side of the rim, just staring at the ball.

 

So let's go back to analytics at this point.   They tell you . .

 

- Miami is the weakest offensive rebounding team in the league

- The Spurs are the 4th best defensive rebounding team

- Offensive rebounding isn't important at all

- Defensive rebounding is just slightly more important . . but not really important.

 

But as Lebron's 3 is in the air, the team that grabs the next rebound ( if he doesn't make the shot ), has a chance to either seal the game, or get another shot.  

 

And the 6-11 Bosh with not a body on him ( and no Tim Duncan in the game ), is about to get the easiest "in traffic" rebound of his career.  And his pass to Ray Allen in the corner is about to become one of the biggest 3 point shots in NBA Finals history.

 

Now listen to what Jeff Van Gundy says at 8:27 . . . "Tim Duncan . . out of the game . . . leads to the 2nd shot"

 

Remember . . .Tim Duncan?

 

- Lane / Rim protector

- Best Defensive player

- Best defensive rebounder

 

And both Van Gundy and play by play man Mike Breen would correctly deduce that the lack of Duncan's presence.  And Breen's point at 8:48 is the most important in this clip.

 

"That's 2 possessions in a row that Duncan came out and they FAILED to get the DEFENSIVE REBOUND."

 

All of you who don't think that rebounding isn't that important, should always remember that the last part of playing defense, is grabbing the DEFENSIVE REBOUND.  Without that, you open yourself up to give a plethora of 2nd chance points to your opponent.  Don't think missing a defensive rebound can cost you a game?   How about this one, from the "so-called knucklehead"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuDDiPwJxW4

 

That's simply effort and desire on his part, to go get that ball and win his team the game.

 

Or how about this "knucklehead" that you all know and used to love.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SxJldJdYUE

 

He actually did it twice that season

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wkn01olV9I

[MaceCase]

I think you need to be able to separate the micro from the macro.....the anecdotal from the empirical.

 

Blake Griffin did this to win a game:

 

 

It doesn't mean that Doc Rivers is drawing up Blake Griffin stepback 3s out of every timeout.  It doesn't mean that teams are now crowding him on inbounds situations or behind the perimeter in general for fear he might take a stepback 3 either.  It doesn't mean that Blake Griffin is taking over Dirk's spot as the best stretch 4 in the league, etc. etc. etc.

 

"Analytics" do not determine the strategies or actions taken in a specific situation and the same is true vice versa.  You would not look to ignore the negatives that Josh Smith or Javale McGee provide over 47 minutes for the rare chance that they might win you 1 game out of 82 in the 48th minute with a rebound.  That's not a very good argument. 

 

That's like saying you wouldn't expect Al to do this in a situation:

 

 

because the analytics tell you the Hawks don't go for offensive rebounds.

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Mace . . . what I'll say is that basketball ( especially playoff basketball ) is indeed a "micro" type of game.  When you're playing a team over and over again in a series, you tend to find matchups and weaknesses that you want to exploit.  You treat 4th quarter possessions like pieces of gold.   

 

So when you "overthink" a situation like Popovich did by taking out Duncan, a guy that represents the anchor of your defense, you leave yourself exposed to things that ( analytics wise ) shouldn't be happening to you.  And the fact that he didn't keep Duncan in the game when Chris Bosh came back in, is almost as bad of an error as Pete Carroll not giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch at the 1 yard line in the Super Bowl.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcE6H1LpaQ

 

The real sad thing about this clip, is that Vlade Divac probably played the best paint defense of his life in a span of 3 seconds.  He comes off Shaq to challenge Kobe, making him alter his shot.  Then he quickly goes back to Shaq, who has a point blank layup, and challenges his shot to make him miss.'

 

All Vlade had to do is grab the rebound, and the Kings have a commanding 3 - 1 lead in that series, with 2 possible home games to close them out.  Instead, Vlade failed to end the defensive possession, and volleyball tapped the ball out to the most clutch 3 point playoff shooter of all time.  Horry drains the shot, and the series is tied.

 

Then Vlade has the nerve to call it a "luck shot" in the post game press conference.  No sir.  What was truly lucky is you playing excellent defense on BOTH Kobe and Shaq, and didn't even have to flop to do it.  But you had a brain fart and didn't grab that rebound.  And it cost you the game and possibly the series.

 

Here's a current rebounding stat for you and DatWerkk about the Hawks.   They are 17 - 10 when they have less defensive rebounds than their opponent.   There's a lot of ways you can interpret that stat. 

 

- The Hawks still won 17 out of 27 games when losing the defensive rebounding battle

 

or 

 

- Of the 12 games the Hawks have lost, 10 of the losses came when they lost the defensive rebounding battle

 

 

 

But here's a definitive stat about rebounding concerning the Hawks.

 

They are a whopping 26 - 1 when they have more defensive rebounds than their opponent.  The one game that we lost?  It was this one.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2y-ijUXs-I

 

 

 

So let's review the raw data so far this season when it comes to rebounding: 

 

When the Hawks have more total rebounds than their opponent, they're 19 - 1

When the Hawks have more defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 26 - 1

When the Hawks have more offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 12 - 3

 

When the Hawks have less total rebounds than their opponent, they're 24 - 10

When the Hawks have less defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 17 - 10

When the Hawks have less offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 34 - 8

 

 

Deduction:

 

When we're rebounding the ball . . we're damn near invincible.  When we're not, we're good, but not great.

[Admin]

Mace . . . what I'll say is that basketball ( especially playoff basketball ) is indeed a "micro" type of game.  When you're playing a team over and over again in a series, you tend to find matchups and weaknesses that you want to exploit.  You treat 4th quarter possessions like pieces of gold.   

 

So when you "overthink" a situation like Popovich did by taking out Duncan, a guy that represents the anchor of your defense, you leave yourself exposed to things that ( analytics wise ) shouldn't be happening to you.  And the fact that he didn't keep Duncan in the game when Chris Bosh came back in, is almost as bad of an error as Pete Carroll not giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch at the 1 yard line in the Super Bowl.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcE6H1LpaQ

 

The real sad thing about this clip, is that Vlade Divac probably played the best paint defense of his life in a span of 3 seconds.  He comes off Shaq to challenge Kobe, making him alter his shot.  Then he quickly goes back to Shaq, who has a point blank layup, and challenges his shot to make him miss.'

 

All Vlade had to do is grab the rebound, and the Kings have a commanding 3 - 1 lead in that series, with 2 possible home games to close them out.  Instead, Vlade failed to end the defensive possession, and volleyball tapped the ball out to the most clutch 3 point playoff shooter of all time.  Horry drains the shot, and the series is tied.

 

Then Vlade has the nerve to call it a "luck shot" in the post game press conference.  No sir.  What was truly lucky is you playing excellent defense on BOTH Kobe and Shaq, and didn't even have to flop to do it.  But you had a brain fart and didn't grab that rebound.  And it cost you the game and possibly the series.

 

Here's a current rebounding stat for you and DatWerkk about the Hawks.   They are 17 - 10 when they have less defensive rebounds than their opponent.   There's a lot of ways you can interpret that stat. 

 

- The Hawks still won 17 out of 27 games when losing the defensive rebounding battle

 

or 

 

- Of the 12 games the Hawks have lost, 10 of the losses came when they lost the defensive rebounding battle

 

 

 

But here's a definitive stat about rebounding concerning the Hawks.

 

They are a whopping 26 - 1 when they have more defensive rebounds than their opponent.  The one game that we lost?  It was this one.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2y-ijUXs-I

 

 

 

So let's review the raw data so far this season when it comes to rebounding: 

 

When the Hawks have more total rebounds than their opponent, they're 19 - 1

When the Hawks have more defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 26 - 1

When the Hawks have more offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 12 - 3

 

When the Hawks have less total rebounds than their opponent, they're 24 - 10

When the Hawks have less defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 17 - 10

When the Hawks have less offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 34 - 8

 

 

Deduction:

 

When we're rebounding the ball . . we're damn near invincible.  When we're not, we're good, but not great.

 

All that writing to argue the difference between 1 rebound per game, which as of a week or so ago when I last looked, was the difference between our rebounding per game in wins and losses and the offensive rebounds we give up in wins and losses as well. There's no significance in our rebounding and us winning or losing.

 

Easily the biggest factor in our wins and losses is our shooting %'s. 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

 

 

That's like saying you wouldn't expect Al to do this in a situation:

 

 

because the analytics tell you the Hawks don't go for offensive rebounds.

 

The irony of that game?

 

Horford grabbed 5 offensive rebounds that game, with 4 of them coming in the 4th quarter . . . . and had 3 on a single possession alone. On that possession, the Hawks had a 5 point lead with about 4:30 to go.  Horford's 3 offensive rebounds enabled the Hawks to have the ball for about 50 seconds, which ended in a Teague alley-oop to Horford for the dunk.

 

The Hawks only had 12 2nd chance points.  But 7 of them came in the 4th quarter of that game off of 5 offensive rebounds.  And it wasn't due to the Hawks sending extra people toward the offensive glass.  It was simply guys being in the right spot to get the offensive board.

 

Rebounding is about effort, positioning, and desire.  If you choose not to go for offensive rebounds, that's one thing.  But not securing defensive rebounds is unacceptable.  And in a good number of the games that we have lost, not securing defensive rebounds was a major issue.  If we shore that up, we're winning an NBA Championship.  If we don't, people are probably going to look at rebounding as for the reason why we lost a playoff series.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

All that writing to argue the difference between 1 rebound per game, which as of a week or so ago when I last looked, was the difference between our rebounding per game in wins and losses and the offensive rebounds we give up in wins and losses as well. There's no significance in our rebounding and us winning or losing.

 

Easily the biggest factor in our wins and losses is our shooting %'s. 

 

So let me ask you this Dol.  When you're not shooting the ball well, how do you win games?  

 

I mean, because the Hawks aren't going to shoot 47% FG and 38% 3FG in the playoffs.  Almost all shooting percentages drop during that time.

[Diesel]

All that writing to argue the difference between 1 rebound per game, which as of a week or so ago when I last looked, was the difference between our rebounding per game in wins and losses and the offensive rebounds we give up in wins and losses as well. There's no significance in our rebounding and us winning or losing.

 

Easily the biggest factor in our wins and losses is our shooting %'s. 

 

What's so hard to miss in this:

 

When the Hawks have more total rebounds than their opponent, they're 19 - 1

When the Hawks have more defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 26 - 1

When the Hawks have more offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 12 - 3

 

When the Hawks have less total rebounds than their opponent, they're 24 - 10

When the Hawks have less defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 17 - 10

When the Hawks have less offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 34 - 8

 

Whether it's 1 reb per game difference or 20... When we're outrebounded, we're not as good.

Therefore if you want us to be better, it starts and ends with rebounds.

[AHF]

What's so hard to miss in this:

 

When the Hawks have more total rebounds than their opponent, they're 19 - 1

When the Hawks have more defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 26 - 1

When the Hawks have more offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 12 - 3

 

When the Hawks have less total rebounds than their opponent, they're 24 - 10

When the Hawks have less defensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 17 - 10

When the Hawks have less offensive rebounds than their opponent, they're 34 - 8

 

Whether it's 1 reb per game difference or 20... When we're outrebounded, we're not as good.

Therefore if you want us to be better, it starts and ends with rebounds.

 

I assume the point he is making is that when we hit our shots it limits the number of defensive rebounding opportunities for the other team.  When we miss our shots, it increases the number of defensive rebounding opportunities.  Therefore, what is varying may not be our performance rebounding the ball but our performance shooting the ball so that the difference in defensive rebounding margin is driven really by the number of chances we give the opponent to rebound our misses.

 

That doesn't account for the difference in our DREB% but could account entirely for the difference in margin.

[Diesel]

I assume the point he is making is that when we hit our shots it limits the number of defensive rebounding opportunities for the other team.  When we miss our shots, it increases the number of defensive rebounding opportunities.  Therefore, what is varying may not be our performance rebounding the ball but our performance shooting the ball so that the difference in defensive rebounding margin is driven really by the number of chances we give the opponent to rebound our misses.

 

That doesn't account for the difference in our DREB% but could account entirely for the difference in margin.

 

That's cool in a vacuum.. however, if we miss our shots and the other team automatically gets the rebound, that's the problem.  If the other team miss their shots and they can get a second chance, that's the problem.

Like I said in other threads, now, we're winning off of efficiency.  However, in the playoffs, our efficiency will be challenged.  We will have to be able to get some rebounds.

[Admin]

So let me ask you this Dol.  When you're not shooting the ball well, how do you win games?  

 

I mean, because the Hawks aren't going to shoot 47% FG and 38% 3FG in the playoffs.  Almost all shooting percentages drop during that time.

 

Let me ask you this, what's a bigger factor in winning and losing. A 1 rebound difference or a drop off of 7% shooting from 2 and 9% from 3? 

 

Now I'm not sure what the numbers are today but that's what they were a week or so ago. 

[Admin]

This whole rebounding ordeal is tiresome. Rebounds aren't the reason for us winning nor are they the reason for us losing. It all comes down to playing top notch team D like we need to win, protecting the ball, creating turnovers, and taking good shots. That's the bottom line. Rebounding will not be the reason we win or lose. 

[AHF]

Rebounding won't be the only reason we lose any particular game but it could be the reason we blow a game down the stretch that ends up swinging a playoff series.  It was for SAS against Miami.  While I think people have done a fine job showing that it is not the most important aspect of our team's performance by any means, I wouldn't completely discount it.  That is why Bud was on the guys to pick up their rebounding recently - because it still is important.

Edited March 3, 2015 by AHF

[Admin]

Rebounding won't be the only reason we lose any particular game but it could be the reason we blow a game down the stretch that ends up swinging a playoff series.  It was for SAS against Miami.  While I think people have done a fine job showing that it is not the most important aspect of our team's performance by any means, I wouldn't completely discount it.  That is why Bud was on the guys to pick up their rebounding recently - because it still is important.

 

I wouldn't say that it's not important. Just that it's not the deciding factor on the grand scale in our winning and losing. Of course there will be isolated examples where it has an effect but more often than not it's our shooting and lack of defense / intensity on both ends that dooms us in losing.