Another piece on rebounding analytics

[Guest]

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.

How about playing great defense?

The Hawks have gone through stretches of games not shooting well and in those instances the defense is what held.

Like Bud says - it's defense first.

[kurupt]

If you shoot bad, opponents will get more defensive rebounds and you will lose more games, simple. Has been said before.

 

Even if you would rebound consistently in every game in terms of REB%, the more you miss, the bigger the disparity will become, because most rebounds go to the defending team. So there will always be a correlation between losing the rebounding battle and losing the game - but the cause is usually bad shooting which leads to more reboudns for the opponent.

 

Single outlier games don´t change these facts.

[AHF]

If you shoot bad, opponents will get more defensive rebounds and you will lose more games, simple. Has been said before.

 

This actually compounds on itself because when you shoot poorly and miss, your opponent gets more defensive rebounds and teams score much better off defensive rebounds than they do off of made field goals (D has more time to set after a made field goal).  Hence, not only do we give the other team more defensive rebounding opportunities when we shoot poorly, we give them better scoring opportunities which results in fewer defensive rebounding opportunities for Atlanta.

[Nicholasp27]

You want evidence we can win the title?

We are likely to have HC advantage the entire way, which is like 60% historically

Let's just put some numbers out there:

Round 1: 70% favorites

Round 2: 60% favorites

ECF: 50/50

Finals: 40% dogs

That's an 8.4% shot at the title this year

Which of those numbers are way out of line?

[AHF]

You want evidence we can win the title?

We are likely to have HC advantage the entire way, which is like 60% historically

Let's just put some numbers out there:

Round 1: 70% favorites

Round 2: 60% favorites

ECF: 50/50

Finals: 40% dogs

That's an 8.4% shot at the title this year

Which of those numbers are way out of line?

 

I think most of those numbers are too low if you are projecting what a #1 seed typically does.  

[Nicholasp27]

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.

Your WORST number there is 17-10, which is still a 52-game win pace...and 24-10 is a 58-game win pace

So you haven't shown that getting outrebounded loses us games

Only 3 teams in the league have better win % than 24-10 (us, gs, mem)

17-10 is better percentage than SAS, Chi, Cleveland, etc

[Nicholasp27]

I think most of those numbers are too low if you are projecting what a #1 seed typically does.

Yeah, I wanted to be conservative rather than aggressive

You just can't seriously say we can't win a title this year when we have best record in league and are >10% to win the title

[AHF]

Your WORST number there is 17-10, which is still a 52-game win pace...and 24-10 is a 58-game win pace

So you haven't shown that getting outrebounded loses us games

Only 3 teams in the league have better win % than 24-10 (us, gs, mem)

17-10 is better percentage than SAS, Chi, Cleveland, etc

 

I think they have defintely shown that we are much more likely to lose game in which our opponent has more defensive rebounds.

 

17-10 versus 26-1 is a huge difference.  What I think hasn't been clearly shown is that the difference is caused by rebounding.

[Guest]

I think they have defintely shown that we are much more likely to lose game in which our opponent has more defensive rebounds.

This sounds chicken and egg-ish.

Teams get more defensive rebounds when we miss more shots.

[Admin]

This sounds chicken and egg-ish.

Teams get more defensive rebounds when we miss more shots.

 

The big question is chicken salad sandwich or egg salad sandwich. Tough one for me. 

[Admin]

Has anyone looked up the numbers for when the temperature outside is above and below 60 degrees? Because I have a feeling that when the temperature outside is below 60 we're a way better team. 

[AHF]

This sounds chicken and egg-ish.

Teams get more defensive rebounds when we miss more shots.

 

That is why I said I thought causation hadn't been demonstrated.  There is clear correlation but is rebounding the underlying issue, defense, shooting, etc. or a combination of multiple factors?  Probably a combination since these things tend to interrelate.  (I.e., if you play bad defense it makes it harder for your offense because you are starting from a dead ball against a set defense rather than a steal, block or rebound leading to a transition opportunity which in turn creates more chances for opponent defensive rebounds and opponent higher % shots, etc.)

[MaceCase]

@TheNorthCydeRises I think you missed my point entirely, you are trying to suggest that the Hawks supposed rebound "deficiency" in the macro affects them in the micro.  You are also trying to suggest in the overall that your youtube clip entirely refutes reams of compiled data.  It doesn't, when it comes to a singular possession, or game, or series because the Hawks have willfully conceded certain aspects of rebounding to address other areas over 82 games does not mean that they are incapable of actually committing the act.  I touched on this with my post to Chuckles about Al and Saps current and career rebound rates. 

 

Because the Spurs lost game 6 had no bearing on their inability to win game 7 or close the series out in 5 like they did the following year.  People did not come away and say "rebounding cost the Spurs that series" no a rebound cost them that game.  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  You cannot reduce the entirety of the NBA to singular instances yet that seems to be the crux of many of your arguments.  You're always worried about "who is going to take that last shot?" and now "who is going to make that last tip dunk?".  This is a big part of the comedy of the term "Kobe clutch".  People won't discuss that he went 4-24 in a game having anything to do with them being in a losing situation in the first place, they won't remember him going 1-6 within the last 2 minutes alone, they just remember him hitting the one "big shot" that won it all and thus confirming their bias that he is clutch.

 

Then you are now stepping back and are trying to look at the Hawks in the macro.  You are pointing out the difference in them being a historical best winning team and just an elite team being based off when they won the rebound battle when the actual margin of difference is minuscule in that respect.  The thing to take away here is, they still win, they still win a lot.  Placed in the macro macro backdrop of Werk's data you're still having trouble discrediting or establishing meaningful and concrete correlation between rebounding and wins.....which was kind of his point.