vini_vidi_vici wrote:Sorry I misconstrued your initial post as I was leaving, and was confused by the math. I was looking at DREBs (because we were talking DREB%) not considering OREBs. I never said OREBs didnt have a corollary on ORTG (they do). I said DREBs on good team DRTGs. Or REB% on Ws.
Thats assuming the OREBs result in points.
But, If you acknowledge that ORB% can improve ORTG, doesn't that also mean REB% improves Ws? Since ORB% increases ORTG, then ORB% also increases net ORTG-DRTG differential. Therefore, a bigger net ORTG-DRTG, means more wins.
Also, you acknowledge that ORB's have a corollary to ORTG, so doesn't that mean ipso facto, that DRB's have an impact on DRTG?
Little thought experiment to explain what I mean.
Imagine a league with only 2 teams in it. Team 'a' has a 25% orb%. Team 'b' has a 75% drb%. Lets say team 'a' makes a move that increases their orb % to 30% with all other things held constant. You acknowledge that this increase in ORB% will increase their ORTG. But, this ipso facto means that team 'b' now has a 70% drb%, and conversely has their DRTG negatively impacted.
http://www.hickory-high.com/making-connections-d-reb-to-drtg/Interestingly, most of the best defensive teams had a relatively weak, or even negative, correlation between their DREB% and DRTG. Of the top five teams in Defensive Effective Field Goal Percentage (DeFG%), (San Antonio, Chicago, Indiana and Memphis) were in the bottom ten in the league for the strength of this connection between defensive rebounding and overall efficiency. This is a strange clustering and runs counter to what I would expect to see. Each of those teams rely so heavily on forcing their opponents to take contested shots. Collecting the inevitable misses is the endgame of that defensive focus and it’s surprising to see that those things weren’t necessarily tied together strongly. One possible explanation is that net negative of giving up an offensive rebound is much smaller for those teams since they will, theoretically, be able to defend the continuation of that possession with much of the same rigor that forced the initial miss.
http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/03/22/these-spurs-arent-the-same/The Spurs were an excellent defensive rebounding team and did a great job of keeping their opponents off the free-throw line. But there’s a much stronger correlation between DefRtg and OppeFG% than there is between DefRtg and any of the other three factors. The most important thing you can do defensively is make your opponent miss shots from the field. And the Spurs just didn’t do that well enough.
As it goes, the Spurs DRTG got better as the DREB% got worse, because they defended more shots and got more TOVs.
Hmmm.... Could you please explain this...
were in the bottom ten in the league for the strength of this connection between defensive rebounding and overall efficiency.
a little further? I'm drawing a little bit of a blank for some reason, lol. The top 5 teams in defense last year were Pacers, Bulls, Spurs, Warriors, Bobcats. Respectively they ranked in drb%, 2nd, 11th, 4th, 5th, and 1st. Which seems like a strong connection to me, but I'm obviously missing something here.