Larry Brown: analytics don't work

[Johnny Kilroy]

"NBA isn't MLB. At the end of the day, this analytic stuff doesn't work in basketball."

How's that lifetime ban from the league going, Larry?

[tsherkin]

Larry Brown is stupid and overly emotional.

That said, his point about the sport differing from baseball is apt; lacking the same discrete event separation, basketball isnt as precisely described and a lot more subjective action is involved in understanding the game. You need to mix the conventional with analytics.

Fortunately, we're learning a LOT from the advancements we're seeing in NBA statistical analysis and it's overturning old myths, confirming other stuff, etc. fun times.

[whitehops]

Fortunately, we're learning a LOT from the advancements we're seeing in NBA statistical analysis and it's overturning old myths

my favourite is the importance of defensive rebounding. i'm so tired of hearing 'analysts' say you have to grab more rebounds to win.

[tsherkin]

Rebounding IS important, but we're learning that there are plenty of ways to skin a cat, so to speak. DRB% is one of DeanO's four factors and all that, but if you have really good eFG defense and you generate a lot of turnovers with your D, then you can get away without being elite on the defensive glass. Or, for example, if you just kill it with your offense. You need to be able to grab the important rebounds, but yeah, that's a good example.

[JohnsHopkins]

Larry Brown is jobless. And no, I dont care if he is the coach of some 2nd tier college.

[sp6r=underrated]

Fortunately, we're learning a LOT from the advancements we're seeing in NBA statistical analysis and it's overturning old myths

my favourite is the importance of defensive rebounding. i'm so tired of hearing 'analysts' say you have to grab more rebounds to win.

really almost all of the studies I have seen show rebounding is one of the biggest factors and that it takes a lot to be a good team if you aren't good on the defensive glass.

[whitehops]

Fortunately, we're learning a LOT from the advancements we're seeing in NBA statistical analysis and it's overturning old myths

my favourite is the importance of defensive rebounding. i'm so tired of hearing 'analysts' say you have to grab more rebounds to win.

really almost all of the studies I have seen show rebounding is one of the biggest factors and that it takes a lot to be a good team if you aren't good on the defensive glass.

in the last couple years teams like the spurs and heat have sacrificed defensive rebounding to better contest shots and complete rotations and it has yielded positive results.

[sp6r=underrated]

my favourite is the importance of defensive rebounding. i'm so tired of hearing 'analysts' say you have to grab more rebounds to win.

really almost all of the studies I have seen show rebounding is one of the biggest factors and that it takes a lot to be a good team if you aren't good on the defensive glass.

in the last couple years teams like the spurs and heat have sacrificed defensive rebounding to better contest shots and complete rotations and it has yielded positive results.

The HEat have managed to get by being poor on the defensive glass but the Spurs are an excellent defensive rebounding team.

[whitehops]

really almost all of the studies I have seen show rebounding is one of the biggest factors and that it takes a lot to be a good team if you aren't good on the defensive glass.

in the last couple years teams like the spurs and heat have sacrificed defensive rebounding to better contest shots and complete rotations and it has yielded positive results.

The HEat have managed to get by being poor on the defensive glass but the Spurs are an excellent defensive rebounding team.

sorry you're right I think it was another team then... maybe the Celtics?

[ferk]

in the last couple years teams like the spurs and heat have sacrificed defensive rebounding to better contest shots and complete rotations and it has yielded positive results.

The HEat have managed to get by being poor on the defensive glass but the Spurs are an excellent defensive rebounding team.

sorry you're right I think it was another team then... maybe the Celtics?

Celtics & spurs.

[mysticbb]

in the last couple years teams like the spurs and heat have sacrificed defensive rebounding to better contest shots and complete rotations and it has yielded positive results.

I guess you are talking about OFFENSIVE rebounding, because that's what a couple of teams sacrificied in order to get better in transition defense and overall team defense. The Heat, Spurs, Celtics or Mavericks are among those teams.

[colts18]

I guess you are talking about OFFENSIVE rebounding, because that's what a couple of teams sacrificied in order to get better in transition defense and overall team defense. The Heat, Spurs, Celtics or Mavericks are among those teams.

The Spurs stopped focusing on defensive rebounding too.

“This summer, we looked at our defensive efficiency, which for years had been very high. And last year, we went in the 10-15 range. And I think we were valuing some things that weren’t nearly as important as the data showed us. We learned from the Celtics.
“While they were really high in defensive efficiency, they weren’t very high in defensive rebounding. And that was a big part of where our emphasis was, and it made us question is that really where we should be paying attention. And those were discussions that were then brought to Pop from our coaches and from our analytics team. And some great discussions came from that, that ended up having us reevaluate what was important to us.”

So, using the Celtics for comparison, Popovich and crew went back to the drawing board, knowing they needed to adjust their defensive priorities. Contesting shots became the new focus, even if it meant more fouls or fewer rebounds.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/03/2 ... -the-same/

[mysticbb]

I think this is misleading. They didn't stop to focus on defensive rebounding, they just didn't overemphasize on that. Defending the position and the shot is more important than preparing for the defensive rebound. That should be clear and was discussed a lot before. The reason is pretty simple: the defensive positioning will give higher odds for the rebound to the defending team anyway. There is also a difference to the Celtics here, because the Celtics are actually below league average in defensive rebounding not just due to their "lack of focus", but also due to their roster. The Spurs on the other hand are above league average in defensive rebounding. Defending the position and the shot does not correlate with being worse than league average in defensive rebounding in general.

[richboy]

The Heat are trying to win despite being a poor defensive rebounding team. Lets not act like they wouldn't be better if they rebounded better. If you have Lebron James maybe you can survive. Most teams do not have the personnel to overcome being dominated on the glass. The Heat can because they force turnovers. Still play good defense. Top 3 players all shoot over 50%.

[tsherkin]

in the last couple years teams like the spurs and heat have sacrificed defensive rebounding to better contest shots and complete rotations and it has yielded positive results.

Points to mention, Miami has been 4th, 10th and 24th in DRB% during their Finals runs. This past season, their defense notably stepped backwards along with their decline in defensive rebounding, so I'm not sure that they are an awesome model for that, especially since we saw what happened when they struggled against an interior scorer because of their lack of conventional size and how sissy-tastic Bosh was against Hibbert. Their regular season success was huge, but the Heat are at their best when they can secure the defensive board in tandem with their aggressive perimeter rotation defense from Wade and Lebron. Obviously, there are many ways to approach this and you don't necessarily need to totally dominate DRB% in order to be a very good team, though. Miami does its thing with HUGE offensive potential and their D comes and goes, but when they are on, they do rebound very well on the defensive glass.

Rotational schemes are big, though, for sure; the lynchpin of Miami's D is certainly how their swing players attack with rotations, and to be fair, TOV% is also one of the Four Factors, just like DRB%, so that still fits with the basic DeanO model from years past. The 2.9 era does afford us some new defensive strategies, but being crap on the defensive boards is still obviously going to undermine your upper-bound defensively.

The Spurs, to use another example, have posted the following DRB% rankings going back to their last title in 2007:

2007: 3 (2nd)
2008: 1 (3rd)
2009: 1 (5th)
2010: 4 (8th)
2011: 10 (11th on D) --> 2nd on offense, though (111.8 ORTG)
2012: 1 (10th on D)
2013: 3 (3rd on D)

Pops can talk a lot about how the Spurs have eased back a bit on the defense glass, and to a small extent they have, but the Spurs have remained one of the very best teams in the league on the defensive boards apart from backsliding in 2011.

There are multiple paths to good defense and high DRB% alone is insufficient, of course, but the Spurs have been very consistently good in that regard and it has served them quite well, in tandem with everything else they've done.

[turk3d]

Interesting that it was a breakdown in their defensive rebounding that probably cost the Spurs (among other things) the series.

[mysticbb]

Interesting that it was a breakdown in their defensive rebounding that probably cost the Spurs (among other things) the series.

That is a faulty way of looking at things. You may also consider them missing a FT as the reason of "losing the series" or bad luck in game 7 for Danny Green or whatever. In average the Spurs had a 76 DRB% during the finals. That is hardly something, which we can use as a reason for them "losing the series". In fact, the Spurs overall scored more points and the Heat just had simply more luck with their 3pt shooting, that is much more of a reason here.

Using the last sequences of game 6, where Popovich was rather using their better 3pt defending lineup, which had a rather small disadvantage in terms of defensive rebounding in comparison to a lineup with Duncan, was the right thing to do. That Mike Miller would stand just right there where the first missed 3pt landed, was pure luck, that Bosh came away with that tip on the 2nd missed 3pt was also more luck than ability to rebound. And usually teams are rather going 1 of 4 in 3 pt attempts in the closing seconds of a close game than 2 of 4. But I guess it is usually pretty hard to incorporate "luck" as a factor for many, because they like narratives much more, especially those, which would make it seem as if they would have made a better decision than those professional coaches.

[turk3d]

Miami was very agressive on the offensive boards and when Duncan was out they got a lot of offensive rebounds. When it comes to giving up the ball in your own end, there's a very good chance that you're going to give the opposition a 2 or a 3.

With regards to missed fts, we're talking about just 1 point (I believe that the Spurs made 1 out of 2 in most cases). It becomes muchmore apparent during crunch time so I disagree, Not only does that kill you pointwise, but when you give up O-Rebounds (especially in that situation) it's very demoralizing, especially when you've already gotten a stop.

[mysticbb]

Miami was very agressive on the offensive boards and when Duncan was out they got a lot of offensive rebounds.

The Heat had 26.5 ORB% during the minutes Duncan was out in that series. That they would have 100% in those two possessions was more luck than "aggressive on the offensive board".

The Heat got 12 offensive rebounds that game, 7 with Duncan being on the court.

With regards to missed fts, we're talking about just 1 point (I believe that the Spurs made 1 out of 2 in most cases).

Indeed. One point more and the Spurs win. It was expected that they go 3 of 4, not 2 of 4! That point was enough.

Not only does that kill you pointwise, but when you give up O-Rebounds (especially in that situation) it's very demoralizing, especially when you've already gotten a stop.

Did any of those Spurs players looked "demoralized" after that offensive rebound? I just saw Spurs players trying to get into their defensive positions, including Parker desperately trying to closeout on Allen and had even a hand in his face. No idea, but maybe you watch a game in a different reality, where the Spurs players gave up after the offensive rebound ...

[turk3d]

Did any of those Spurs players looked "demoralized" after that offensive rebound? I just saw Spurs players trying to get into their defensive positions, including Parker desperately trying to closeout on Allen and had even a hand in his face. No idea, but maybe you watch a game in a different reality, where the Spurs players gave up after the offensive rebound ..

That was a general statement (O-rebs tend to demoralize a team). But those 3 pointers practically took them out of the game. A lot worse than 1 point. One of the things that could have helped was fouling (2 points would have even been better than 3).