Hawks/Kings ... again

[ATLHawksfan21]

sometimes, I think we make basketball WAAAAAAAY too complicated around here

I dont see how any post in this thread would be hard to understand

[azuresou1]

Going by defensive rebounding %, we're actually one of the BEST teams at grabbing defensive boards.

We're being outrebounded on the defensive boards. We average 32.0 and the opposition averages 32.9. Hard to see how we're one of the best when, overall, we're 15th in defensive rebounding, with a differential of -0.9. So far as total rebounding, we're 24th in the NBA with a differential of -2.2.

That's... not how it works. You realize when you look at opposition defensive boards, that refers to our lack of OFFENSIVE rebounding, right?

Furthermore, you realize raw rebounding numbers mean absolutely nothing, right? The Rockets have the second most raw defensive rebounds/game in the league, but they're 20th in true defensive rebounding. Of available defensive boards, they only grab 73.5% of them.

Houston manages to pull down so many defensive rebounds because they're good at forcing opponents to take bad shots (which generate rebounding opportunities), and because they are 4th worst at forcing opponent turnovers (which PREVENT rebounding opportunities). THAT'S why they have a great raw defensive rebounding number despite below average at actually rebounding. They also play at a fast pace, which helps.

Some simple relationships to remember:
1. As defensive eFG% goes down, rebounding opportunities increase
2. As defensive turnovers forced goes down, rebounding opportunities increase
3. As pace increases, rebounding opportunities increase
4. Raw rebounding numbers has very little to do with how good a team actually is at grabbing rebounds

Houston forces bad shots, can't generate steals, and plays fast. That inflates their rebounding numbers.
Atlanta is below average at forcing bad shots and generating turnovers, and slightly above average in pace. This deflates our rebounding numbers.

[azuresou1]

An example using hypothetical numbers that are exaggerated but should illustrate the point:

Team A is really, really bad at defense. They gamble often for steals, and while this nets them a 25% forced turnover rate, their opponents manage to shoot 80% due to the defensive breakdowns. However, they are tenacious rebounders, and grab every single rebound available off misses.

Team B is really, really GOOD at defense. They play a very disciplined defense which rarely gambles for steals. As a result, they only get a 10% turnover rate, but opponents can only shoot 40% against them on the initial shot. However, they are ridiculously bad at rebounding, and they only grab 50% of rebounds.

Assuming you give their opponents 100 possessions (normalizing for pace), here is the outcome:

Team A: 25 possessions nullified, 60 baskets made, 15 rebounds
Team B: 10 possessions nullifed, 54 baskets made, 36 rebounds total (36 baskets made on initial shot attempt, 27 rebounds on initial shot, 11 baskets made on second shot attempt, 8 rebounds on second shot attempt, 3 baskets made on third shot attempt, 3 rebounds on third shot attempt, 1 basket on 4th attempt, 1 rebound on 4th attempt)

Despite Team B generating 2.4x as many rebounds as Team A, Team A is CLEARLY the better rebounding team.

Don't blame our mediocre defense on our lack of defensive rebounding. We're a great defensive rebounding team.

[MaceCase]

Going by defensive rebounding %, we're actually one of the BEST teams at grabbing defensive boards.

We're being outrebounded on the defensive boards. We average 32.0 and the opposition averages 32.9. Hard to see how we're one of the best when, overall, we're 15th in defensive rebounding, with a differential of -0.9. So far as total rebounding, we're 24th in the NBA with a differential of -2.2.

You are aware that two team's defensive rebounds are mutually exclusive of each other, correct? Two teams cannot both be on defense at the same time in order for you to present a differential as though they are directly correlated to each other.

If you are a team that is clearly conceding your own offensive rebounding opportunities then consequently your opponent will have a high amount of defensive rebounds. Of course, if your team also has a high amount of defensive rebounds it means that you are limiting the opposing team from second shot opportunities.

Also, he mentioned percentage, not total. Totals are skewed because if one team runs the ball up and get's 150 rebound opportunities and snags 60 that is worse than a team that has 100 opportunities and snags 50. You say "well the other team had 10 more rebounds" and the response is "they also had 50 more opportunities to secure those 10 more rebounds". Totals are useless because of this and the fact that not every team has even played an equal amount of games but the truth still remains that the Hawks are currently the 4th best defensive rebounding team in the league by percentage.

We can go back to the Spurs example seeing as it needs repeating that both our GM and coach come out of that system. They possess one of the greatest 7 footers ever. They flank him with other 7 footers. Yet they are porous themselves on rebound totals and especially on offensive boards. But they are 20-5 in a tougher conference coming off a Finals appearance while the Hawks are.....the Hawks.

So what gives? Is that ~1% difference in rebounding between the two teams the difference between one being a perennial contender while the other is lucky to see a 2nd round berth? Are we going to continue with the narrative that it's because of their size even when the evidence wholly suggests otherwise?


Alas, this is probably Tl;Dr and whoops, Azu snuck in his response too. Maybe mine is more concise for once.

[parson]

If we take all the rebounds from all games we've played and made 2 piles, the pile belonging to us would be the smaller one.

Beyond that, just use your eyes: Horford is a small Center; Millsap's a small PF; we have a small front line; we get pushed around in games against bigger foes.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[parson]

azure, I get what you're saying, I really do. You're saying that there are lenses that help us see reality. And those are great lenses: you've got telescopes and microscopes and some cool sunglasses.

I'm saying that, if you take off the glasses and just look, anyone can see we're too small.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Jamaaliver]

Hey, did anyone else watch the Superstar-less Spurs defeat the much (over?) hyped GS Warriors last night?

The winning basket was scored when a 7-footer (not a particularly talented one at that) got the offensive rebound and tipped in the winning bucket.

THAT is what I'm referring to. GS played solid defense on the final possession, Belinelli put up a TERRIBLE shot, but GS could not get the rebound after a couple of shot attempts and San Antonio got the putback for the win.

A perfect example of what I'm referring to. Splitter is absolute garbage, but as a defensive 7-footer he was able to make the play by largely being bigger than the opposition.

Does no one else see any benefit in having a player bigger/taller/stronger than the opposition capable of dominating the glass on a possession by possession basis? (Other than Parsons)

Again, it's a basic tenet of basketball at every single level.

In my youth league (where I coach), in my church league (where I play), on my brothers' collegiate teams (starting guard for Sienna!!!) we always start with the bigs. Play in the paint. Controlling the boards.

Good defensive rebounding leads to fewer shot attempts for the opposition and more fast break points for our team.

Good offensive rebounding leads to more FGAs for us and FEWER fast break opportunites for our opponents.

Has that been completely negated and devalued because of analytics?

[azuresou1]

And that's where we disagree.

Every team is going to have some areas that are not a strength, unless you're doing a Hall-Of-Fame draft. Size is not a strength of ours. However, it also is not a 'weakness.'

Could we be bigger? Sure, I'd love it if Al Horford was 7'2 and 280 lbs of muscle. Is the fact that he's not what is preventing us from being a championship contender? I don't think so. Heck, look at Miami. Horford and Bosh are basically the same size, and Millsap is bigger than Battier.

A true weakness of ours is the lack of a superstar. The lack of a premier scorer means that in the playoffs, when teams lock down and easy baskets largely disappear, we need to work MUCH harder to get off good looks. The difference between Cartier Martin running around a screen and catching the ball at the elbow vs. having Kevin Durant run the same play is astronomical. The difference between Al Horford guarding Roy Hibbert in the post and 10% bigger Al Horford guarding Hibbert is not.

[MaceCase]

And when you created two piles of rebounds last year for the Spurs the one belonging to them was the smaller one.

And our eyes are telling us that the reason that the Spurs aren't great rebounders themselves is because.....they're too small?


Ah well, I'll just let this comparison die then.


Oh and of course Liver will believe that a single situational rebound had more bearing on the outcome of the game last night and offers more evidence for him than the fact the Spurs were outrebounded by the Warriors....Or that the 6'8" Diaw actually secured the offensive rebound......and that Splitter's size wasn't really helpful considering that he wasn't boxed out by anyone on his tip. I think Al and Sap can also reach the rim unencumbered, Teague too.

[Jamaaliver]

And that's where we disagree. A true weakness of ours is the lack of a superstar.

Fair point. But in the absence of a true superstar (since we haven't had one here in almost 20 years) would it not be prudent at least improve in the areas where we can, such as frontcourt size and rebounding?

Which is easier for us to do: Trade for Lebron James or acquire a defensive Center?

We've seen numerous teams at least make runs in the playoffs past the 2nd round that did not have All-NBA talent. Most recently Memphis. They actually got less talented (after dumping Rudy Gay) but focused on defense/rebounding.

Marc Gasol is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. Not an elite player, even at the diminished Center postion. But his defensive impact combined with the brute force/post skills of Zach Randolph have allowed them to win more games than us in each of the last three season despite being less talented than us.

Even making a run to the Conference Finals last season.

Considering it's been decades since we had a top player, is it not even somehwat reasonable to at least attempt to make interior play/rebounding a strength until we can acquire a top player?

Even if the cost is minimal?

[Jamaaliver]

Size is not a strength of ours. However, it also is not a 'weakness.'

Would you at least agree that the production of Elton, Ayon and Antic has been...underwhelming?

[azuresou1]

Sure. I actually agree with almost every point you made, except one.

Marc Gasol is absolutely an elite player. He's a goddamn stud. In terms of production, he was the 14th best player last year, ahead of Carmelo. If we could get Marc Gasol for Paul Millsap, I'd do that trade any day. Heck, I'd even toss in a 2016 lotto protected 1st.

But we're not talking Marc Gasol. We're talking Omer Asik.

[Jamaaliver]

^Holy cow!!!

I think we have an accord....