Around the NBA 8.0

[qiantom]

In terms of overall rebounding, our offensive rebounding is even worse. It is already bottom of the league in the regular season. I believe it was even worse in the MIA series.

Interestingly, we did get some key O rebounds that decided the outcome of two games.

[yosemiteben]

In terms of overall rebounding, our offensive rebounding is even worse. It is already bottom of the league in the regular season. I believe it was even worse in the MIA series.

That is by design, Cliff values limiting transition points over grabbing O boards. We allowed the second fewest transition points during the regular season, second to DET (coached by the guy that taught Cliff the value of that scheme).

http://stats.nba.com/league/team/#!/playtype/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Totals&OD=defensive&sort=Points&dir=-1

[yosemiteben]

They just exploited our conservative strategy and some matchups.

Yet we generally were only slightly below our average despite injuries to four guys who were starters for the majority of the season, including 3 of our top 4 players based on DRB%. Not having a healthy Batum also was not helpful, as he was a very solid rebounder for us during the regular season.

[yosemiteben]

WTF Skiles just walked on ORL?

[LofJ]

I know that Clifford allowed MKG to crash the offensive glass because he has ridiculous end to end speed and can therefore get back on D, but so does Cody. I wonder why we don't encourage him to go for offensive boards? He's a freak athlete when it comes to running the floor. He could do it and still get back on defense.

[qiantom]

In terms of overall rebounding, our offensive rebounding is even worse. It is already bottom of the league in the regular season. I believe it was even worse in the MIA series.

That is by design, Cliff values limited transition points over grabbing O boards. We allowed the second fewest transition points during the regular season, second to DET (coached by the guy that taught Cliff the value of that scheme).

http://stats.nba.com/league/team/#!/playtype/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Totals&OD=defensive&sort=Points&dir=-1

I understand. Just like the defensive rebounding is by design. Again, I do not consider the stat alone a good indicator of anything. If you give up a couple more transition points per game but manager to grab many more rebounds, it may very well be worth it because O rebounds lead to cheap points. The best strategy for a team depends on the makeup of the team. There is no universal strategy that fits all. Even for Cliff, I think he has MKG crashing the offensive board consistently.

[yosemiteben]

It's cool to say that you prefer a different scheme, but it doesn't make sense to me to say that we should ignore the scheme and the results of the scheme and say that we are not actually good enough to get the results that we do.

[LofJ]

Cody should be allowed to crash the offensive glass. If we let MKG do it Cody should get the same green light. Running the floor is his elite physical attribute, we should take advantage of it.

[qiantom]

It's cool to say that you prefer a different scheme, but it doesn't make sense to me to say that we should ignore the scheme and the results of the scheme and say that we are not actually good enough to get the results that we do.

I don't think you got my point. I do not prefer a different scheme. I trust that the coaching staff know what the best scheme is for our team. The problem is when you compare different teams using different schemes. It is not appropriate to conclude which team is better at defensive rebounding based on the one stat DRR% when there are conscious decisions made by teams to sacrifice some of the DRR% but to be a better team overall.

[yosemiteben]

It is not appropriate to conclude which team is better at defensive rebounding based on the one stat DRR% when there are conscious decisions made by teams to sacrifice some of the DRR% but to be a better team overall.

Of course it is, unless you want to go in the bizarro world where you are judging teams based not on actual performance but on what they could do if they wanted to.

You can't allow more offensive rebounds but say you are actually a superior defensive rebounding team, you just don't mind allowing more offensive rebounds. There is only one metric you can use to judge a team's defensive rebounding - how many offensive rebounds do they allow. If a team doesn't want to allow the least, that's cool, but they won't be a better defensive rebounding team than a team that allows less.

[qiantom]

It is not appropriate to conclude which team is better at defensive rebounding based on the one stat DRR% when there are conscious decisions made by teams to sacrifice some of the DRR% but to be a better team overall.

Of course it is, unless you want to go in the bizarro world where you are judging teams based not on actual performance but on what they could do if they wanted to.

You can't allow more offensive rebounds but say you are actually a superior defensive rebounding team, you just don't mind allowing more offensive rebounds. There is only one metric you can use to judge a team's defensive rebounding - how many offensive rebounds do they allow. If a team doesn't want to allow the least, that's cool, but they won't be a better defensive rebounding team than a team that allows less.

I am not sure why this concept seems so difficult to you. Is a player averaging more assists definitely a better passer? Why do we look at AST/TO ratio then?

I am not saying a team allowing more offensive rebounds is actually a superior defensive rebounding team, but it is possible. If one team always has five guys back securing the rebound and the other only three and if their DRR% is only slightly different, I am going to think that the second team is actually better at defensive rebounding. Great simplification of reality, but anything wrong with that concept?

[yosemiteben]

I am not sure why this concept seems so difficult to you. Is a player averaging more assists definitely a better passer? Why do we look at AST/TO ratio then?

There is more to passing than raw assist numbers so you can have value in facilitating ball movement by passing in ways that do not generate assists. Stated differently, passing =/= assists.

How else can you quantify defensive rebounding other than by limiting offensive rebounds? There is no other metric that goes into it. Defensive rebounding = limiting offensive rebounds by opposing teams.

I am not saying a team allowing more offensive rebounds is actually a superior defensive rebounding team, but it is possible.

They could be if they played differently, but there is 0 value to hypothetical play. You are what your results are, and if you don't do as good a job at limiting offensive rebounds you are not better at limiting offensive rebounds.

[qiantom]

You are nitpicking the difference between passing and assisting, but I think you got my idea from the analogy.

I am not advocating hypothetical play. I am advocating looking at several stats in conjunction and looking at stats with context. Defensive rebounding is just one small aspect of the game. Improving your DRR% may or may not make you a better team.

[fatlever]

You both make valid points.

Team A leads the league in defensive rebounding % in the regular season. Their coach believes it is hugely important, to secure the defensive glass, even if that prevents some fast break points in the process.

Team B is 5th in the league in defensive rebounding % in the regular season. While their coach believes defensive rebounding is very important, he also allows 1-2 of his players to leak out in transition thus removing 1-2 players from crashing the defensive glass on every possession.

Team A and Team B meet in the playoffs. Team A, as always, sends 5 guys to the defensive glass. Team B decides that for this particular matchup they are not going to try and leak out for fast breaks because Team A is so good at getting back in transition. Team B believes they would be better off sending 5 guys to the defensive glass all series.

Over the course of a 7-game series, Team B has a better defensive rebounding % than Team A.

What can we conclude from this scenario? Is Team A the better defensive rebounding team or is Team B the better defensive rebounding team?

As for the Miami Hornets series, I think more than anything it was a matchup issue. The Hornets led the league in defensive rebounding % for the season and that took in stats of 82 games vs 29 opponents. Night in and night out the Hornets, on average, did a better job of defensive rebounding than anyone else. However, that does not mean the Hornets should be favored to win the defensive rebounding numbers vs every team. The Heat had an obvious matchup advantages in this series - Whiteside vs our bigs, quickness at the 3/4 with same size and size advantages at 1/2. If we played the Heat 82 times in a season my guess is we would not lead the league in defensive rebounding %. Clifford acknowledged this by saying we needed some size and strength. Scheme doesn't always win vs every team, but if its a good scheme and everyone buys in, it will win most nights. That's what we had with the Hornets. IMO.

[yosemiteben]

I disagree a bit on this. MIA was not a team that abandoned the glass for fast break opportunities, they were bottom 10 in the league in fast break opportunities and they played at a notoriously slow pace all season (ranked 24th in pace). What evidence is there really that they changed their rebounding scheme and fast break scheme against us?

During the regular season we averaged the second highest DRB% against MIA, with SAS having the highest, and our average against MIA was much higher than our season average against all teams (83.3% against MIA vs. 79.8% for all teams).

I still think the biggest difference was having a large portion of our best rebounders injured.

[fatlever]

Sorry, I didnt mean to equate my first scenario Team A and Team B exactly with the Heat vs Hornets, was just making an example to make a point. My thoughts on the Heat Hornets series are in the 2nd part where I said I believe it was mostly related to matchups. Zeller, Marvin and Batum's injuries are also very valid points.

[qiantom]

I also think the defensive rebounding issue is related to other similar offensive and defensive strategies that tend to work well in the regular season but not nearly as well in the playoffs. These strategies are good for taking advantage of bad and mediocre teams. But when in the playoffs, you are playing against good teams and they game plan specifically against you.

[Snidely FC]

new Jazz unies hit a sour note

[fatlever]

new Jazz unies hit a sour note

You no like? I dig 'em. Back to the 80s.

[Flip Murray]

new Jazz unies hit a sour note

I wish the one on the far right was a one piece