Did RW found the triple-double recipe and exposed it to the world?

[dfins891]

PG rebounds are by far the least contested (more than 70% are uncontested). A rebound from a PG is not equal to a rebound from a big. I won't say they have no value, but they have a lot less value.

In what way? OKC is at the top of the NBA in transition offense, and it let's them push the ball way faster. People are discrediting rebounds with tons of excuses, but they don't make basketball sense. He's doing it on a team that leads the league in rebounding with bigs who still get theirs in excess, and is able to push the pace. His rebounding is one of the single best attributes he's got.

The Thunder run a lot so they score a lot of transition points (4th in the league) but they're middle of the pack in terms of PPP (#11), score frequency (#13) and eFG% (#19) in transition. The evidence doesn't really point to Russell crashing the boards and starting the break being particularly productive in this area.

I agree that he's a good rebounder and it's always a plus for a player to better than average at anything, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the value of his "extra" rebounds (let's say ~3 a game) that are inflating his rebound totals. Example: late in the recent game against Atlanta, he sailed in to grab a rebound on a missed free throw before one of the two OKC bigs under the basket could get it. No one on Atlanta was in the vicinity of the ball. I'd argue that this is a rebound with virtually no value. Whether he starts the break from under the basket or gets an outlet pass from McGary 20 feet up the court is not going to change the likelihood that OKC scores on the ensuing possession.

I'm pretty sure their transition point numbers are deflated from the first month of the season when Westbrook was hurt. From the start of the season until Westbrook returned they were dead last in transition points per game and since he returned they are 2nd in the league behind the Warriors.

It doesn't let you sort the PPP stats by date unfortunately but I'd bet they would be higher if you look at just when Westbrook plays. Also that stat is incorrect, they are actually 9th in ppp.

And Westbrook is first in the league by a wide margin in transition points, and I seriously doubt that would be the case if he didn't grab so many defensive rebounds. You would agree if you've ever seen Ibaka/Perkins/Adams make an outlet pass and every single time waiting for the defense to clear before passing it. Especially Ibaka who is the worst outlet passer I've ever seen. Collison is good at it but he doesn't play much.

And for a team who scores the highest % of their points from transition in the league and is a top 5 offense since Westbrook returned, it is quite obviously a pivotal part of their success.

[Sebastian]

In what way? OKC is at the top of the NBA in transition offense, and it let's them push the ball way faster. People are discrediting rebounds with tons of excuses, but they don't make basketball sense. He's doing it on a team that leads the league in rebounding with bigs who still get theirs in excess, and is able to push the pace. His rebounding is one of the single best attributes he's got.

The Thunder run a lot so they score a lot of transition points (4th in the league) but they're middle of the pack in terms of PPP (#11), score frequency (#13) and eFG% (#19) in transition. The evidence doesn't really point to Russell crashing the boards and starting the break being particularly productive in this area.

I agree that he's a good rebounder and it's always a plus for a player to better than average at anything, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the value of his "extra" rebounds (let's say ~3 a game) that are inflating his rebound totals. Example: late in the recent game against Atlanta, he sailed in to grab a rebound on a missed free throw before one of the two OKC bigs under the basket could get it. No one on Atlanta was in the vicinity of the ball. I'd argue that this is a rebound with virtually no value. Whether he starts the break from under the basket or gets an outlet pass from McGary 20 feet up the court is not going to change the likelihood that OKC scores on the ensuing possession.

I'm pretty sure their transition point numbers are deflated from the first month of the season when Westbrook was hurt. From the start of the season until Westbrook returned they were dead last in transition points per game and since he returned they are 2nd in the league behind the Warriors.

It doesn't let you sort the PPP stats by date unfortunately but I'd bet they would be higher if you look at just when Westbrook plays. Also that stat is incorrect, they are actually 9th in ppp.

Maybe we're looking at different sources -- according to Synergy they're 11th, just barely behind Toronto and Dallas.

[Texas Chuck]

And again its always great if the ball starts in the hands of the guy you want to have the ball--fewer turnovers, more transition opportunities.

Not necessarily. I think if your bigs are good outlet passers, you can get better transition opportunities by having them find the guard streaking down the court, rather than having the guard grab the rebound and have to dribble the whole way.

But realistically how many bigs are better passers decision makers than PG's? Almost none. And Kidd for example was a high rebounding PG who frequently advanced the ball up the court via the outlet pass. So that option remains open for whomever rebounds the ball. You are stretching to find some reason to make a player having additional abilities not add value and I really don't understand why. No one is claiming his rebounding is what makes him great--but it certainly adds value to his team.

And certainly talking about the Thunder specifically none of what you are saying applies.

[Doctor MJ]

Do not agree at all with this idea that defensive rebounds from a PG has no value. Just do not agree.

Of course I think people get way too caught up in the whole idea of positions anyway.

Chuck I don't know if you're responding to me or not, but you could be, and if you are, I don't understand why you respond by saying "you just don't agree" when I'm giving you numbers like that.

Of course a point guard who helps with defensive rebounding can be valuable, but if the regression data tells us that point guards who get a lot of those rebounds tend to actually decrease how well the team does at getting defensive rebounding, then you have to question whether in practice it's being helpful. We can debate about whether the numbers truly warrant such skepticism, but my issue stems not from dismissing point guard rebounds on the face of it, but from seeing trends like this.

I'll also say: People are pointing out that getting the ball in the hands of your point guard right away can help you start the break. That's absolutely right, it's simply that people should recognize that that's purely an offensive benefit, and if it comes with decreased defensive rebounding efficacy, then letting point guards play this role is sacrificing defense for offense.

That's no sin of course, but there's a definite pull to looking at players like this as if they are great two-way players, and if the reality is that rebounding they do is utterly one-way in its impact, people should realize that.

[bondom34]

Do not agree at all with this idea that defensive rebounds from a PG has no value. Just do not agree.

Of course I think people get way too caught up in the whole idea of positions anyway.

Chuck I don't know if you're responding to me or not, but you could be, and if you are, I don't understand why you respond by saying "you just don't agree" when I'm giving you numbers like that.

Of course a point guard who helps with defensive rebounding can be valuable, but if the regression data tells us that point guards who get a lot of those rebounds tend to actually decrease how well the team does at getting defensive rebounding, then you have to question whether in practice it's being helpful. We can debate about whether the numbers truly warrant such skepticism, but my issue stems not from dismissing point guard rebounds on the face of it, but from seeing trends like this.

I'll also say: People are pointing out that getting the ball in the hands of your point guard right away can help you start the break. That's absolutely right, it's simply that people should recognize that that's purely an offensive benefit, and if it comes with decreased defensive rebounding efficacy, then letting point guards play this role is sacrificing defense for offense.

That's no sin of course, but there's a definite pull to looking at players like this as if they are great two-way players, and if the reality is that rebounding they do is utterly one-way in its impact, people should realize that.

Doc, this is where I'm lost. I'm a fan of regression based stats, and have been. That said, there are things I admit I can't explain with just those numbers, and in all honesty I'm not seeing how this can be viewed negatively despite what that tells us. WB is averaging rebound numbers which are high. People claiming he's stealing those from teammates aren't looking at the fact that Kanter, Adams, Ibaka, McGary, Collison are all excellent rebounders. The team outrebounds opponents nearly every game. They average about 5 more RPG than opponents, and since the trade (which is when this really started) outrebound them by over 8 per game. The uptick in assists is pretty simple to find too: They're going to Kanter. Westbrook finally has a fantastic offensive pick and roll big. The scoring was always there. Through a quarter tonight, WB w/ 4 assists and Kanter a double double, its not to a team detriment. I'm just not finding the arguement against his high rebounding numbers.

Aside: That thread about Kanter Vs. Empty roster spot a week ago? Yeah....

[Texas Chuck]

yeah Doc, I read your post, but I still don't see the issue here. Adding another good rebounder to the mix does not by default make the team defensive rebounding worse.

But even if your numbers suggest they do--and I really need some logic behind WHY you think this is happening to believe something counter-intuitive like this-- it doesn't necessary apply to Westbrook and the Thunder.

So I would love you to expound just what the numbers are telling you happens in general and see if you could explain why you think that is the case. Because right now I'm confused what the actual problem of having a PG who is a good rebounder could be. I feel like the PG being a good rebounder isn't a causation of a team being worse at rebounding, but more that bad rebounding teams tend to have a greater percentage of rebounds grabbed by a PG--especially one who rebounds well.

And in general I want my best ball-handler/decison maker/transition player (ie Westbrook) to grab every single uncontested rebound--not so he can have some spiffy box score number or a triple double, but for those offensive benefits we agree are there). By the logic you seem to be using, its the bigs grabbing uncontested rebounds that are the problem unless they are a Russell/Mailman/Kevin Love great outlet passer type. We should want ball-handlers swooping in to get these and having others release.

[bondom34]

Also, the rebounding differential that they've had since the trade would be all time best from what I could find, and they rebound better w/ Russ on court.

[Doctor MJ]

yeah Doc, I read your post, but I still don't see the issue here. Adding another good rebounder to the mix does not by default make the team defensive rebounding worse.

But even if your numbers suggest they do--and I really need some logic behind WHY you think this is happening to believe something counter-intuitive like this-- it doesn't necessary apply to Westbrook and the Thunder.

So, you and bondom are both saying similar things, but to me this part of your post seems to sum it up best. Let me know if I'm wrong, but it seems there's something I suppose I take for granted that you aren't including in your thoughts. You may have a good rebuttal when you hear it, but it's weird to me that I haven't seen an attempt at a rebuttal yet:

Guys who help offensive rebounding are great at crashing the boards. It's a young man's game. Explosive athletes who don't yet understand the game often have this as the first thing they are actually good at.

But guys who simply crash the boards are often extremely problematic on defense, because the best way to max out your defensive rebounding percentage is to work in concert with teammates to keep the opponent from breaking through and getting to the ball. You'll win that rebound most of the time no matter what you do as a team, but if every player goes for the ball themselves, you leave openings for opponents to slide in and get a bigger minority of the rebounds.

Regression data along these lines is great because it really hammers in how powerful this issue can be. I'm going to list the top 10 leaders by Offensive Rebounding % and Defensive Rebounding % from b-r, and then I'm going to put the number Got Buckets has for their current regression data based on the stat they appear to be excelling in:

Offensive Rebounds
Andre Drummond 99
DeAndre Jordan 92
Tristan Thompson 90
Rudy Gobert 98
Tyson Chandler 82
Enes Kanter 94
Omer Asik 88
Zaza Pechulia 92
Ed Davis 97
Joakim Noah 95

Defensive Rebounds
DeAndre Jordan 42
DeMarcus Cousins 80
Andre Drummond 77
Omer Asik 99
Pau Gasol 65
Rudy Gobert 92
Kevin Love 75
Tyson Chandler 97
Tim Duncan 98
Nikola Vucevic 89

Notice the difference? Every single one of the guys racking up Offensive Rebounds has regression data that puts him as excellent at Offensive Rebounding. The lowest rating we see of these guys is an 82, which is literally better than the regression rating for the top 3 guys according to raw Defensive Rebounding numbers.

So to summarize:

1. It's a well known belief that you can't judge a defensive rebounder by simply his raw Defensive Rebounds like you can on Offense.
2. This belief has been supported by every regression analysis I've seen since they first started coming out (in 2011 I believe).
3. As such, you should NEVER look at a guy racking up a bunch of defensive rebounds and assume he's helping his team. He may well be hurting his team by adopting a "me first" strategy.

Then to segue back to Westbrook:

1. This is a particular concern for point guards known for getting rebounds because it means that the team's defensive rebounding either involves A) a bunch of big guys boxing out so the little guy can run in and grab the rebound or B) the team simply doesn't have good rebounding teamwork at all. In neither case would we expect this to be a good idea if the goal is to thrive at defensive rebounding. The only justification for it is that it might help the point guard start the break a split second sooner - which is not nothing, but it's not cause to praise the point guard's rebounding either.

2. In the case of both Kidd and Westbrook, the two point guards most known for rebounds - and thus triple doubles - in recent years, the regression data shows precisely what we should have worried was happening: This outright hurts the team's rebounds.

Now, the one caveat I'll say here: The data I'm using here includes both this season and last season, and it's too early to say anything about a trend people believe started part way through this season. As such, if you want to say "You don't understand Doc, it's different now, that's why we're raving about it.", that's fine. But you simply have to acknowledge the broader concerns I'm raising if you want to have a credible response.

I respect both of you guys and I'm not trying to demean you in any way - frankly I feel like there's likely some plain disconnect in our discussion which will leave you saying that you know full well the phenomenon I mean but for some reason didn't address it specifically before - but with what I see so far, it feels like you think this regression data is coming out of nowhere and that I'm latching on to it without putting more thought into it. And such is not the case. I went right to where this data was precisely because I'm aware of how rebounding generally works on the defensive side of the ball. There is no mystery to it at all.

[bondom34]

2. In the case of both Kidd and Westbrook, the two point guards most known for rebounds - and thus triple doubles - in recent years, the regression data shows precisely what we should have worried was happening: This outright hurts the team's rebounds.

This is my disconnect though Doc. They're on a pace to outrebound teams by 8 per game since the trade. Its clearly not doing what you and others are saying it should be. So why should it be viewed as if it is doing something it clearly isn't?

[Doctor MJ]

2. In the case of both Kidd and Westbrook, the two point guards most known for rebounds - and thus triple doubles - in recent years, the regression data shows precisely what we should have worried was happening: This outright hurts the team's rebounds.

This is my disconnect though Doc. They're on a pace to outrebound teams by 8 per game since the trade. Its clearly not doing what you and others are saying it should be. So why should it be viewed as if it is doing something it clearly isn't?

I notice the word "defensive" appears nowhere in your post. That's probably pretty telling.

Where did I say the problem was in Westbrook's rebounds? Defense.
Where do the Thunder excel in rebounding? Offense - where it should be noted I made a point to praise Westbrook's impact.

So that's the issue. If people want to praise Westbrook's offensive rebounding effect, that's cool, but they need to remember that he only gets 2 offensive boards per game, and that the entire reason for his triple doubles is that he gets a hell of a lot of defensive rebounds. As such, Westbrook himself may not deserve criticism, but those fixating on his triple doubles as proof of rebounding impact are still misguided, and thus overrate what he's doing.

My personal opinion on Westbrook and his rebounds is that they aren't on the whole a bad thing, but that when his approach to going out and getting them is almost certainly an individualist "I'm going to go get everything!" perspective, this is not something I'd particularly want him to be doing for me. I don't think it's worth the energy he's burning up, and in general his biggest weakness is in his tendency to reduce the game to individualist heroics so the last thing I'd want is to encourage him toward something which will give him praise for potentially problematic behavior. But as I say all this, with the injuries the team has, it's not like I think someone other than Westbrook is the team's best player. He's having a very large positive impact on the team, and in many ways I'm quibbling about details here. It's just that while those details might be small relative to his overall impact, the degree to which they cause people to overly fall in love with his play is not only significant in general, but it could not be more relevant to this thread.

[dfins891]

I notice the word "defensive" appears nowhere in your post. That's probably pretty telling.

Where did I say the problem was in Westbrook's rebounds? Defense.
Where do the Thunder excel in rebounding? Offense - where it should be noted I made a point to praise Westbrook's impact.

The Thunder are a good defensive rebounding team also. They are 7th in DREB% since Westbrook returned. From the start of the season until Westbrook returned to the lineup they were 21st.

[Doctor MJ]

I notice the word "defensive" appears nowhere in your post. That's probably pretty telling.

Where did I say the problem was in Westbrook's rebounds? Defense.
Where do the Thunder excel in rebounding? Offense - where it should be noted I made a point to praise Westbrook's impact.

The Thunder are a good defensive rebounding team also. They are 7th in DREB% since Westbrook returned. From the start of the season until Westbrook returned to the lineup they were 21st.

Well, to some degree as I mentioned before, there's a struggle about what to say about more recent trends. The more meaningful data from the longer term says negative things about Westbrook's impact on defensive rebounding, is there enough in more recent stuff to argue that that has all been turned around? I don't think that's anywhere near clear cut. Here's one way of looking at it:

Since Kanter got to OKC, the Thunder have an ORB% of 32.8 and a DRB% of 74.4 with Westbrook on the court.

The former would easily be #1 in the entire league, the latter would rank 18th.

While there are all sorts of details you'd like to add to the analysis to have a better understanding of precisely what impact Westbrook is currently having on these front, just starting from that basic point seems to be right in line with the idea that Westbrook is seeing major success in offensive rebounding with his team, but defensively they really lag behind. They aren't terrible at it of course, but that's a pretty huge difference that I don't think you can ignore.

I would then also ask others to ponder: What does it mean when a team is far better at offensive rebounding than defensive rebounding?

[young_frogger]

Holy hell yall are a bunch of haters.

I'm not even a Westbrook fan but as a fan of the game, you have to marvel at what he's doing right now.

Forget about triple-doubles for a second...pretend he rebounds at a regular rate....dude is averaging 32/11 post all-star break. Single handedly keeping Thunder afloat in the West, 7-3 in their last 10 games.

Yeah his usage is high but look at the rest of that starting lineup. Not exactly a murderers row of scorers

I agree with you and I'm also not a WB fan but I appreciate his game. I think the only people that overrate Westbrook are the people that put him above Curry simply because of his high usage and triple double numbers, but for people to say things like he's only getting these rebounds because the bigs are leaking etc are really reaching. If you watch him play you see that he is physically dominant, and he's had some games that have been flat out ridiculous and incredible to watch (16 boards, 17 assists etc) so he deserves credit for what he is doing and is a top 5 player IMO. He's just not as good as some players like Steph and a healthy KD as some people make him out to be.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Dude, sorry but you can keep fishing for numbers all you want. People still want to discredit him for some preconceived ideas.

defensive and offensive rebounds are very different actions with very different meanings.
Having a PG going for offensive rebounds is very controversial, as it opens up for poor transition defense.
Very likely all those oreb's Russ stacks are heavily contested and I think this metric is more influenced by the amount of offensive rebounds than anything else.
If people suspect Russ is picking easy defensive rebounds that add little value, this stat doesn't change anything.


Sent with my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

[LameR]

This is a weird thread. It's like OP never watched LBJ a couple years back.

[bondom34]

2. In the case of both Kidd and Westbrook, the two point guards most known for rebounds - and thus triple doubles - in recent years, the regression data shows precisely what we should have worried was happening: This outright hurts the team's rebounds.

This is my disconnect though Doc. They're on a pace to outrebound teams by 8 per game since the trade. Its clearly not doing what you and others are saying it should be. So why should it be viewed as if it is doing something it clearly isn't?

I notice the word "defensive" appears nowhere in your post. That's probably pretty telling.

Where did I say the problem was in Westbrook's rebounds? Defense.
Where do the Thunder excel in rebounding? Offense - where it should be noted I made a point to praise Westbrook's impact.

So that's the issue. If people want to praise Westbrook's offensive rebounding effect, that's cool, but they need to remember that he only gets 2 offensive boards per game, and that the entire reason for his triple doubles is that he gets a hell of a lot of defensive rebounds. As such, Westbrook himself may not deserve criticism, but those fixating on his triple doubles as proof of rebounding impact are still misguided, and thus overrate what he's doing.

My personal opinion on Westbrook and his rebounds is that they aren't on the whole a bad thing, but that when his approach to going out and getting them is almost certainly an individualist "I'm going to go get everything!" perspective, this is not something I'd particularly want him to be doing for me. I don't think it's worth the energy he's burning up, and in general his biggest weakness is in his tendency to reduce the game to individualist heroics so the last thing I'd want is to encourage him toward something which will give him praise for potentially problematic behavior. But as I say all this, with the injuries the team has, it's not like I think someone other than Westbrook is the team's best player. He's having a very large positive impact on the team, and in many ways I'm quibbling about details here. It's just that while those details might be small relative to his overall impact, the degree to which they cause people to overly fall in love with his play is not only significant in general, but it could not be more relevant to this thread.

Ah, got it. Honestly I'm going to still disagree and I know it may come off as blind homerism. Just looking at on off numbers, and knowing the rebounding numbers the team puts up, I'm inclined to believe its not as detrimental.

[Jaivl]

Dude, feel free to drop by the team forum anytime too! You're highly thought of.

I don't know what to say but I usually don't leave the PC board because I don't watch the games live.

[bondom34]

Dude, feel free to drop by the team forum anytime too! You're highly thought of.

I don't know what to say but I usually don't leave the PC board because I don't watch the games live.

No prob, someone just mentioned you the other day because we were talking about Pleiss and Abrines!

[Bergmaniac]

I suspect Russ read this thread yesterday, felt that his secret was exposed and made sure to only grab 2 rebounds last night so people would stop blame him for stat-padding.

[Texas Chuck]

@Doc,

Thanks for all the feedback. Really given me some stuff to think over. I'm still not convinced yet of some of the conclusions you are reaching based on that data, but it certainly makes me want to look deeper into this because you've given me some perspective I was lacking.