Official Trade Thread - Part XXX

[jangles86]

Id be interested in okafor for our first this year and possibly Oubre

[deneem4]

We go for glory

Nene
Dudley
Humpries
1st


Holiday
Anderson

Pels get a sf, depth and bodies

[jangles86]

We are by far the worst rebounding team in the whole nba. Fact.

Last season we finished the year 5th best in the league at rebounds per game.

[Ruzious]

Interesting that we cut Ish Smith in training camp, he gets picked up by the Pelicans, then traded for 2 2nd rounders to Philly, and is now averaging 17 points and 7.8 assists for Philly. If either of those 2nd rounders are Philly's 2nd round pick, that's like getting an extra late 1st.

[TheSecretWeapon]

We are by far the worst rebounding team in the whole nba. Fact.

Last season we finished the year 5th best in the league at rebounds per game.

Per game stats aren't good tools to use. That said, the Wizards are 28th in offensive rebounding percentage, and average in defensive rebounding percentage. In total rebounding percentage, they're 29th overall. The Hawks are slightly worse at getting rebounds.

Here are the current rankings in total rebounding percentage:

TEAM TREB%

1. SAS .539
2. OKC .538
3. CLE .524
4. DET .521
5. POR .518
6. GSW .518
7. TOR .516
8. DEN .513
9. CHI .511
10. UTA .511
11. MIA .506
12. BRK .500
13. NYK .500
14. ORL .500
15. MIN .499
16. SAC .498
17. PHO .496
18. CHO .496
19. IND .494
20. HOU .491
21. BOS .489
22. DAL .489
23. MEM .487
24. NOP .485
25. MIL .482
26. PHI .481
27. LAC .479
28. LAL .476
29. WAS .474
30. ATL .471

[Ruzious]

Hard to explain: Clippers have DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin and still have the 4th worst total rebounding percentage.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Hard to explain: Clippers have DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin and still have the 4th worst total rebounding percentage.

Their problem: basically no one else rebounds. And it looks like they play a fair amount of small ball. Their total minutes count:

1. C (DeAndre)
2. PF (Griffin)
3. PG (Paul)
4. SG (Crawford)
5. SG (Redick)
6. SG (Rivers)
7. SF (Wesley Johnson)
8. SF (PIerce)
9. G/F (Stephenson)
10. PF (Mbah a Moute)
11. PF (Smith)

Then Prigioni, Aldrich, Dawson and Wilcox pick up the scraps.

It amazes me that Doc is permitted to continue playing his son.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Hard to explain: Clippers have DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin and still have the 4th worst total rebounding percentage.

Their problem: basically no one else rebounds. And it looks like they play a fair amount of small ball. Their total minutes count:

1. C (DeAndre)
2. PF (Griffin)
3. PG (Paul)
4. SG (Crawford)
5. SG (Redick)
6. SG (Rivers)
7. SF (Wesley Johnson)
8. SF (PIerce)
9. G/F (Stephenson)
10. PF (Mbah a Moute)
11. PF (Smith)

Then Prigioni, Aldrich, Dawson and Wilcox pick up the scraps.

It amazes me that Doc is permitted to continue playing his son.

Ten straight wins for LAC. The last 8 or 9 without Blake Griffin.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-20160115-story.html

Of course, it took some time for Rivers to figure out how to best utilize the resources he had given himself. He started the season with Smith and Stephenson in his playing rotation and the team struggled, its record barely above .500 after the first two months.

Then Rivers inserted Aldrich and Prigioni into his second unit. Prigioni took over the primary ballhandling duties, allowing Austin Rivers and Jamal Crawford to be more assertive in attacking the basket. Aldrich created space with continual rolls toward the basket that freed his teammates for open shots.

Now it's the Clippers who are on a roll, owning the NBA's longest active winning streak. It's helped that they no longer need to rely as heavily on the Griffin-Paul-Jordan trio, even when healthy.

Mbah a Moute, capable of guarding all five positions, has become the lockdown defender the team needed to complement Jordan. Pierce has stretched the court with a recent hot spell of three-point shooting. Johnson has made some timely shots and used his length effectively on defense. Austin Rivers is in the midst of the best sustained stretch of his career.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Hard to explain: Clippers have DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin and still have the 4th worst total rebounding percentage.

Their problem: basically no one else rebounds. And it looks like they play a fair amount of small ball. Their total minutes count:

1. C (DeAndre)
2. PF (Griffin)
3. PG (Paul)
4. SG (Crawford)
5. SG (Redick)
6. SG (Rivers)
7. SF (Wesley Johnson)
8. SF (PIerce)
9. G/F (Stephenson)
10. PF (Mbah a Moute)
11. PF (Smith)

Then Prigioni, Aldrich, Dawson and Wilcox pick up the scraps.

It amazes me that Doc is permitted to continue playing his son.

Ten straight wins for LAC. The last 8 or 9 without Blake Griffin.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-20160115-story.html

Of course, it took some time for Rivers to figure out how to best utilize the resources he had given himself. He started the season with Smith and Stephenson in his playing rotation and the team struggled, its record barely above .500 after the first two months.

Then Rivers inserted Aldrich and Prigioni into his second unit. Prigioni took over the primary ballhandling duties, allowing Austin Rivers and Jamal Crawford to be more assertive in attacking the basket. Aldrich created space with continual rolls toward the basket that freed his teammates for open shots.

Now it's the Clippers who are on a roll, owning the NBA's longest active winning streak. It's helped that they no longer need to rely as heavily on the Griffin-Paul-Jordan trio, even when healthy.

Mbah a Moute, capable of guarding all five positions, has become the lockdown defender the team needed to complement Jordan. Pierce has stretched the court with a recent hot spell of three-point shooting. Johnson has made some timely shots and used his length effectively on defense. Austin Rivers is in the midst of the best sustained stretch of his career.

I guess it depends on what the writer means by "sustained." For the season, Rivers' PPA is 43. Over the past 8 games, it's 113, which is probably the best it's ever been over an eight-game stretch. But, sustained? Not unless the meaning of the word has changed. During those eight games, he's had one very good game (a 174 against Portland), and a couple GREAT games (413 against Charlotte, and a 307 against Philly). He's also give games that rated at or below replacement level, including two where he had net negative "production."

[dckingsfan]

We are by far the worst rebounding team in the whole nba. Fact.

Last season we finished the year 5th best in the league at rebounds per game.

Per game stats aren't good tools to use. That said, the Wizards are 28th in offensive rebounding percentage, and average in defensive rebounding percentage. In total rebounding percentage, they're 29th overall. The Hawks are slightly worse at getting rebounds.

OUCH... it is hard to be a good defensive team if you don't rebound. Since we only have 3 players in the top 150 (DRB%) and one of them is Humphries (who doesn't play many minutes) - that makes it REALLY tough.

Is that because of style of play or personnel?

[Ruzious]

We are by far the worst rebounding team in the whole nba. Fact.

Last season we finished the year 5th best in the league at rebounds per game.

Per game stats aren't good tools to use. That said, the Wizards are 28th in offensive rebounding percentage, and average in defensive rebounding percentage. In total rebounding percentage, they're 29th overall. The Hawks are slightly worse at getting rebounds.

OUCH... it is hard to be a good defensive team if you don't rebound. Since we only have 3 players in the top 150 (DRB%) and one of them is Humphries (who doesn't play many minutes) - that makes it REALLY tough.

Is that because of style of play or personnel?

I wouldn't think pace would change anything. Last season, the Wiz had Nene and Hump as the prime PF's, and they both rebounded well and/or prevented their opponent from rebounding well. This season... Dudley and Otto are now getting most of the PF minutes...

[J-Ves]

We are by far the worst rebounding team in the whole nba. Fact.

Last season we finished the year 5th best in the league at rebounds per game.

Per game stats aren't good tools to use. That said, the Wizards are 28th in offensive rebounding percentage, and average in defensive rebounding percentage. In total rebounding percentage, they're 29th overall. The Hawks are slightly worse at getting rebounds.

OUCH... it is hard to be a good defensive team if you don't rebound. Since we only have 3 players in the top 150 (DRB%) and l of them is Humphries (who doesn't play many minutes) - that makes it REALLY tough.

Is that because of style of play or personnel?

Last I checked we are about league average in dreb% but are dead last in oreb%. This is because of two reasons. One is personal, we play duds at starting PF and in general our PFs play away from the basket. Two is Witts philosophy to "get back" after a missed basket to limit the other teams fast break points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheSecretWeapon]

Offensive rebounding has been falling for years now as coaches have done what the WIzards are doing: telling their guys to mostly ignore offensive glass. There was a recent analysis of offensive rebounding indicating that teams could expect to gain an average of .62 points per 100 possessions for every 1% increase in their offensive rebounding. The Wizards were a hair below average (at +0.6 points per 100 possessions) because they commit more turnovers than average. That's not to say that "getting back" isn't the better strategy overall -- the author of that study didn't address that part of the question.

It looks like an offensive rebound rate of 20% is about as low as a team can go without actively avoiding the ball.

[dckingsfan]

It looks like an offensive rebound rate of 20% is about as low as a team can go without actively avoiding the ball.

[AFM]

Offensive rebounding has been falling for years now as coaches have done what the WIzards are doing: telling their guys to mostly ignore offensive glass. There was a recent analysis of offensive rebounding indicating that teams could expect to gain an average of .62 points per 100 possessions for every 1% increase in their offensive rebounding. The Wizards were a hair below average (at +0.6 points per 100 possessions) because they commit more turnovers than average. That's not to say that "getting back" isn't the better strategy overall -- the author of that study didn't address that part of the question.

It looks like an offensive rebound rate of 20% is about as low as a team can go without actively avoiding the ball.

Are you saying coaches are not putting an emphasis on the offensive glass? Or that small ball leads to less rebounding?
Why would coaches tell their players to ignore OREB?

Any time I can pick your mind I will

[TheSecretWeapon]

Offensive rebounding has been falling for years now as coaches have done what the WIzards are doing: telling their guys to mostly ignore offensive glass. There was a recent analysis of offensive rebounding indicating that teams could expect to gain an average of .62 points per 100 possessions for every 1% increase in their offensive rebounding. The Wizards were a hair below average (at +0.6 points per 100 possessions) because they commit more turnovers than average. That's not to say that "getting back" isn't the better strategy overall -- the author of that study didn't address that part of the question.

It looks like an offensive rebound rate of 20% is about as low as a team can go without actively avoiding the ball.

Are you saying coaches are not putting an emphasis on the offensive glass? Or that small ball leads to less rebounding?
Why would coaches tell their players to ignore OREB?

Any time I can pick your mind I will

Yes, coaches have been telling players (for some time now) to get back on defense instead of trying to get offensive rebounds. The thinking is that teams are better served trying to head off an opponent fast break than they are trying for the offensive boards.

This probably came about because of stat goobers. There hasn't been much of a correlation between offensive rebounding and winning, and the best offensive rebounding teams (using offensive rebounding percentage) were typically teams that shot the ball worse than average.

It's interesting to look at over time. There was exactly one season since 2000 that ranks in the top 100 offensive rebounding seasons -- the 2002-03 Golden State Warriors. They tied for 76th best all-time at 35%. The best ever was the 91-92 Nets at 39.1%.

The 100 "worst" offensive rebounding teams have all been since 2000 (well, except for number 100 -- the 1999-2000 Knicks). This year's Wizards are the 6th worst offensive rebounding ever. Basically (until tonight) they've decided to take the offensive rebounds that bounce their way, but otherwise get straight back on defense.

I guess the thinking behind the strategy of not pursuing offensive rebounds could be a probability exercise. A team has about a 33% chance of getting an offensive rebound on any random missed shot. So, let your post guy try and grab it or tap it out, but otherwise hustle back and break up a fast break.

Hmm, this gives me an idea for some research. Just eyeballing the numbers, it doesn't look like the Wizards are optimizing their rebounding strategy.

[AFM]

Offensive rebounding has been falling for years now as coaches have done what the WIzards are doing: telling their guys to mostly ignore offensive glass. There was a recent analysis of offensive rebounding indicating that teams could expect to gain an average of .62 points per 100 possessions for every 1% increase in their offensive rebounding. The Wizards were a hair below average (at +0.6 points per 100 possessions) because they commit more turnovers than average. That's not to say that "getting back" isn't the better strategy overall -- the author of that study didn't address that part of the question.

It looks like an offensive rebound rate of 20% is about as low as a team can go without actively avoiding the ball.

Are you saying coaches are not putting an emphasis on the offensive glass? Or that small ball leads to less rebounding?
Why would coaches tell their players to ignore OREB?

Any time I can pick your mind I will

Yes, coaches have been telling players (for some time now) to get back on defense instead of trying to get offensive rebounds. The thinking is that teams are better served trying to head off an opponent fast break than they are trying for the offensive boards.

This probably came about because of stat goobers. There hasn't been much of a correlation between offensive rebounding and winning, and the best offensive rebounding teams (using offensive rebounding percentage) were typically teams that shot the ball worse than average.

It's interesting to look at over time. There was exactly one season since 2000 that ranks in the top 100 offensive rebounding seasons -- the 2002-03 Golden State Warriors. They tied for 76th best all-time at 35%. The best ever was the 91-92 Nets at 39.1%.

The 100 "worst" offensive rebounding teams have all been since 2000 (well, except for number 100 -- the 1999-2000 Knicks). This year's Wizards are the 6th worst offensive rebounding ever. Basically (until tonight) they've decided to take the offensive rebounds that bounce their way, but otherwise get straight back on defense.

I guess the thinking behind the strategy of not pursuing offensive rebounds could be a probability exercise. A team has about a 33% chance of getting an offensive rebound on any random missed shot. So, let your post guy try and grab it or tap it out, but otherwise hustle back and break up a fast break.

Hmm, this gives me an idea for some research. Just eyeballing the numbers, it doesn't look like the Wizards are optimizing their rebounding strategy.

Very interesting.
I remember Beal's college rebounding numbers were inflated because his team took the opposite approach.

[AFM]

Tell me more about the missus and the kids and I'll think about that offer.

You can lose both.

CCJ, this is both heartbreaking and hilarious.
You have a friend in DC if you ever need one.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Very interesting.
I remember Beal's college rebounding numbers were inflated because his team took the opposite approach.

Different strategies are appropriate at different levels. No one runs full court pressure defense in the NBA because it's pointless. Opposing ball handlers are too good and too experienced; they turn your pressure into a fast break for them. But at lower levels, pressing can make sense.

That said, I've taken a quick look at some numbers, and it's possible teams are "outsmarting" themselves by eschewing offensive rebounding. There's no correlation between offensive rebounding percentage and defensive transition frequency (how often the opposing team fast breaks against you) OR defensive transition efficiency. It COULD be that everyone has optimized the strategy, so that there wouldn't be a relationship anymore. Or, it could be that teams are punting on offensive rebounds to "get back on D" and giving up opportunities to boost offensive efficiency.

Just for example, Detroit is 2nd in offensive rebounding percentage (hello, Andre Drummond), AND 2nd in defensive efficiency in transition. OKC is 1st in offensive rebounding, and 10th in transition defense.

The Wizards are 29th in offensive rebounding and 9th in transition defense; but New Orleans is 30th in offensive rebounding and 29th in transition D. I need historical data on this.

[deneem4]

Very interesting.
I remember Beal's college rebounding numbers were inflated because his team took the opposite approach.

Different strategies are appropriate at different levels. No one runs full court pressure defense in the NBA because it's pointless. Opposing ball handlers are too good and too experienced; they turn your pressure into a fast break for them. But at lower levels, pressing can make sense.

That said, I've taken a quick look at some numbers, and it's possible teams are "outsmarting" themselves by eschewing offensive rebounding. There's no correlation between offensive rebounding percentage and defensive transition frequency (how often the opposing team fast breaks against you) OR defensive transition efficiency. It COULD be that everyone has optimized the strategy, so that there wouldn't be a relationship anymore. Or, it could be that teams are punting on offensive rebounds to "get back on D" and giving up opportunities to boost offensive efficiency.

Just for example, Detroit is 2nd in offensive rebounding percentage (hello, Andre Drummond), AND 2nd in defensive efficiency in transition. OKC is 1st in offensive rebounding, and 10th in transition defense.

The Wizards are 29th in offensive rebounding and 9th in transition defense; but New Orleans is 30th in offensive rebounding and 29th in transition D. I need historical data on this.

Team rebounding vs big men

Drummond can out rebound teams by himself so it gives other players the freedom to stop transition

Okc is a full rebounding team, Westbrook durant Ibaka Adams kanter even Roberson are good rebounders but it isn't an established role so they're all crashing the boards leaving freedom for transition

New Orleans offensive gameplay is screwed

We're not good at offensive rebounding because 1-4 takes threes for the most part which leaves players on the perimeter to stop transition...

Also ball movement is important, when u have guys running from the paint to an open man