Understanding Rebounds and the Celtics
by mmmmm on Mar 11, 2010 7:16 PM EST
Email
PrintLately there has been much call and cry about how the Celtic's problems are because they can't rebound.
People look at the raw rebound totals ranking every team in the NBA and see the Celtic's at the bottom and jump to the conclusion that we must be a poor rebounding team.
That is a mistaken conclusion, but working from that point, they then conclude that if we are a poor rebounding team, and we struggle, our struggles MUST be because we are a poor rebounding team.
This is a case of starting with false premise (that raw rebound totals are comparable between teams) and leading on to another (the Celtics are a poor rebounding team) to then reach a third (poor rebounding is the source of our woes).
After the jump, I will try to explain why the raw rebound totals are misleading. Further, I'll try to show how rebound rates lead to the basic philosophy behind the Celtic's strategy of play. Finally, I'll end with pointing out how deviating from their strategy just killed them in their loss to Memphis (as well as a few other games).
The rebound totals are a bit misleading for several reasons.
First, let's summarize the Celtic's philosophy about rebounds. This is straight from Doc's public statements and is easily confirmed by simply watching the team:
The C's do NOT, as a rule, go aggressively after offensive rebounds. The C's prefer to instead have players hustle back down court on defense once the shot is up. They DO fight hard for defensive rebounds.
That's been the strategy for the last few years and worked well in getting us a championship. In fact most really good teams put only token effort towards offensive rebounds.
Now, lets talk about rebounds, and specifically lets start with total rebound rankings. Very often I read statements about how we rank against other teams in rebounding ("bottom of the league") which are simply missing context.
Yes, we are at the bottom of the league in total rebounds. But that number is a product of several things. First, it is the sum of both offensive and defensive rebounds. We are dead last in offensive rebounds and 25th in defensive rebounds - reflecting the difference I talked about above.
But beyond that, you still have to look further. A rebound itself is the product of two things :
- a missed shot and
- how good we are at grabbing that rebound.
In order to gather a lot of rebounds, BOTH numbers have to be high.
So before we can go comparing rebound totals, we have to look at how those two things compare.
Let's look first at offensive rebounds.
To miss a lot of shots you have to take a lot of shots and miss them.
The Celtics rank dead LAST in TAKEN shots (4794). (Right off the bat that should get your attention more than anything else, but lets skip past that...)
We rank 4th in FG percentage (48.1%) and have often lead that category most of the year. So our MISS rate is 51.9%.
So we end up having MISSED only 2488 shots, of which we grabbed 537 for offensive rebounds, a rate of ~22% (the true rate is a little higher because I'm not accounting for dead ball after the (missed) shot due to the whistle being blown. I.E.the number of actual opportunities is actually slightly less than the miss count. But for simplicity lets just go with this simple ratio).
For comparison, the #1 team in terms of total OFFENSIVE Rebounds is Detroit. They shot 5182 attempts, missing 55.9%, or 2897 shots. So they took 400 more shots and missed nearly every one of them! They grabbed 852 of those misses, or `30%.
Finally, lets look at our opponents - that is, how other teams did when playing us. Our opponents shot 4902 FGAs (28th), missing 55.3% (8th worst) or a total of 2713 missed shots. They grabbed 661 (22nd) at a rate of ~24%. So as we <em>expected </em>our opponents ARE out-rebounding us on the offensive boards ... barely.
Let's next look at Defensive Rebounds.
Our opponents, as mentioned above, shot 4902 shots, and missed 2713 of them. WE grabbed 1892 (25th) of them for a simple rate of ~70%. Again, the true rate is actually higher for the reasons given above.
Again, for comparision, the top defensive rebounding team by raw count is the Orlando Magic. Their opponents took 5356 shots and missed 3019 (56.4%) of them. The Magic grabbed 2182 of them for a simple rate of ~72%. WOAH - not that different!
Finally, lets look at our opponents. How well did other teams do when playing us. We shot a league low 4794 shots and missed just 2488. Our opponents grabbed 1847 of those misses for a rate of ~74%. Again, as expected (because we are not fighting hard for offensive rebounds) our opponents are also slightly out-rebounding us for defensive boards.
Now do you see how each of these totals is off of a different pool of rebound opportunities? OUR defensive boards come from THEIR misses, and vice versa. Our DRBs came from a pool of 2713 misses. The Magic's got theirs from a pool of over 3000 misses (because they allowed 454 more shots by their opponents!). Our opponents grabbed their DRBs from a pool of 2488 - but were barely contested for them by us.
So the raw totals are vastly different and thus comparing rebound totals from team to team is meaningless.
Celtic's Basketball
Finally, one last comment about rebounds before we move on. Looking at the above, you start to realize that when any rebound is in the air, the fact is that the defense is going to grab it 70-75% of the time. *Period.*
Next you can probably accept without me posting a lot of proof that when a team starts a possession with a defensive rebound, their chance of scoring is WAY higher than if they start by siding it in after a made basket. The reason is simple: A defensive rebound leads to a transition offense while the opponent still hasn't setup its defense.
So everytime you miss on offense, there is simply a very high chance that not only will the other team get the ball, but they will be able to convert that into points.
So you have two jobs:
- Miss less.
- And when you miss, get your butt back on defense.
THAT is Celtic's basketball.
And this is not new. I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating here:
Correcting for some of the things I ignored (dead ball after shot), this year's Celtics have a defensive rebounding efficiency of 74.1%.
In 2007-2008, this same starting personnel won the Championship with a defensive rebounding percentage of 74.7%
In 85-86, the Bird, McHale, Parrish Celtics (67-15, NBA Champs) were 17th out of 23 teams in Offensive Rebounding Percentage (31.3%). They were first in defensive rebound percentage at 71.7%.
I hope this provides a bit of perspective on the relative importance of the two rates.
Moving on: Shot Attempts and Points.
If you look closely, what are the most important numbers up in all that? Its not the rebound totals. We've shown how they are not really comparable to each other. Its not even the rebound percentages - those don't really show much difference (the defenses grab them at about 70-75% of the time) and also are against different pools of opportunity.
The most important numbers are how many shots we take and make and how many shots our opponents take and make!
THOSE are what get converted into points.
In a given game, each team has the ball basically the same number of times. The possession total never varies by more than 2 and is usually identical. So each team has the same number of possessions with which to convert into points. The total NUMBER of possessions has mostly to do with the pace of play of the two teams. A fast break team like the Suns will typically have over 100 possessions for each team each game. The Celtics on average have about 91 possessions for each team.
Yet, if we and our opponents had the same number of possessions, how come we only shot 4794 FGAs, while our opponents shot 4902 FGAs? That's 106 fewer shots than our opponents, or roughly 2 shots per game.
The first time I noticed this I assumed it was free throws or turnovers. Maybe we were getting fouled more before the shot and a lot of them were shooting fouls. But we've gone to the line 1591 times to our opponents 1602 times - virtually a tie in that category.
Also, while we ARE turning the ball over a ton (higher than most 'good' teams by 2-4 per game) we are also CAUSING our opponents to turn the ball over at a slightly higher rate. Mostly that accounts for just about a half a possession per game in OUR favor - so we still need to find out how they are taking 106 more total shots.
Well, most of the extra shots go back to offensive rebounds. They grabbed 661 of their misses to our 537 - so 124 extra chances to take a shot on their existing possessions.
Wow - this must be killing us, right? Well, not really.
This is where turnovers kicked in - we only allowed them to take 106 shots on those 124 extended possessions - even though most were probably close to the basket.
And this is where defense kicks in - even though our opponents shot at the basket 106 MORE times, they actually MADE 119 FEWER shots overall.
The original reason they are even GETTING a CHANCE at those extra 124 offensive rebounds is because we made them take poor shots and MISS the shot prior to each opportunity!
THIS is what the payoff is for NOT CONTENDING for offensive rebounds and instead getting back on defense and making the opponent work for their shot. I.E. eliminate easy, high-percentage shots.
Conversely, our offense is predicated on creating high-percentage shots. We do this two ways
- by using our defense to create missed shots and thus defensive rebounds as well as turnovers to fuel our own transition offense and
- in our half-court offense using our perimeter threats (Ray, Paul) to create floor spacing and then attacking the hoop for high-percentage shots. We take a huge chunk of our shots in the paint and that is why we have the high FG%.
Is it working?
Most of the last few years as well as this year, this has worked. Even in the Milwaukee loss, we only gave up 86 points. But in that game, our offense stalled. Pierce, Perk & Ray all collectively shot horribly. The thing is, as dissapointing as that was, sometimes that's going to happen. We still played the correct style of basketball - the shots just didn't fall.
It did not work in the Memphis game for a much worse reason. Why? Because in the first period we did NOT play Celtic's basketball. First, we did NOT work to create high-percentage shots on offense and instead tossed up first-opportunity lazy shots which missed and of course were grabbed (70% of the time!) by Memphis and then - to compound it - we did not hustle back on defense when we did miss and thus committed the cardinal sin of letting the Grizzlies have easy easy easy access to the basket and uncontested 3s. The Grizzlies shot at a ridiculous high % both overall and from 3PT land.
We were missing shots. We were not in defensive position. We were not contesting shots. All that happened in about the first 12-15 minutes of the game and primarily with our starting 5 on the floor.
Somewhere shortly into the 2nd period, with the bench in there, we finally started playing 'normal' Celtic's basketball. From that point on we played even with them, and slightly better in the second half. But the damage was swift and deep and we couldn't begin to come back from it.
Again and again this year, we get into these funks where we can't seem to make a shot. That by itself wouldn't be so bad - so long as we immediately get our butts back on defense. But for some reason we have these 10 minute stretches where we let our offensive woes interfere with our defense - instead of letting our defense trigger our offense.
And when we do that, we get murdered.
Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.
53 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
thanks!
…very nice insights and analysis. that really explains some of the concerns i’d voiced in the other thread about rebounding…
lots of good work—mmmm. i see the celtss losing rebounds when they take too many jump shots and then run down court. they get more rebounds when they take the ball to the hoop— they’re close, there are less long rebounds and they are in a more aggressive mode. i’ve seen perk standing around a lot lately and not running downcourt. he has stopped going after the ball—sorry to say that.
Great piece, m
Hopefully, that puts to rest all the hair-pulling over rebounding.
Note also: in the Bucks game, Cs grabbed ~77% of the defensive rebounds… pretty good.
Note also: the key reason the Cs failed both in the beginning of last night’s game, and then again ~midway through the 2nd half… is what Doc said. When their offense isn’t working, and the other guys are hitting (which the Griz were doing at a RIDICULOUS rate last night, in spurts), this team has a habit of hanging its collective head and GIVING UP.
But I believe they will NOT do that – give up – in the playoffs, ever. It’s likely that they just couldn’t keep their fires going last night in part because after all, it was just another regular season game. In the playoffs, we can hope/expect that that will never happen.
And you know… sometimes teams lose. Sometimes, teams get blown out. Even good teams, even great teams. Playing badly from time to time is no tragedy, it’s even expected. What was NOT acceptable last night was the giving up… the abandonment of their whole game plan because the Griz were just too good. That is something I think we will NOT see once the playoffs finally roll around.
Nicely done
And very well supported! Hate to watch the C’s lose their identity in the losses, makes it all the more heartbreaking.
Can I ask where you access all these detailed numbers? Would be fun to poke my nose around in there.
by RedsBean on Mar 11, 2010 9:14 PM EST via mobile reply actions
i don't know... this rings false to me because of what I'm seeing in the games
I understand your point about total rebound numbers being misleading, and I think it’s a good point. But I have a couple of problems with your analysis:
1) According to you, the Celtics are getting outrebounded by ~2% by their opponents on offensive boards and ~4% on the defensive glass. Isn’t this a problem in itself? Our opponents who do attack the offensive boards (unlike us) score just two fewer fastbreak points per game than the C’s. So I get your point about being back and ready for defense, but it confers us an advantage of 1 FG over the entire game.
2) More importantly, maybe, is that you’re ignoring the psychology of the game. Like what a demoralizing possession (a basket after 2 offensive rebounds, for instance) can do for a team. Or what a player hustling his butt off to track down his own miss can do to energize a group of players. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I am going to go ahead and guess that Leon Powe was the best offensive rebounder on the team last year – which makes sense given how he used to energize the team.
3) Boston isn’t getting beat on transition defense. That’s not our problem right now. The players are not hustling and they’re not sticking with plays. After the shot hits the rim every guy has his head down running back to the defensive end. And this translates to our offensive behavior as well, strangely. Every guy has the ball, passes it, then puts his head down and jogs away. On offense why not dedicate 2 guys on the floor to crashing the glass, keeping 3 guys back? Until we are getting beat by our lack of transition defense, I think the extra couple possessions we could get with this strategy would help us, in energy points if nothing else.
by milt palacio's shot on Mar 11, 2010 9:39 PM EST reply actions
The psychology should not work that way
…on this team, if they’ve all bought into the game plan. That’s the point. They EXPECT to have a relatively low number of offensive rebounds, in return for the better transition D the plan affords them. And they minimize getting demoralized by fighting hard to prevent the other team’s offensive rebounding (by working hard on their own defensive rebounds.)
As for your #3, the REASON “Boston isn’t getting beat on transition defense” is exactly because of their plan to focus on that, by giving up some offensive rebounding capability. You can’t have both. If they did what you suggest, they would inevitably experience “getting beat on transition D.” And they’ve decided, long ago, to go with this game plan. It works…. when they actually do it.
P.S. In your point about being outrebounded 2%/4%, you are ignoring the different pools from which the rebounding numbers used in the comparisons arose, making the comparison relatively meaningless.
Agreed
Another point you could say is since they have been doing the same strategy for 2 years now (this being the 3rd) and in won a championship then why is this the 1st year we are getting out rebounded by our opponents
Here’s simple stat on Celtics rebounding Vs shot attempts.
Year C’s Opp Difference Shot attempt difference
08 42.0 38.9 +3.1 -1.3
09 42.1 37.6 +4.5 -1.1
10 38.6 39.8 -1.2 -1.8
This is clearly not the same team philosophy the C’s had the last 2 years and as a result out opponents are getting more shot attempts. See how the shot attempt difference directly relates to the rebound difference.
by Scal4theallstargame on Mar 11, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions
Out rebounded????
Did you miss the part where I pointed out that our defensive rebounding efficiency (74.1%) is virtually identical to what it was for the 07-08 team (74.7%)? How is that getting ‘out rebounded’ by our opponents more this year than then?
If you are referring to the raw rebound numbers – those are not comparable for the very reasons I explained. The sheer number of shots taken and the miss rates are different. The whole point of the first part of the article explains why it is virtually meaningless to compare the total rebound numbers – and yet that is exactly what your table does.
BTW – You can format your tables for easier reading by using the “pre” tag.
Not sure why your impressions are so different.
But maybe if the numbers don’t jibe with what you think you are seeing, you should try to look at the games with a different perspective to see if you can spot where the numbers are coming from? Because I assure you, the numbers are real. They aren’t subjective. They just are.
In the next game, watch closely to see what happens when the C’s take a shot – immediately watch what Ray and Rajon do. Most of the time you will see them immediately head back on defense. Keep an eye on this for multiple plays.
On specifics, DRJ1 is pretty spot on in most of his responses to your 3 issues.
1) The 2% and the 4% are smaller in real terms than you think. The real valuable information is in the realization that the difference between the best defensive rebounding and poorest rebounding teams is in the the noise and beyond that the strategic information is the fact no matter who is out there on the court, overall 70-75% of the time the defense will get the rebound. Once you realize and accept that, you can make your strategy around that fact. That is what the Celtics coaches are doing.
2) I don’t want to imply that getting an offensive rebound is not a good thing. It is a good thing. But in real value terms it is just a second chance to score on the same possession – you wouldn’t have gotten it except for the fact that your team just MISSED the prior shot on this same possession. Psychologically, I think it is even more powerful for your team to simply make the first shot.
3) Boston isn’t getting beat on transition BECAUSE they employ the strategy I described.
Nice post
Watching the game against the Grizz, it was quite evident that there was no passion, no hustle, and as you put it no Celtics Basketball. It was lazy basketball. I remember at least 3 times in the first quarter, guys dropped or missed catching passes that led to turnovers and Memphis scores. And this wasn’t because of defensive pressure from the Grizz, they just simply put it down…
@ Milt,
Point #3 is valid. Davis has been hitting the offensive glass pretty well over the last few games. It may not show up in his numbers, but he’s been getting in there and having a go. I remember him getting one against Memphis and there 4 Grizz players around him and he was able to draw a foul.
@ Nazzbo
Perk has not looked himself for a while now. I can’t even remember the last time he argued a foul call….
Davis' efforts are mostly pointless
…since he gets stuffed most of the time. Baby needs to learn to kick out more if he’s going to fight for off. rebounds. And besides, the Cs’ plan re offensive rebounds and getting back on D is exactly WHY they aren’t getting beat in transitions (most of the time).
And 1
I’ll note that on our team, the only two guys who have individual offensive rebound ratings above 10% are the two young bigs – BBD (15%) and Shelden (10%). They need to learn.
Shelden’s are a little more forgivable because he only plays right under the post where they are naturally falling right into his long wingspan and at least his def reb efficiency is decent (22%).
BBD’s efforts are more bothersome. His defensive rebounding is actually lower at only 12.7%. That is not good. He would be helping the team out a lot more by putting more of his hustle into chasing THOSE in order to start the transition plays. His offensive rebounds are nice – but often are wasted effort if he just gets stuffed on a put-back (which happens a LOT with him). If he’s going to go after them, he needs to be more patient and work some space with his bulk before going up for the put back or (better) pass the ball out.
Awesome job
I love these types of articles. Well thought out, well analyzed, and well presented. Look forward to your next breakdown of basketball related analysis.
by Celtico on Mar 12, 2010 9:05 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
mmmmm - was I in some way responsible for this article? I hope I was not offensive to you LOL (pun intended)
I must say you did a great job…..impressive
While I make my living in doing financial contract analysis to some extent I never look at basketball in this much statistical detail. Perhaps I should.???
I agree with much of what Milt Palacio’s Shot says in his refute (especially his point #2 and #3). I go with my gut on this (sorry) and so I respectfully disagree with some of your arguments although statistically you do back them up each time you make a point (very good).
I also want to quote Red (see below)….( and to me offensive rebounding is an offensive and psychological weapon that we are missing this season.
"Basketball is like war in that offensive weapons are developed first, and it always takes a while for the defense to catch up."
Red Auerbach
Is it Soup Yet?
No, it was due to the comments of several out there.
I do hope you find it enlightening. And mostly I hope that when you watch the next game, you’ll try to keep an eye on what the team does each time they put a shot in the air. Watch to see how fast our guards head back on defense.
Impressions are important. But we should always question both our impressions and the numbers. If the numbers don’t match with what we think we see – that means maybe we aren’t seeing everything that is going on. Test that by trying to look at it in a different way.
This one is tough – but try to watch just one player for awhile and don’t follow the ball. It is really kinda cool.
Oh well
logic, evidence, stats… whatever… can’t forget where you are. oh well.
bravo mmmmm!!
It’s nice to see some reasoned analysis during these times of semi-crisis, haha. What you lay out makes perfect sense, and it also was explained in the perfect way as well…as you laid it out, you asked these great questions…I felt like a kid going…“wait, it must be because of the turnovers!…they’re killing us”…and then you’d be like…“but they aren’t!!” … and then you’d lay out the REAL reason for what we’re seeing here. Great work!
Yes, I was at the Grizzlies game (man, I saw the best game of the year against Charlotte a week ago…and then I saw this game…arguably the worst of the year), and let me tell you, the body language of these guys was horrible from the start. I was also sitting really low down for the first time ever (section 9, row 9, right at rim level), and what really stood out starkly was the passing, or lack of it. Remember the several times that KG bobbled the ball? Well, that was due to bad passes from Paul. Bounce passes from EVERYBODY were horribly executed, and it just seemed like the players were hesitant and bored. The moment that the Grizz started scoring heavily, it was like the whole team collectively exhaled and said “screw this” with their (lack of) rotations, passing, and shot selection.
Simply put, everything went wrong. But of course, they lost the day before to a 5th seeded team by only 2 pts…and I didn’t even think they played particularly well. Oh well. I’m sure they will get up for the next two games though. These sort of blowouts happen. Understandable.
I stayed till the end. But I also booed of course! The greatest love I can show for this team is undying and unending participation until the VERY end of a hopeless blowout game. In this case, the participation is a hearty boo to let them know that OUR expectations for these guys are very high.
Anyways, nice to see the stats and reasoning. Very informative.
Ashtray Bouquet
Bravo to you, duck
…for booing. I feel certain that they will not soon forget that experience.
Thanks - and bravo back.
I will be at the Pacer’s game.
I will be looking for them to get back to the two principles from the get go – and to sustain it for all 48!
If not – I too will be booing.
throw it right back atcha guys (not the boos!)
you two give particularly great commentary that actually goes a long way towards explaining what’s happening with this team…it’s exactly what’s needed.
And oh yeah DRJ1, in seeing the Charlotte and Memphis games up close, I really got to see some things with the naked eye that lend some credence to the whole “kick it up a notch-when the playoffs come by” mentality you talk about….or (from a pessimist’s view) laziness/bad chemistry (though I suspect it’s the former).
The Celtics never let the Bobcats in the game + shot well from the beginning. In the Memphis game, the opposite happened, and once it did, the Celtics actually played good defense in the second half….but by that point it was too late because even with hands in their faces, Mayo and Gay were just knocking down everything in sight. Once you let the box open against a young team, it’s too late. At that point, around the middle of the third, they just GAVE UP…and rightfully so, because there was NO way they were getting back. I could tell explicitly from the body languange. It seemed pretty clear (from their movement) that they knew they would not have to face this sort of hot offense (of this athletic type at least) in the playoffs, and because of that, they seemed to see no point in trying to battle and learn from it.
Ashtray Bouquet
Great story, of those 2 games
You know, I can also understand giving up in the 3rd quarter. This was after the Cs came out after halftime pushing VERY hard on both O and D… and the Griz responded by pushing right back and making tough shot after tough shot. There comes a point, especially in a 1/82 regular season game, where you just know it’s not gonna be your night. I remember that moment, too… Rondo had just thrown ANOTHER errant pass, which was stolen and I think they scored immediately or something… and he was standing in midcourt and his shoulders just kinda sagged, and he waved his hand as if to say “Hell with this. I give up… let’s go home.” Yeah, I remember that moment.
But there’s no excuse for their surrender in the FIRST quarter. That was inexplicable. That was boo-worthy.
And as to the most important point — it’s just hard to imagine seeing Rondo, or ANY of them, giving up like that in a playoff game. So though what you witnessed MIGHT have been laziness, bad chemistry, etc. — it most likely was what we’ve theorized it was: a reluctance to kill themselves over what amounted to a virtually hopeless cause in just another (meaningless) regular season game.
Maybe one of the problems is that all the Cs are either vets, or highly vet-influenced. And almost all of them have been to the Finals before. And they’re all part of a “storied franchise.” So it’s not hard to imagine that it’s EASIER for this team to blow off some tough regular season games than it would be for your typical young team that’s trying to scratch its way to recognition. This kind of mild PREDISPOSITION to blowing off regular season games lends further credence to the concept that that was what we saw in the Griz game.
In any case, it’ll be what it’ll be. Comin’ soon.
Wow
I remember that we had a little discussion about rebounding and I thought you had some impressive analysis back then, but this is the real deal. Great article.
Great work MMMM
I really enjoyed your article, mostly I agreed with and had the same thoughts/decisions, tho without doing the statistics. (Remember – Statistics don’t lie, but statisticians work for somebody).
Yes, several mentioned Perk seems to be playing exceptionally poorly the past few games. Perhaps he has a injury he’s concealing? Like another shoulder problem?
I cringe every time PP attempts to drive to the hole and get his foul. I don’t whether its’ injuries or he’s lost a step but it sure is not working. He’s killing us!
Over all ratings over the past couple of weeks:
KG playing much better.
Ray Allen playing good.
RR playing so-so.
Perk playing blah.
PP playing terribly.
Misguided...
Just as football games are won “in the trenches”…
Basketball games are won “in the paint”
Period. End of discussion.
The team that does the better job of rebounding, defending, and scoring IN THE PAINT…wins every time!
Any questions? No?
OK…Class dismissed.
how about when teams are tired and carry the ball up court slowly
Nice article… I have a querstion though
All those stats are fine and i agree with your premise of this teams philosophy of getting back to play D instead of hitting the board for easy put backs, fouls and freethrows and take outs for new 24 clock.
My question is; when both teams are tired and walking the ball up, maybe then we can hit the offensive board and work them hard instead of getting back and ressting by holding our shorts and waiting for them to bring it up. What do you think? In order for this to work though, we would have to rotate sooner and more often.. when Perk or KG are tired and not rebounding, take them out and put in Big Baby and have him focus on rebounding.
I used to love when they would bring in POwe and he would hit the offensive board and get put backs and fouls, it was like he would have 10 pts in a quiet manner and not a single play was for him.
Powe was a beast under the hoop
but we did call plays to get the ball in to him.
Put-backs are good, but they also are hiding the fact that we missed the prior shot.
On the ‘tired’ thing. This is the NBA – most teams we face that is simply not a factor. Heck, we are one of the teams that normally does walk it up more. We have a relatively slow paced game (only 91 possessions per game for each team).
But the basic strategy still applies whether playing half court of transition basketball: Be as efficient as possible on offense. Don’t give them easy hoops on defense. I.E – Don’t miss. Get back on defense ASAP.
one more thing about false premises
It is a false premise to conclude that if we cant win the rebounding war then we cant win the game. Nothing in sports is 100%, but i bet its better than 80%. Just like all our struggles (100%) cant be pinpointed to rebounding. 10% might be from ball movement inconsistency and 15% might be from old legs not being rotated soon enough or often enough. But i bet 50% of our struggles or maybe more can be attributed to lack of rebounding and all the extra touches opponents get with all their extra rebounds over us.
Rebounding in BB is like Rushing in FB, when you get the rebound , the other team isnt putting up points against you and when your rushing the football your defense is resting and isnt letting up any points
I don't disagree, but
I can’t fully agree with what you are saying either.
The problem is that your post, like many, is not making clear distinctions between offensive and defensive rebounds.
One of the points I’ve been trying to make is that the two are VERY different in meaning to the game outcome.
A defensive rebound is a change of possession. Functionally, it is as good as a steal because you’ve terminated their possession before they’ve scored on it. When you grab those, the other team 100% will not score on that possession.
An offensive rebound is just continuation of your existing possession. You only got it because your team just missed a shot. You may or may not yet score on that possession.
Ultimately, basketball comes down to scoring and has two parts:
Scoring whenever you have the ball.
Stopping them from scoring when they have the ball.
Those two things are completely equal. But look above and you see that the IMPACT of a defensive rebound is 100% on it’s possession. But the IMPACT of an offensive rebound is not so on its possession. Even with an offensive rebound, there is no guarantee you will still score on that possession.
Both are good. But one is more good than the other.
It all comes back to the fact that the Defense is, on average, going to grab the lion’s share of rebounds. And understanding that, your offensive philosophy needs to be, very simply put: Don’t miss. Take high percentage shots. Because if you miss, there is a 70+% chance you’ve turned the ball over.
Even the BEST offensive rebounding team in the NBA (the Grizzlies, btw) only grabs 32% of offensive rebounds chances.
But do you know why they beat us so soundly in that game? It wasn’t because of offensive rebounds. They only grabbed 9 off 36 misses. We actually had a decent day of grabbing those for defensive boards – 71% of them – but there just weren’t that many to be had.
No, they beat us because they took and made high percentage shots and thus did not create that many offensive rebound opportunities anyway while on the OTHER end of the court WE did the opposite. We missed 45 FG attempts creating opportunity for them to grab 39 defensive rebounds!. They were efficient on offense, shooting an absurd 55% from the field and – this is disgusting – 56% from the 3PT line!!!!!
Meanwhile, we shot a much lower-than-normal 43.8% from the field and a pathetic 28.6% from the 3PT line.
So they:
A) didn’t miss and
B) the few times they did miss, they got their butts back on defense to make us miss.
This is also a factor, minor , but a factor.
If one team is fouling a lot and the other team is a lousy free throw shooting one, defensive rebounds will increase.
EG: If doing the Hack-A-Shaq, and he’s missing a ton of em as usual, there will be a lot of uncontested defensive rebounds. Making meaningless the comparing of defensive rebounds for that game.
Good additional point
Worth adding to the dissertation.
Perk!!! - go to see you posting
The more I think about this the more I trust my gut…not enough hitting the offensive glass – too many many bigs scared of the paint…sorry it’s just my gut conclusion despite the well written piece to the contrary
I just keep hearing Bob Dylan in my head " I don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowin"
Is it Soup Yet?
Thanks MAster Po..Yeah my gut has been saying a lot during the games as of late :)
When i hear rankings like 25th in the league or dead last in the league, my gut is telling me ..ground control -we have a problem. I understand and appreciate all the stats and numbers that are thrown around but even they can be misleading.
LIke in the Vancouver game, we got 71% of defensive rebounds and they shot 55% ..well if we got 78% of the d rebounds, would that besides giving them less shots, made them more timid with their shots and then they might have hit 46%
So even though daily numbers can be misleading, i think you get a more accurate reading when you look at the whole picture. 25th in the league is not where this team should be, 11th or better is more like it. I wish their was a way to figure out how many more pts we would have a game and how many less pts an opponent would have a game and how many wins being in the 11th spot vs the 25th spot would give us.
But that just doesn't make mathematical sense.
The problem is there is no ordered causal linkage between being ranked 25th in total rebounds and 11th. They are just arbitrary totals that are sliced out of completely unrelated pools.
If you pick 25% of the apples from 10 trees, and I pick 25% of the apples from 15 trees, I will have more apples. But that doesn’t mean I picked apples any better than you did.
By the way mmmmmm
Thanks for writing about this subject and taking it seriously. Its only one of many aspects of a teams overall game but its one that needed to be addressed.
I hope someone on the team (player or staff) has been reading this site the last couple of days.
The team does so many things well and most of us here know that , but when we care and get emotional, its easy to come across a little critical sometimes.
Maybe they can take our critisism and use it to maybe tweak their game philosophy just enough to maybe get us to say 16th in rebounding and still accomplish what they want with their game plan.
Maybe every player will have to say to themselves that i am going to get one more rebound then my average tonight, this way enough players will be successful in doing so to make a difference. this is just one example of many
The bottom line though thanks for delving in on this subject and hopefully it will lead to a team meeting where every player pitches in ideas on how to stay within the game plan but to win the rebounding war
but I don't care if they are dead last or whatever ranking in total rebounds.
I just care that they are efficient on offense (at scoring points) and defense (at preventing points).
Whether they are 25th or 16th or 1st in rebounding totals is irrelevant to that.
okay all stats aside
Okay all stats aside because we can digress away from solutions.. an ex; if a team is 25th in the standings, they might actually be better than the 23rd and 24th team as they might have played tighter games and had less blow-outs and less squeak by wins like say the 23rd or 24th team might have had. The stats and formulas are nice but it like trying to justify why we stink,but not so much.
A team ranked 25th in the league should know it stinks at whatever the ranking is on,not try to explain it away. 25th stinks -what can we do to get on the right track.
I idont want to get in to BCS rankings and stats and formulas.
I want solutions to why were so lowly ranked, im not asking for us to be #1 in rebounding even though every fan would love that, im realistically asking how can we get to 16th, which isnt soo far fetched and shouldnt shred our game plan.
Any ideas on how we can win the rebounding war game in and game out like the original big three did and still stay within our game plan?
it was great to see Larry,Chief and Kevin pull down 30+ rebounds a game consistently
but the fact is ... we *don't* stink (at rebounding).
That’s what I’ve been trying to make clear. Those rankings that are based on rebound totals are completely meaningless because they are ranking apples and oranges and pears and grapefruits.
The only rebound stats that are sort of useful are the rebounding efficiencies. Those measure your likelyhood of grabbing a given rebound. But beyond making sure your team is at least adequate there (i.e. able to grab ~70% of defensive rebounds) the actual rankings within that are not that important either.
Regarding Larry, Chief and Kevin, I’ll repeat what I posted in my article:
In 85-86, the Bird, McHale, Parrish Celtics (67-15, NBA Champs) were 17th out of 23 teams in Offensive Rebounding Percentage (31.3%). They were first in defensive rebound percentage at 71.7%.
The game has changed since then. ALL teams put less emphasis on Offensive Rebounds compared to back then (hence Detroit leading right now at only 30%). But already the 85-86 Celtics were ahead of the game – they were only 17th in that category. They already understood the key points that this article is about.
Our current team has a defensive rebound rating of 74.1%. We are not #1, but we do not stink at grabbing rebounds.
Your question: “Any ideas on how we can win the rebounding war …” is based on the false premise that we want to win that war. We don’t. We want to score more points than our opponents. Rebounds are completely peripheral.
The Celtics are 24th in rebounding differential + 23rd in rebounding rate. They are a poor rebounding team.
The Celtics are 12th in defensive rebounding percentage + 27th in offensive rebounding percentage. They are a slightly above average defensive rebounding team + very poor offensive rebounding team.
please read the article
which makes it clear why the offensive rebounds are not that big of a concern.
Note the examples that point out both our 2008 AND our 1986 championship teams also were way below average at offensive rebounding percentage.
Nice research, nice article!
My problem is this -
If we need to have a rebound, can this team get it? I have doubts it can?
If the other team is having success rebounding, does that build their confidence? Yes
Unless I am mistaken, (I could be, I have not researched ) haven’t we had issues at key times against young athletic teams (Atlanta) or the other night in Milwaukee, we were unable to secure a rebound that gave the bucks a few extra possessions late in the game?
A couple of points:
First off, again, you have to distinguish between whether you are talking about offensive rebounds and defensive rebounds.
If we need to have a rebound, can this team get it?
If it is a defensive rebound, yes, we get it 74% of the time.
If it is an offensive rebound – we only get them 25% of the time. We could try to get more of them, but usually we think it is more important to get back on defense instead.
Rebounds do not give you an ‘extra’ possession.
A defensive rebound terminates your opponent’s current possession before they can score. It is 100% a good thing.
An offensive rebound continues an existing possession after you just a missed shot. It is not guaranteed that you will yet score on that possession. It is usually a good thing because it increases the chance you will still score. But it is not 100%.
great work MMMMM
Very insightful and well supported argument. I must say, from what I had been watching, I was concerned about our rebounding. Statistically, you have shown, over the whole season, that rebounding is not really the problem.
One thing I would be very interested in though, is to compare these stats pre new year and post new year. Would we see that our performances in the first half of the season are disguising a significant drop in the second half? Or would this effect be minor?
If it had dropped off significantly, that would explain the gut feelings of a number of posters that our rebounding has been poor. It would also make sense, given that KG and Pierce have been hurt after the new year and that Perk has not been himself for awhile now.
BTW – I don’t disagree with your conclusion that Doc is right and that the team is collectively dropping its head when shots aren’t dropping and that this attitude is translating to poor defence. I think that is probably borne out in both our FG% and our opponents FG% – last I recall looking, our shooting has dropped and our opponents improved, relative to 2007-08.
Yes, it is certainly possible
That a sub-par split is being hidden by superb numbers, say, early in the year.
Let’s look at some monthly splits. The following are per-game averages for each month. SDRB% is the ‘simple’ defensive rebounding efficiency (Def Reb / (Opp FGA-FG). I don’t have enough info to calculate the ‘true’ DRB% – it would be slightly higher, but it should track the SDRB% tightly.
Month Games DRB% Pts Scored Pts Allowed Record October 3 70 101.7 79.3 3-0 November 14 68 99.5 93.9 10-4 December 14 67 101.1 94.3 10-4 January 14 70 96.2 96.3 6-8 February 12 75 96.1 96.0 7-5 March 7 73 98.3 92.7 5-2
As you can see, our defensive rebounding efficiency hasn’t varied that much. Indeed it has been better in 2010 than it was in 2009.
However, you can see that the most important stat that WAS worse in January and February is simply our points differential. In January and February our offense dropped by about 4 pts/game and our defense got worse by about 2 pts per game.
Note, though, that in March the pt differential has jumped back up (and that includes our getting pasted by the Grizzlies).
I think the more telling split is not so much 2009 vs 2010. It is really about the 20 games in which either Ray, Pierce or KG were absent (Yes, Ray did miss one game – we lost.).
Our record with any of those guys absent is an abysmal 9-11, with a negative point differential!!!!!!!
WITH all three of those guys in the lineup – even playing ‘hobbled’ in several of those games, the record is now 32-12. With a net pt differential of over 8!!!!
I don’t think I could post more compelling stats than those two!
The team is finally healthy again. Give them some time to get used to it and let’s see how they do.
By the way MMMMMMMM
You are so right about Rasheed Walllace. And I was wrong.
What a great pickup. (Cough).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Another day of a combination of Jeremy Lin’s last name and mental instability
- Ben Wallace is set to break an NBA record, and retire after 2011-12
- Video: Chris Paul and Bar Refaeli on a trampoline for some reason
- Video: LeBron James and Blake Griffin help us wish you a happy Valentine’s Day
- Chris Paul is recruiting J.R. Smith to the Clippers
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
