POST GAME INDIANA

Tho it is frustrating and i will be the first on a game on thread to talk about "effort" when they miss rebounds I also do think it's a nbig part of the teams d strategy to get back on d and not allow fast break offense

Sam,

You don't think that an offensive rebound gives you an extra possession just as much as a steal or other turnover does?

Sam wrote:On the other hand, I do think defensive rebounding is a big deal, especially when playing a team like the Lakers. I'm far less worried about the good-shooting Celtics getting an extra couple of points per game via offensive rebounds than I am that they'll allow the Lakers and other contenders to gain a whole bunch of points via that route.

This confuses me the most. It's really important to keep other teams from getting offensive rebounds because they are so valuable to them, but getting them yourself isn't that big a deal?

Not that it matters, but where do you get the 22.2% figure for the Celtics rate of offensive rebounds compared to opportunities? I'm using stats on basketball-reference.com, and I can come up with several numbers.

The one I referred to previously:

ORB per game/(FGA per game - FG per game)
7.7 / 77.1-38.7) = 20.1%

Another, which is probably better:

ORB / (ORB + opponent DRB)
224 / (224 + 835) = 21.1%

I also tried factoring in free throw attempts and misses, but that's difficult because I can't tell what was a missed free throw that wasn't rebounded (missed the first of two or missed a technical). I think the discrepancy between the total available in the two formulas above is because basketball-reference.com calculates team totals based on the total of individual rebound stats, which doesn't include team rebounds. A basic team rebound is when the ball goes out of bounds off the other team after a missed shot (team rebound for your team). However, team rebounds in the NBA are ridiculous, because they count a rebound for every missed shot, whether it was rebounded or not:

-- Shaq misses the first of two free throws. The NBA counts that as a team rebound for the Celtics.

-- Pierce throws up a shot from half court to end the quarter, the buzzer sounds as the shot is in the air, the shot misses. That's a team rebound for the Celtics.

Maybe your 22.2% figure includes team rebounds, which pad offensive rebounding totals with the examples I listed above. In any event, by whatever metric you use, the Celtics offensive rebound rate is at the bottom of the league. They compensate for it in other areas, they're successful despite it, but I don't see how you can say it doesn't matter or that it's less important because the Celtics do a good job on the defensive boards.

Outside

testing scanner

Bob,

You can't have everything. We have a team whose offensive strengths lie very much in smooth execution and confidence in their shooting abilities. Because of these two qualities, they probably shoot far too much with no teammate under the basket...but they're usually trading an open shot by a very good shooter for rebounding position by vertically challenged bigs. I'll trade a couple of offensive rebounds a game for a shooting plurality of 5 percentage points over opponents.

We also have a team that often is at a major deficit in athleticism and yet fairly consistently manages to contain the opponent's transition game that pulverizes many other teams. In order to get back, they often have to "cheat" and leave a little early. I'll trade a couple of offensive rebounds a game for the ability to keep other teams from getting on a transition roll.

So, while offensive efficiency and transition containment may not be exclusive from good offensive rebounding in a theoretical sense, I believe they are in a practical sense when it comes to this team. There has been only one team (in several iterations) I've seen since 1950 that had so much versatility and so many overlapping skills that they could do it all, with a bare minimum of compromise (if any). That all-too-unrecognized complete arsenal was a major part of what made them the greatest team of all-time, despite any protests to the contrary among the stat mongers and hero worshippers.

By high-percentage shots, I was referring to unguarded shots (by good shooters) at least as much as inside shots. But, with respect to missing shots, I'm not quite sure how missing an inside shot means there's automatically an unguarded Celtic in the paint in great position to go for the offensive rebound—especially against opponents who represent a transition threat. When a Celtic takes an inside shot, the other Celtics are doing jobs like spacing the floor and setting picks. Hanging around in the paint without the ball is usually ill-advised—at least for more than three seconds.

By the way (and unrelated to your post—my apologies), one reason why Rondo is successful in rebounding offensively is that he has two traits lacked by his teammates. First, he can hang back and still get downcourt in time to help deny penetration to opponents. Second, he has invariably come from under the basket with his momentum taking him toward the defensive end when he grabs the board. If he doesn't get the board, his momentum helps him get back quickly.

This is not a perfect team. It's very much in the business of trying to minimize certain vulnerabilities by making compromises elsewhere. Once in a while, the darting out of bigs for a temporary double on a smaller opponent means the Celtics get burned on a back door play. That's a compromise they occasionally endure in return for the many times that phantom double disrupts the opponent's offense.

Offensive rebounding is another one of the compromises. Sure, we don't want it to reach absurd levels of ineffectiveness. But compromising two offensive boards a game means virtually nothing to me. In fact, I believe that, given the personnel on hand, it's amazing the compromise is so slight.

Sam

Outside,

I divided the number of Celtics offensive rebounds by the total of Celtics offensive rebounds and opponents' defensive rebounds. Team rebounds may play a part, but they would for all teams, and I was using a relative measure (against other teams) because of my concern for context.

I think an offensive rebound means more to other teams than to the Celtics because other teams (as a rule) don't shoot as well as the Celtics and are more in need of volume shooting to try equal the Celtics offensively. And, given the number of games that are decided on a final shot, I'm happy to root for a team that less often needs second chances to score.

I am not saying that offensive rebounds are important. But, if you'll read my post immediately above, you see that I believe no team is perfect and must have a hierarchy of things it does particularly well in order to downplay the impact of things it doesn't do so well. As I stated in that post, I believe there has been only one team (several iterations) in basketball history that did virtually everything well.

Sam

Nice that my comment sparked some interesting discussion even though my original "argument" had a lot of holes and flaws

Sam wrote:Bob,

You can't have everything. We have a team whose offensive strengths lie very much in smooth execution and confidence in their shooting abilities. Because of these two qualities, they probably shoot far too much with no teammate under the basket...but they're usually trading an open shot by a very good shooter for rebounding position by vertically challenged bigs. I'll trade a couple of offensive rebounds a game for a shooting plurality of 5 percentage points over opponents.

We also have a team that often is at a major deficit in athleticism and yet fairly consistently manages to contain the opponent's transition game that pulverizes many other teams. In order to get back, they often have to "cheat" and leave a little early. I'll trade a couple of offensive rebounds a game for the ability to keep other teams from getting on a transition roll.

So, while offensive efficiency and transition containment may not be exclusive from good offensive rebounding in a theoretical sense, I believe they are in a practical sense when it comes to this team. There has been only one team (in several iterations) I've seen since 1950 that had so much versatility and so many overlapping skills that they could do it all, with a bare minimum of compromise (if any). That all-too-unrecognized complete arsenal was a major part of what made them the greatest team of all-time, despite any protests to the contrary among the stat mongers and hero worshippers.

By high-percentage shots, I was referring to unguarded shots (by good shooters) at least as much as inside shots. But, with respect to missing shots, I'm not quite sure how missing an inside shot means there's automatically an unguarded Celtic in the paint in great position to go for the offensive rebound—especially against opponents who represent a transition threat. When a Celtic takes an inside shot, the other Celtics are doing jobs like spacing the floor and setting picks. Hanging around in the paint without the ball is usually ill-advised—at least for more than three seconds.

By the way (and unrelated to your post—my apologies), one reason why Rondo is successful in rebounding offensively is that he has two traits lacked by his teammates. First, he can hang back and still get downcourt in time to help deny penetration to opponents. Second, he has invariably come from under the basket with his momentum taking him toward the defensive end when he grabs the board. If he doesn't get the board, his momentum helps him get back quickly.

This is not a perfect team. It's very much in the business of trying to minimize certain vulnerabilities by making compromises elsewhere. Once in a while, the darting out of bigs for a temporary double on a smaller opponent means the Celtics get burned on a back door play. That's a compromise they occasionally endure in return for the many times that phantom double disrupts the opponent's offense.

Offensive rebounding is another one of the compromises. Sure, we don't want it to reach absurd levels of ineffectiveness. But compromising two offensive boards a game means virtually nothing to me. In fact, I believe that, given the personnel on hand, it's amazing the compromise is so slight.

Sam

sam,

I'm glad I can't have everything. Where would I keep it all?

I'm also glad to have this board, where posters can usually disagree (not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you here) without becoming disagreeable about it.

1 offensive rebound = 1 additional possession
99.8ppg divided by 94.2possessions/game = 1.06 points/possession

71fga/game x 50% fg% = 35.5ppg from fgs
5%, therefore, equals <2ppg

Ergo, 2 offensive rebounds (possessions) = or > 5% fg%

bob

.

It seems to me one fact or here is that KG is really cleaning up the defensive boards at an almost unbelievable pace and the team is doing a good job on the d boards.

I dont feel like rebounding is hurting us like it did last year and i think jon will help us big with that as he plays his way back into shape and yes this will take time and patience and support (you and i differ big time on that one bobheck)

But this should be a monster front line when perk gets back i mean geeze guys KG is playing with FORCE

Try it again, Bob. It's not 5% of the made field goals. It's 5% of the attempts.

5% of 71 attempts actually totals 3.55 ADDITIONAL MADE field goals, which would account for a minimum of 7 ADDITIONAL points, and more if an and-one or three-pointer is involved in any of those field goals. Two additional offensive rebounds give no assurance either would even be converted.

Sam