The problem is the study is measuring the results of what happens when teams are doing what they do (or think they do) well. That doesn't really mean that teams could change what they do and still be successful. Imagine my doing a study claiming that three point shots are much more efficient shots to take than 18 footers. The doesn't mean that Brandon Bass will improve his scoring efficiency if he starts chucking up shots 6 feet farther from the basket than he does now. While it's more efficient in terms of scoring to have players that are good 3 point shooters than players who are good mid-range shooters, it wouldn't be more efficient to just tell all your players to get behind the arc before they shoot.
One important thing the study does is establish a baseline for future comparison. One future study could be to establish who is a good offensive rebounder by establishing different cases (such as two players crash the boards while three defenders are nearby) and seeing who rebounds more or less than their expected value. Since the data is being recorded by a system that is not in every arena, this seems like something to be done in the future.
As for your scenario of three-point shooting, what you could do is determine a formula based on difference in shooting percentage for 18-footers and three-point shots to determine which is more efficient. If Brandon Bass is shooting, say, 43.9% on two-point shots from 15 or more feet, then he has to make 29.3% of threes for that to be a shot with a higher expected value. Since Brandon Bass is a career 0-15 from three, that seems unlikely.
So, having established that it looks like going for the offensive rebound may be better than getting back in transition, in general, one future step is to determine which players benefit more from getting back in transition or are get fewer offensive rebounds than the average player in the same situations. You can't really move on to that level of analysis without first writing this paper to establish the value of offensive rebounding.