CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: jdz101 on March 04, 2013, 07:47:40 PM

Title: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: jdz101 on March 04, 2013, 07:47:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yfhuODOJ7s&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Along with the goldsberry thing on interior defense these findings are pretty interesting. Would have been great to see this analysis just done on the celtics and not as an entire league.

Discuss
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: timobusa on March 04, 2013, 08:20:33 PM
Hey Doc Rivers, watch this video.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: KGs Knee on March 04, 2013, 08:40:03 PM
Ha!

I've got not problem using advanced metrics to analyze individual playes, particularly as a means of either re-enforcing or disproving what the "eye test" might say about a player, but supposed analysis like this is ridiculous.

I'd wager a guess these "basketball analysts" don't even understand the basic concepts of basketball.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: PhoSita on March 04, 2013, 08:44:18 PM
I think the trouble w/ this is that it doesn't account for a particular team's strengths.

The  Celtics are not a good rebounding team.  They wouldn't be even if they sent 5 guys to crash the glass.  They also aren't a very good offensive team.  Even if they get an extra possession,
the chances they'll score aren't necessarily all that high.

They are, however, a very good defensive team.  They actually generate a lot of points off of their defense.  So it makes sense to get back and get the defense set.  For a team like the Celtics,  you probably have a better chance to generate turnovers and gets points in transition that way, rather than sending Brandon Bass and KG to crash the glass.

Against the bigger and / or younger teams, chances are the Celtics will fail to secure the offensive rebound and the other team will race down the court and get an easy bucket.  Or even if they get the offensive rebound, they'll fail to turn it into points because they don't have any good inside scorers, and they're not a very good offensive team in general.

For most teams though, this makes good sense.  If you have bigs who can effectively crash the glass, and your likelihood of stopping your opponent if you get your defense set is not as high, then trying to generate extra offensive possessions makes sense.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: fairweatherfan on March 04, 2013, 08:46:16 PM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically. 
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: Roy H. on March 04, 2013, 08:54:47 PM
Here's the paper itself:

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/To%20Crash%20or%20Not%20To%20Crash%20A%20quantitative%20look%20at%20the%20relationship%20between%20offensive%20rebounding%20and%20transition%20defense%20in%20the%20NBA.pdf

I read through it a week or so ago.  For as big of a deal as the Sloan Conference is, I was surprised by how incomplete the paper seemed.  The authors acknowledge a lot of the flaws in their study, but at this point, their analysis just doesn't tell us a lot.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: jdz101 on March 04, 2013, 09:18:59 PM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.

Yeah. As I said it would have been nice if they did this analysis just on the celtics, not on the entire league as a whole.

To be taken with a grain of salt, but perhaps a happy medium between this study and what the doc rivers ideology could be found.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: PhoSita on March 04, 2013, 09:31:26 PM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.

Yeah, I think what this tells us is that if you have the personnel to crash the glass and go for offensive rebounds / put-backs, you should definitely do it.  But that's not the same thing as saying that every team in the league should start crashing two guys.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: wahz on March 04, 2013, 09:36:37 PM
The brutal part for me in this debate about Doc and his anti offensive board stance, if you will, is that I grew up watching Cowens and Silas win a title for us because of tremendous hustle on the offensive boards. I have no idea what the advance stats say about those guys but they saved us time after time after time getting another chance and scoring themselves or getting Hondo or Jo Jo involved. Indeed I guess I feel like Tommy's teams were the anti doc philosophy team: every game mattered, everything was contested.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: Fafnir on March 04, 2013, 09:53:44 PM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.
Not to mention that Doc has shown a willingness to let good offensive rebounders crash when we've had them on the court.

Rondo is allowed to go for them, Glen Davis when he was the 4th big, Kendrick Perkins, Powe, and most recently Jared Sullinger.

We certainly don't make it a point to have two bodies on the offensive glass most times like many teams, but you have to think its somewhat talent based. (though they've also tried to get a lot of shooting bigs over the years too, ones that don't crash)
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: D.o.s. on March 04, 2013, 09:59:13 PM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.

Yeah. As I said it would have been nice if they did this analysis just on the celtics, not on the entire league as a whole.

To be taken with a grain of salt, but perhaps a happy medium between this study and what the doc rivers ideology could be found.

I'm sure that the teams who are invested in advanced statistics are in the process of weeding through the data to look at exactly that--and the Celtics are one of those teams.

I'm also sure that none of us pleebs will ever see that information coming from one team, since all the major players in that community have been gobbled up by individual teams--a fact that has been repeated ad nauseum  over the last week or so with the annual Sloan Conference Advanced Stats News and Opinion Orgy.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 10:00:39 PM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.
Not to mention that Doc has shown a willingness to let good offensive rebounders crash when we've had them on the court.

Rondo is allowed to go for them, Glen Davis when he was the 4th big, Kendrick Perkins, Powe, and most recently Jared Sullinger.

We certainly don't make it a point to have two bodies on the offensive glass most times like many teams, but you have to think its somewhat talent based. (though they've also tried to get a lot of shooting bigs over the years too, ones that don't crash)

Wilcox has been crashing lately, as well.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: LooseCannon on March 04, 2013, 10:19:26 PM
I read through it a week or so ago.  For as big of a deal as the Sloan Conference is, I was surprised by how incomplete the paper seemed.  The authors acknowledge a lot of the flaws in their study, but at this point, their analysis just doesn't tell us a lot.

This is how research works.  It's incomplete because the available data is incomplete.  Sometimes, it is necessary to do analysis that tell us that we can't know.  I think Doc has made statements in the past suggesting that the Celtics' in-house analysis (which is presumably farther along what gets publicly presented) tells him that he doesn't need to push offensive rebounding.

The study did acknowledge that there is a trade off between crashing the boards and transition defense, so one reasonable hypothesis is that the team that would benefit the least from emphasizing offensive rebounding might be a team with poor rebounders and a good half-court defense, while a team that should go for the rebound more is a team with good rebounders and offense and a poor defense that will give up points anyways even if its players get back early on defense. 

Since the quality of personnel hasn't been factored in, perhaps it will be revealed that certain types of players should go for the offensive rebound and other types of player shouldn't, or that players' tendency to crash the boards should change depending on who they are guarding.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: Fafnir on March 04, 2013, 10:23:36 PM
I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.
Most studies that I've seen account for the increased FG% and FTA rate off of offensive rebounds from put backs and the like. (and the uncontested kick out 3s)

I'll have to browse through the link Roy gave later to see if they did in this one.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: celticsleyte on March 04, 2013, 10:32:54 PM
I would like to see the guys crashing the boards more as I do not like to just concede the rebounds to the opponent.  We may be getting back quickly on defense but after a while the other team figures out they can take off as soon as the shot is up because nobody is contesting the boards.

Really miss Rondo at least with him the opponent had to worry about him attacking the glass.  Wilcox seems to be the only guy attacking the offensive glass. Sully was doing a good job there as well.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: LB3533 on March 04, 2013, 11:02:19 PM
If we had Russell anchoring the paint on opponents' fastbreaks, I'd have my guys offensive rebound like no tomorrow.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 11:42:14 PM
If we had Russell anchoring the paint on opponents' fastbreaks, I'd have my guys offensive rebound like no tomorrow.

Irrelevant much? ;D Last I checked, Russell isn't on our active roster. Did we send him to the D-League?
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: guava_wrench on March 04, 2013, 11:53:20 PM
I did not look at the paper, but as many have noted, there is an obvious problem. Coaches choose strategies due to expected outcomes for their team, not for the entire league.

Imagine a study that says that attempting to steal second is a better strategy than not attempting to steal second, so the Red Sox decide to give the green light to Ortiz every time he is on first. The stats for attempted steals are heavily skewed towards the outcomes for guys with good speed who have the best chance of success.

Similarly, the crashing the boards stats will be skewed due to good offensive rebounding teams being over-represented in the 2 people crashing category. Bad rebounding teams would be over-represented in the 2 people retreating category.

My comment might not be valid if they controlled for this. There are many ways they could do so mathematically.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: LooseCannon on March 05, 2013, 12:30:25 AM
I did not look at the paper, but as many have noted, there is an obvious problem. Coaches choose strategies due to expected outcomes for their team, not for the entire league.

Since you did not look at the paper, in the conclusion, the authors explicitly state "Moreover, there are many factors we have yet to consider, e.g. the positioning of the defensive players, the game situation, and the especially the personnel on the floor."

This suggests that, pending the availability of data, this is likely only the first in a series of papers on this subject by the authors as they delve into the statistics.  The purpose of this paper seems to be to set up a few metrics and a theoretical framework that can be used to examine this question in greater depth in the future.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: guava_wrench on March 05, 2013, 12:45:04 AM
I did not look at the paper, but as many have noted, there is an obvious problem. Coaches choose strategies due to expected outcomes for their team, not for the entire league.

Since you did not look at the paper, in the conclusion, the authors explicitly state "Moreover, there are many factors we have yet to consider, e.g. the positioning of the defensive players, the game situation, and the especially the personnel on the floor."

This suggests that, pending the availability of data, this is likely only the first in a series of papers on this subject by the authors as they delve into the statistics.  The purpose of this paper seems to be to set up a few metrics and a theoretical framework that can be used to examine this question in greater depth in the future.
Pretty much the same kind of conclusion we see in 90% of published papers -- more research needed!

Progress is slow, but at least we progress...
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 07:44:34 AM
I read through it a week or so ago.  For as big of a deal as the Sloan Conference is, I was surprised by how incomplete the paper seemed.  The authors acknowledge a lot of the flaws in their study, but at this point, their analysis just doesn't tell us a lot.

This is how research works.  It's incomplete because the available data is incomplete.  Sometimes, it is necessary to do analysis that tell us that we can't know.  I think Doc has made statements in the past suggesting that the Celtics' in-house analysis (which is presumably farther along what gets publicly presented) tells him that he doesn't need to push offensive rebounding.

The study did acknowledge that there is a trade off between crashing the boards and transition defense, so one reasonable hypothesis is that the team that would benefit the least from emphasizing offensive rebounding might be a team with poor rebounders and a good half-court defense, while a team that should go for the rebound more is a team with good rebounders and offense and a poor defense that will give up points anyways even if its players get back early on defense. 

Since the quality of personnel hasn't been factored in, perhaps it will be revealed that certain types of players should go for the offensive rebound and other types of player shouldn't, or that players' tendency to crash the boards should change depending on who they are guarding.

  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.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: Snakehead on March 05, 2013, 08:28:36 AM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.
Not to mention that Doc has shown a willingness to let good offensive rebounders crash when we've had them on the court.

Rondo is allowed to go for them, Glen Davis when he was the 4th big, Kendrick Perkins, Powe, and most recently Jared Sullinger.

We certainly don't make it a point to have two bodies on the offensive glass most times like many teams, but you have to think its somewhat talent based. (though they've also tried to get a lot of shooting bigs over the years too, ones that don't crash)

Yeah Faf is right here.  People who are critical of Doc: why did Doc let Sullinger crash in for offensive boards any time he was on the floor?  Because he's actually a great rebounder.

Basically the rest of our players are not good rebounders and are good defenders so they might as well get back.


Interesting study though, interested to see what they build off of this.  As a few have mentioned, this is how research works: you cite many sources and contribute a part.  Then hopefully someone takes you as a source and builds upon your work.

In a paper, it's better to try to focus.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: action781 on March 05, 2013, 08:33:20 AM
It's an interesting analysis but the main thing they're not accounting for is that while "crashing" seems to be the better strategy on the aggregate, teams with personnel who are below-average offensive rebounders - like, I don't know, us - have a lower expected return than teams with average or above-average O rebounding personnel.  This can change the math substantially. 

I'm also curious how they calculated expected return - whether that's just a generic points per possession or if they're actually calculating expected return after offensive boards specifically.
Not to mention that Doc has shown a willingness to let good offensive rebounders crash when we've had them on the court.

Rondo is allowed to go for them, Glen Davis when he was the 4th big, Kendrick Perkins, Powe, and most recently Jared Sullinger.

We certainly don't make it a point to have two bodies on the offensive glass most times like many teams, but you have to think its somewhat talent based. (though they've also tried to get a lot of shooting bigs over the years too, ones that don't crash)

Wilcox has been crashing lately, as well.

I think I remember Krstic getting 2 offensive boards in his first 2 possessions as a celtic.  Not only does he let them, but it also is a bit of a sneak attack that the opponents aren't expecting!
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: jdz101 on March 05, 2013, 08:42:06 AM
I read through it a week or so ago.  For as big of a deal as the Sloan Conference is, I was surprised by how incomplete the paper seemed.  The authors acknowledge a lot of the flaws in their study, but at this point, their analysis just doesn't tell us a lot.

This is how research works.  It's incomplete because the available data is incomplete.  Sometimes, it is necessary to do analysis that tell us that we can't know.  I think Doc has made statements in the past suggesting that the Celtics' in-house analysis (which is presumably farther along what gets publicly presented) tells him that he doesn't need to push offensive rebounding.

The study did acknowledge that there is a trade off between crashing the boards and transition defense, so one reasonable hypothesis is that the team that would benefit the least from emphasizing offensive rebounding might be a team with poor rebounders and a good half-court defense, while a team that should go for the rebound more is a team with good rebounders and offense and a poor defense that will give up points anyways even if its players get back early on defense. 

Since the quality of personnel hasn't been factored in, perhaps it will be revealed that certain types of players should go for the offensive rebound and other types of player shouldn't, or that players' tendency to crash the boards should change depending on who they are guarding.

  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.

I think you're over-stretching what the video/paper is trying to say. The piece never says you'll be a far better team if you send all 5 guys to crash, and fail to get back on defense. That's ludicrous. All the video is saying is that the league as a whole benefits off missed jumpshots when they send one guy to crash instead of nobody, or two guys to crash instead of one.

A study you can definitely poke plenty of holes in, but interesting fodder all the same.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 09:13:59 AM
I read through it a week or so ago.  For as big of a deal as the Sloan Conference is, I was surprised by how incomplete the paper seemed.  The authors acknowledge a lot of the flaws in their study, but at this point, their analysis just doesn't tell us a lot.

This is how research works.  It's incomplete because the available data is incomplete.  Sometimes, it is necessary to do analysis that tell us that we can't know.  I think Doc has made statements in the past suggesting that the Celtics' in-house analysis (which is presumably farther along what gets publicly presented) tells him that he doesn't need to push offensive rebounding.

The study did acknowledge that there is a trade off between crashing the boards and transition defense, so one reasonable hypothesis is that the team that would benefit the least from emphasizing offensive rebounding might be a team with poor rebounders and a good half-court defense, while a team that should go for the rebound more is a team with good rebounders and offense and a poor defense that will give up points anyways even if its players get back early on defense. 

Since the quality of personnel hasn't been factored in, perhaps it will be revealed that certain types of players should go for the offensive rebound and other types of player shouldn't, or that players' tendency to crash the boards should change depending on who they are guarding.

  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.

I think you're over-stretching what the video/paper is trying to say. The piece never says you'll be a far better team if you send all 5 guys to crash, and fail to get back on defense. That's ludicrous. All the video is saying is that the league as a whole benefits off missed jumpshots when they send one guy to crash instead of nobody, or two guys to crash instead of one.

A study you can definitely poke plenty of holes in, but interesting fodder all the same.

  My point was they're measuring teams playing the way they think they'll be the most successful. That doesn't mean that teams altering their play will improve their success, as they seemed to implying. The Celts might have less success sending in KG and Bass for Orebs than the Jazz might have with Al and Milsap, they might also lose more in transition defense than (for instance) the Clippers.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: jdz101 on March 05, 2013, 09:57:26 AM
I read through it a week or so ago.  For as big of a deal as the Sloan Conference is, I was surprised by how incomplete the paper seemed.  The authors acknowledge a lot of the flaws in their study, but at this point, their analysis just doesn't tell us a lot.

This is how research works.  It's incomplete because the available data is incomplete.  Sometimes, it is necessary to do analysis that tell us that we can't know.  I think Doc has made statements in the past suggesting that the Celtics' in-house analysis (which is presumably farther along what gets publicly presented) tells him that he doesn't need to push offensive rebounding.

The study did acknowledge that there is a trade off between crashing the boards and transition defense, so one reasonable hypothesis is that the team that would benefit the least from emphasizing offensive rebounding might be a team with poor rebounders and a good half-court defense, while a team that should go for the rebound more is a team with good rebounders and offense and a poor defense that will give up points anyways even if its players get back early on defense. 

Since the quality of personnel hasn't been factored in, perhaps it will be revealed that certain types of players should go for the offensive rebound and other types of player shouldn't, or that players' tendency to crash the boards should change depending on who they are guarding.

  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.

I think you're over-stretching what the video/paper is trying to say. The piece never says you'll be a far better team if you send all 5 guys to crash, and fail to get back on defense. That's ludicrous. All the video is saying is that the league as a whole benefits off missed jumpshots when they send one guy to crash instead of nobody, or two guys to crash instead of one.

A study you can definitely poke plenty of holes in, but interesting fodder all the same.

  My point was they're measuring teams playing the way they think they'll be the most successful. That doesn't mean that teams altering their play will improve their success, as they seemed to implying. The Celts might have less success sending in KG and Bass for Orebs than the Jazz might have with Al and Milsap, they might also lose more in transition defense than (for instance) the Clippers.

Yep, understood, and the Cs/doc rivers have obviously done their own analysis on this which they believe very strongly in.

As far as personal opinion goes I just think that zero guys trying to create a second possession or points on a rebound has to be detrimental to a team over large numbers of missed shots. I see it a lot with the celtics.

I don't care if it's Brandon Bass, Jared Sullinger or Kevin Garnett, if one celtics player goes for the offensive rebound, that doesn't necessarily mean an extra guy in transition for the opposition. That can also mean the opposition needs to send another guy to contest Brandon or Sully, and if they still beat out a couple of guys under the rim for the offensive rebound to get another shot for the celtics that can be a huge lift for the team. Intangibles are often raved about on this forum; some of my most exhilarating intangibles this year have been guys fighting multiple opposition players under the rim for a putback. Sully's beautiful putback against Camby being one memorable one.

Teams overall are getting smaller these days. They aren't exactly laden with amazing rebounders at both 4 and 5 positions these days, but they're still benefitting from offensive glass more than the celtics are.

The Knicks start Carmelo Anthony at the 4 but you try telling them that tyson chandler's tap-out rebounds to their three point shooters aren't invaluable to them on offense. Tyson chandler whilst being a good rebounder, isn't an amazing rebounder, he was shown to be far inferior to Kevin Love in this area in the Olympics. He is still part of a tap-out system that is extremely effective though.

I don't know, I guess this study has scratched the surface of something I believe would help the celtics.

Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: More Banners on March 05, 2013, 10:50:42 AM
Quicker, more athletic teams that happen to have less than stellar execution (i.e. younger teams) should probably go for the extra rebound, loose ball, steal, block, etc. because they've got a decent chance of those sorts of things paying off, and since they're young, you can't stop them from trying anyway.

Teams that are able to execute consistently at both ends in the half-court are probably better off doing that, unless it's just too easy (i.e. rebound falls in lap).

Over the grind, one hopes that the young team gets enough extra possessions from hustle to make up for their turnovers and poor execution.  The veteran team expects to get stops and baskets when needed by running their stuff, and doesn't need to take the risks.

Might the stats support something like that?
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: kozlodoev on March 05, 2013, 10:53:01 AM
I'd wager a guess these "basketball analysts" don't even understand the basic concepts of basketball.
That's just a such a great, insightful argument.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 11:04:48 AM
The Knicks start Carmelo Anthony at the 4 but you try telling them that tyson chandler's tap-out rebounds to their three point shooters aren't invaluable to them on offense. Tyson chandler whilst being a good rebounder, isn't an amazing rebounder, he was shown to be far inferior to Kevin Love in this area in the Olympics. He is still part of a tap-out system that is extremely effective though.

  Unrelated, but I despise the tap-out rebound. All I can think of when I see it is "unskilled" or "gimmicky".
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 05, 2013, 11:06:31 AM
The Knicks start Carmelo Anthony at the 4 but you try telling them that tyson chandler's tap-out rebounds to their three point shooters aren't invaluable to them on offense. Tyson chandler whilst being a good rebounder, isn't an amazing rebounder, he was shown to be far inferior to Kevin Love in this area in the Olympics. He is still part of a tap-out system that is extremely effective though.

  Unrelated, but I despise the tap-out rebound. All I can think of when I see it is "unskilled" or "gimmicky".

I always do it when I play but the ball either goes to the wrong team or hits someone hard on the face. ???
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 11:11:50 AM
The Knicks start Carmelo Anthony at the 4 but you try telling them that tyson chandler's tap-out rebounds to their three point shooters aren't invaluable to them on offense. Tyson chandler whilst being a good rebounder, isn't an amazing rebounder, he was shown to be far inferior to Kevin Love in this area in the Olympics. He is still part of a tap-out system that is extremely effective though.

  Unrelated, but I despise the tap-out rebound. All I can think of when I see it is "unskilled" or "gimmicky".

I always do it when I play but the ball either goes to the wrong team or hits someone hard on the face. ???

  Now *that* I might enjoy watching...
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: ewp on March 05, 2013, 01:08:08 PM
Quote from: BballTim
  Now *that* I might enjoy watching...
[/quote

Especially on the Knicks, although in a Heat vs. Knicks game, as long as it hit someone I'd be happy.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: LooseCannon on March 05, 2013, 01:16:25 PM
  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.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 01:37:46 PM
  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.

  I still think there's a disconnect between measuring typical behavior and expecting that changing the behavior will have the desired outcome. It's an interesting study, just take it with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: mgent on March 05, 2013, 04:23:05 PM
Obviously it depends on who you have.  If you've got Zach Randolph of course you'll be more productive crashing the glass.  On the other hand if you've got a small team like Bass/Green at PF, no.  Or if you've got a guy like Perk who gets the board and then brings the ball back down to set up a "put back."  Regardless of overall strategy if Doc has the talent like in Leon Powe he has no problem setting him lose.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: Fan from VT on March 05, 2013, 05:53:45 PM
Quick comment:

People are saying the results may be flawed because teams are doing what they are good at. I don't agree.

If the study found that teams that get back on D and don't go for offensive rebounds do better, then fans of teams with good offensive rebounding would say "yeah, that works for the Celtics, but we can't do that, so this study is biased toward teams like the celtics with good D."


So this study means one of two things:
1. Going for offensive rebounds is a better strategy
or
2. Teams that have the ability to go for offensive rebounds have the types of players that make teams better.

In other words, The Celtics are doing the best strategy for them, and other teams are doing the best strategy for them, and the other teams are better. So it's either strategy or player type.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 05:59:46 PM
Quick comment:

People are saying the results may be flawed because teams are doing what they are good at. I don't agree.

If the study found that teams that get back on D and don't go for offensive rebounds do better, then fans of teams with good offensive rebounding would say "yeah, that works for the Celtics, but we can't do that, so this study is biased toward teams like the celtics with good D."


So this study means one of two things:
1. Going for offensive rebounds is a better strategy
or
2. Teams that have the ability to go for offensive rebounds have the types of players that make teams better.

In other words, The Celtics are doing the best strategy for them, and other teams are doing the best strategy for them, and the other teams are better. So it's either strategy or player type.

 I think that part of the reason we don't get a ton of ORebs is not having a big that's a low post player like Shaq or Perk, and I think that our shot selection doesn't help either. I also think that they don't want to give up easy buckets, they don't want to play at too fast a pace, and that they don't want to force KG to have to sprint back on defense too many times.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: D.o.s. on March 05, 2013, 06:48:16 PM
Quick comment:

People are saying the results may be flawed because teams are doing what they are good at. I don't agree.

If the study found that teams that get back on D and don't go for offensive rebounds do better, then fans of teams with good offensive rebounding would say "yeah, that works for the Celtics, but we can't do that, so this study is biased toward teams like the celtics with good D."


So this study means one of two things:
1. Going for offensive rebounds is a better strategy
or
2. Teams that have the ability to go for offensive rebounds have the types of players that make teams better.

In other words, The Celtics are doing the best strategy for them, and other teams are doing the best strategy for them, and the other teams are better. So it's either strategy or player type.

I'm pretty sure people are saying that the study is incomplete, so it would be foolish to really dig into it.

Among those people are the authors of the paper.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: LooseCannon on March 05, 2013, 08:41:29 PM
I'm pretty sure people are saying that the study is incomplete, so it would be foolish to really dig into it.

One thing that people could be talking about is what hypotheses about offensive rebounding can be tested.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: LB3533 on March 06, 2013, 01:46:30 PM
How many offensive rebounds did Philly get last night. Did they win the game?
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: Fafnir on March 06, 2013, 01:49:20 PM
How many offensive rebounds did Philly get last night. Did they win the game?
They also shot 41%

Heck the C's got almost as many of their own misses as the 76ers did. (The C's just had more makes and thus less chances)

The C's had 22 TOs and won too....
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: LB3533 on March 07, 2013, 12:43:52 AM
How many offensive rebounds did Philly get last night. Did they win the game?
They also shot 41%

Heck the C's got almost as many of their own misses as the 76ers did. (The C's just had more makes and thus less chances)

The C's had 22 TOs and won too....

Yup our turnovers negated their offensive rebound, and we won mainly because we out shot them by 9-10% from the field.

Indy also crushed us on the offensive glass and lost too.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: guava_wrench on March 07, 2013, 01:24:27 AM
How many offensive rebounds did Philly get last night. Did they win the game?
How is that relevant? Wins wasn't a stat they used in their computations. And if you are mentioning Philly, how many men did they send to crash the boards on each play?

Also, the best sign of misunderstanding statistical analysis -- taking a single data point and drawing conclusions from that.

Look at the actual numbers in the video the researchers did. We aren't talking about 0 versus 100. Also, we are talking about expectations. If those numbers were accurate predictors, we would still only hit those rates when taking very large samples.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: guava_wrench on March 07, 2013, 01:28:46 AM
How many offensive rebounds did Philly get last night. Did they win the game?
They also shot 41%

Heck the C's got almost as many of their own misses as the 76ers did. (The C's just had more makes and thus less chances)

The C's had 22 TOs and won too....

Yup our turnovers negated their offensive rebound, and we won mainly because we out shot them by 9-10% from the field.

Indy also crushed us on the offensive glass and lost too.
While these are all good points, I'm not sure anything in the 3 posts I quote here is directly related to the OP's link or even to the subject of the thread.

The point of the paper is that crashing the offensive boards with 2 guys leads to more production than if a team crashes with 1. AFAIK, the study is not saying that crashing the offensive boards with 2 guys leads to more production than the opposing team.

So the best response to the comment about Philly is that if Philly would have crashed the boards less and gotten back on defense more, we would expect with a decent probability that they would have lost by even more points.
Title: Re: Offensive rebounding over getting back on D increases net production [Analytics]
Post by: jdz101 on March 07, 2013, 01:39:05 AM
Philly's serious problem is they shoot too many long 2s. I actually love their offensive rebounding work. If I was a Philly fan id be seriously angry at Collins for not playing moultrie more. What is there to lose at this point?