It's all about the rebounding

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I've been banging the "more/better bigs" and "more rebounding" drums for a few years, glad Danny finally listened.

[mmmmm]

I've been banging the "more/better bigs" and "more rebounding" drums for a few years, glad Danny finally listened.

You were not alone, sir.

The thing is, a point of frustration for some of us has also often been just our lack of _usage_ of the bigger players that we already had.

The data were screaming fairly early on last year that the "3-small' lineups were killing us defensively and not all that rewarding offensively.   And the data has been very consistent for several years showing our lineups being better when we played bigger with even just the players we already had!

So some of that may be on Danny.  But some of it is also on Brad.

Oh well.  Maybe they finally got a chance to analyze all this data and took steps this summer to change the approach?  Whatever.  I'm personally glad to see the lineup trends so far this year!   Let's hope Brad does not regress back to the 'small' love affair.

[kozlodoev]

Two words describing why rebounding is better this season: Aron Baynes. That's not because he's some sort of rebounding demon who cleans up the glass on every possession; he can average 0 rpg and we'll still be a better rebounding team.

It's because he's large and extremely, extremely fundamentally sound when it comes to rebounding. The fact that he can seal so much space under the basket has allowed pretty much everyone to step in and have uncontested/poorly contested rebounds most of the time. His importance to this cannot be understated.

[RockinRyA]

I've been banging the "more/better bigs" and "more rebounding" drums for a few years, glad Danny finally listened.

You were not alone, sir.

The thing is, a point of frustration for some of us has also often been just our lack of _usage_ of the bigger players that we already had.

The data were screaming fairly early on last year that the "3-small' lineups were killing us defensively and not all that rewarding offensively.   And the data has been very consistent for several years showing our lineups being better when we played bigger with even just the players we already had!

So some of that may be on Danny.  But some of it is also on Brad.

Oh well.  Maybe they finally got a chance to analyze all this data and took steps this summer to change the approach?  Whatever.  I'm personally glad to see the lineup trends so far this year!   Let's hope Brad does not regress back to the 'small' love affair.

The thing about data is that it can change with more application.

Data shows 3 guard lineups are bad, and I believe it. HOWEVER, you cannot say that using it on all those instances are a bad decision. Esp late game, playing our 3 guard lineups means that our best players are on the floor (last year)

There's also the matchups to consider, as well as the "flow" of the game. Coaches often switch things up just to throw opposing teams out of rhythm. They are also sometimes used to stagger minutes of different players.

Playing big is not always the best option. See OKC game for instance.

IT-AB-Smart-Crowder-Horford are our go-to finishing unit for a reason. Do you honestly trust Amir, KO, Zeller in crunch time? I don't. Maybe put Jerebko in for one of the guards, but even he is not a true Big.

If you meant lessening three guard lineups throughout the whole game, then sure. But eliminating it all (last year) just because the numbers says so is absurd.

This year, it will definitely be lessened. And only reason we see it sometimes is because of our lack of backups, esp with Baynes starting and Morris injured. Our backup wing is left to Ojeleye, so sometimes Stevens has to be creative and use 3 guards.

Last year if you insert Smart and remove our C, we are left with a 3 guard lineup, very small one at that. This year, if you insert Smart, it would just be a regular small ball lineup that uses a stretch 4.

So to summarize:

1) Data and Analytics are not end-all be-all.
2) Playing Big is not always the answer, Small ball lineups are justified as well.
3) Personnel plays a factor, some players are less effective as the game goes on.
4) We are better equipped to play differently this year, more versatile players who can play multiple positions.

[Big333223]

I'll add this, because I don't think I've seen it yet:

The top 5 out of rotation players in TRB% last season were Olynyk, Amir, Jerebko, Horford, Bradley at 13.1, 12.7, 12.3, 11.8, and 10.1 respecively,

This season, the top 5 out of rotation players are Theis, Baynes, Horford, Rozier, Tatum at 16.6, 15.7, 15.5, 11.1, and 11.0.

So hopefully, everyone can keep this up. It would be Horfor'd best rebounding season in 5 years but man does he look spry so far.

[mmmmm]

I've been banging the "more/better bigs" and "more rebounding" drums for a few years, glad Danny finally listened.

You were not alone, sir.

The thing is, a point of frustration for some of us has also often been just our lack of _usage_ of the bigger players that we already had.

The data were screaming fairly early on last year that the "3-small' lineups were killing us defensively and not all that rewarding offensively.   And the data has been very consistent for several years showing our lineups being better when we played bigger with even just the players we already had!

So some of that may be on Danny.  But some of it is also on Brad.

Oh well.  Maybe they finally got a chance to analyze all this data and took steps this summer to change the approach?  Whatever.  I'm personally glad to see the lineup trends so far this year!   Let's hope Brad does not regress back to the 'small' love affair.

The thing about data is that it can change with more application.

Data shows 3 guard lineups are bad, and I believe it. HOWEVER, you cannot say that using it on all those instances are a bad decision. Esp late game, playing our 3 guard lineups means that our best players are on the floor (last year)

There's also the matchups to consider, as well as the "flow" of the game. Coaches often switch things up just to throw opposing teams out of rhythm. They are also sometimes used to stagger minutes of different players.

Playing big is not always the best option. See OKC game for instance.

IT-AB-Smart-Crowder-Horford are our go-to finishing unit for a reason. Do you honestly trust Amir, KO, Zeller in crunch time? I don't. Maybe put Jerebko in for one of the guards, but even he is not a true Big.

If you meant lessening three guard lineups throughout the whole game, then sure. But eliminating it all (last year) just because the numbers says so is absurd.

This year, it will definitely be lessened. And only reason we see it sometimes is because of our lack of backups, esp with Baynes starting and Morris injured. Our backup wing is left to Ojeleye, so sometimes Stevens has to be creative and use 3 guards.

Last year if you insert Smart and remove our C, we are left with a 3 guard lineup, very small one at that. This year, if you insert Smart, it would just be a regular small ball lineup that uses a stretch 4.

So to summarize:

1) Data and Analytics are not end-all be-all.
2) Playing Big is not always the answer, Small ball lineups are justified as well.
3) Personnel plays a factor, some players are less effective as the game goes on.
4) We are better equipped to play differently this year, more versatile players who can play multiple positions.

1) is a straw man.  No one said that they were the "end-all be-all".
2) again, another straw man.   
3) This is true.
4) Probable.  But the notion that we are better equipped to play fewer 'small' lineups this year doesn't really have anything to do with whether we were equipped to play fewer small lineups last year.

I'm not at all advocating to play 'big' 100% of the time.   This year, the much smaller percentage of time that we have gone with '3-smalls' on the floor have actually been very effective (as measured by analytics).   That's because Brad has been very selective in his use of the Kyrie-Smart-Rozier combination.   We've only used it for a few dozen possessions and a tiny percentage overall.

Last year, we used those '3-small' lineups excessively, as my numbers above show, to the point where they were often not helping us win.   IF the decisions to use those small lineups was chosen strategically, then the decisions were often not good ones.

[byennie]

Monroe has his flaws, but as a role player he's got a lot of value. He's significantly more effective offensively than Baynes, and would also potentially be our best rebounder (even if that's not a weakness this year). As a 9th or 10th man, he's pretty darn good, and would also be great insurance in case Baynes or Horford missed time.

I would trust CBS to make the most out of him and matchups. That's a big factor for me, and I think there would be nights where Monroe wins a big game for us. Big slow centers are out of style, but it's not a bad weapon to have in your pocket on certain nights when he's got the hot hand, and/or the other squad has nobody with the size to defend him.

[The Oracle]

I'll add this, because I don't think I've seen it yet:

The top 5 out of rotation players in TRB% last season were Olynyk, Amir, Jerebko, Horford, Bradley at 13.1, 12.7, 12.3, 11.8, and 10.1 respecively,

This season, the top 5 out of rotation players are Theis, Baynes, Horford, Rozier, Tatum at 16.6, 15.7, 15.5, 11.1, and 11.0.

So hopefully, everyone can keep this up. It would be Horfor'd best rebounding season in 5 years but man does he look spry so far.

TRB% is misleading as a players usage on both ends of the floor will dictate their rebounding numbers a lot.  It will not necessarily give you accurate information as to a players true rebounding ability.

Al Horford:  His offensive rebounding numbers are virtually identical 16-17 4.9%, 17-18 5.2% as his usage on that end is the same and his proximity to the hoop and role on offense will always limit his numbers.  His defensive rebounding however has see a spike this year 16-17 18.3%, 17-18 24.3% as he is not extending outward defending the perimeter as much, nor accepting switches as often as guards and wings are fighting over screens much better/effectively.

Aron Baynes:  His rebounding numbers will pretty much always remain constant as his role on both ends of the floor is pretty much predetermined no matter the team.  He will always crash the glass as much as possible on both ends.  16-17 off. reb.% 10.8% and def. reb.% 20.6%,  17-18 off. reb.% 10.1% and def. reb.% 20.3%.

Kelly Olynyk:  In 16-17 with the C's K.O. had off. reb.% 5.3% and def. reb.% 20.7, in 17-18 so far in Miami off. reb.% 3.8% and def. reb.% 29.9%.  His offensive rebound numbers will always be limited because he is used heavily on the perimeter to create space and facilitate the offense.  His defensive numbers have seen a huge spike as Miami is using him mostly in a role similar to Whiteside hanging back on screens and not defending the perimeter like he did a ton in Boston last year.  He did not suddenly become a much better rebounder it is primarily his usage that is creating the spike and if his role changes he will most certainly see a big drop in those numbers.

If K.O. or Horford were to be used like Baynes their TRB% numbers would increase greatly but that would not be beneficial to their teams.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Two words describing why rebounding is better this season: Aron Baynes. That's not because he's some sort of rebounding demon who cleans up the glass on every possession; he can average 0 rpg and we'll still be a better rebounding team.

It's because he's large and extremely, extremely fundamentally sound when it comes to rebounding. The fact that he can seal so much space under the basket has allowed pretty much everyone to step in and have uncontested/poorly contested rebounds most of the time. His importance to this cannot be understated.

Ditto this. Baynes is very good about finding his man when a shot goes up and sealing him off.

[Celtics4ever]

Kelly Olynyk:  In 16-17 with the C's K.O. had off. reb.% 5.3% and def. reb.% 20.7, in 17-18 so far in Miami off. reb.% 3.8% and def. reb.% 29.9%.  His offensive rebound numbers will always be limited because he is used heavily on the perimeter to create space and facilitate the offense.  His defensive numbers have seen a huge spike as Miami is using him mostly in a role similar to Whiteside hanging back on screens and not defending the perimeter like he did a ton in Boston last year.  He did not suddenly become a much better rebounder it is primarily his usage that is creating the spike and if his role changes he will most certainly see a big drop in those numbers.

If K.O. or Horford were to be used like Baynes their TRB% numbers would increase greatly but that would not be beneficial to their teams.

I doubt his numbers would get better here because he played a lot in CBS offense on the perimeter.    Clear than DA made another right call not to open his purse.