Offensive rebounding

[racm]

The Spurs are currently 30th in offensive rebounding percentage after being 24th last season. While reducing Blair's minutes has to do with it more IMO, is it worrying for San Antonio to give up second chance points, especially since they're going to be more crucial in the postseason where every team tries to maximize their possessions?

[Dex]

If being top 5 defensively means giving up on the offensive boards, I'll take it any day.

[SpursIndonesia]

The Spurs are currently 30th in offensive rebounding percentage after being 24th last season. While reducing Blair's minutes has to do with it more IMO, is it worrying for San Antonio to give up second chance points, especially since they're going to be more crucial in the postseason where every team tries to maximize their possessions?

Not worried tbh, as long the team still shots straight and hitting @high percentage, limits the TOs, and tight in transition defense (no easy/cheap points).

Defensive rebounding ? Now we're talking, the life and death matter to this team succes in the post season.

[racm]

True enough... Boston was 1st in defense last season despite also being last in offensive rebounding. This season they got better on that end by adding Sullinger (who looks to be a Blair-type wide body big man) - and they're only 29th while being 7th on defense.

[xellos88330]

The lack of offensive rebounding is most likely by design. It is the price you pay for getting back on defense.

[jimbo]

The lack of offensive rebounding is most likely by design. It is the price you pay for getting back on defense.

This, it's by design so they don't give up easy buckets on the other end. It's nothing to worry about. There was talk about it when people were bringing up how Varejao would play in our system.

[capek]

The Spurs are currently 30th in offensive rebounding percentage after being 24th last season. While reducing Blair's minutes has to do with it more IMO, is it worrying for San Antonio to give up second chance points, especially since they're going to be more crucial in the postseason where every team tries to maximize their possessions?

Offensive rebounding means rebounding when the team in question is on offense. You can't give up second chance points when you are the team that just shot the ball. All clear now?

[Strategic]

The Spurs are currently 30th in offensive rebounding percentage after being 24th last season. While reducing Blair's minutes has to do with it more IMO, is it worrying for San Antonio to give up second chance points, especially since they're going to be more crucial in the postseason where every team tries to maximize their possessions?

While I do think this is mainly because of Pop making the team get back on O, I see Splitter ball hawking after Spurs missed shots. If he's going to do that(which I enjoy watching), would like to see him pick up a couple extra O boards.

[Richie]

We are a top defensive rebounding team, we don't give up too much in terms of second chance points.

Against a team that can run like the Heat or Thunder, getting back is much more important than offensive rebounding.

[AussieFanKurt]

Yeah I don't worry about that stat. Getting back on D is much more valuable

[Brunodf]

High FG%+ getting back on D= lack of offensive rebounding

[racm]

Offensive rebounding means rebounding when the team in question is on offense. You can't give up second chance points when you are the team that just shot the ball. All clear now?

Yeah, I just used the wrong terms that's all :lol

That said, top 2 in DRB% and top 3 in opponent eFG% is elite, tbh

[playblair]

props on acknowledging blair as an elite rebounder ............ blair haters will never admit it ................

[capek]

Yeah, I just used the wrong terms that's all :lol

That said, top 2 in DRB% and top 3 in opponent eFG% is elite, tbh

:lol alright, I was just like, racm knows his stuff, wazgoinonheer??

Anywho, in my eyes this is just part of Pop's defensive philosophy. When you have great offensive players and a great offensive system, getting a few extra possessions a game by crashing the offensive glass is much less important than getting back on D to cut down the number of easy baskets you give up to the opponent.

On the other hand, since Baynes looks like a pretty legit NBA rebounder, we should be better positioned from here on out to at least get a few more a game. We definitely know Blair and Bonner weren't doing jack in that department.

[freetiago]

The centers can usually crash the glass but everyone else has to get back
most centers take a while to cross the court anyway
its only a problem vs smallball team like okc/miami where bosh will just outrun our center after the shot is missed
its basically a gamble because smallball teams are small and you can outrebound them but you also could get beat going down the court and cause mismatches which is a no no
spurs are conservative with all their philosophies so they choose to just get back on defense

[skulls138]

Rebounds alone is such a misleading stat. To get an accurate stat on how good a rebounding team is, you have to get the % of how many offensive rebounds a team has against their misses.

[Spur|n|Austin]

If being top 5 defensively means giving up on the offensive boards, I'll take it any day.

Agreed, we're getting back on D much faster than last season.

edit: everyone and their mom has already mentioned getting back on D.

[racm]

Rebounds alone is such a misleading stat. To get an accurate stat on how good a rebounding team is, you have to get the % of how many offensive rebounds a team has against their misses.

The Spurs are 30th in offensive rebound percentage... But who cares, they're great at getting back on D

[Bruno]

While the "it's by design" answer is right, it isn't the whole answer. Spurs aren't a good offensive rebounding team also because they don't have good offensive rebounders. Their good offensive rebounders are Blair and Baynes and they don't play. Play more Blair and/or Baynes and Spurs offensive rebounding numbers will rise. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Spurs should do that...

Another question is what does it costs to Spurs to be that bad in that area?
Spurs are last in ORB% at 20.7% while the league average is 26.9%. If Spurs were at the league average level, they would get 2.4 more offensive rebounds per game. So, this lack of offensive rebounding cost about 2-3 points per game to Spurs. That's a lot.

Even if Spurs should keep their emphasis on getting back on defense, they had to improve their offensive rebounding. Duncan and Splitter must especially do a better job in that area. Pop should also think at letting a little more freedom to Kawhi for going after offensive rebounds because he was great at that last season.

[chapnis]

^ If getting back on defense stops just one easy fast break bucket a game then it's probably worth it then...

[racm]

Pretty much... although it's worth noting the Spurs are top 5 in pace, offense, and defense. Part of it is not really chasing after their own misses.

The turnovers are the team's biggest weakness atm.

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs are currently 30th in offensive rebounding percentage after being 24th last season. While reducing Blair's minutes has to do with it more IMO, is it worrying for San Antonio to give up second chance points, especially since they're going to be more crucial in the postseason where every team tries to maximize their possessions?

A lack of defensive rebounding is what gives up second-chance points. Offensive rebounding gives your own team second-chance points. The Spurs have an extremely efficient offense. The only thing that kills them in the playoffs is if all the jump shooters get the yips again.

[Bruno]

^ If getting back on defense stops just one easy fast break bucket a game then it's probably worth it then...

Spurs aren't that great at stopping fastbreaks. They are an average team with 13.7 fastbreak points allowed per game:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-fastbreak-points-per-game

Without the discipline to get back on defense, they would likely be worse but it's impossible to say by how much.

Even when factoring the defensive philosophy, Spurs are just a weak offensive rebounding team. It's one of their main weaknesses.

[stnick2261]

It should also help with Baynes blocking out so that the ball will bounce to one of our guys and not straight into the opponent's hands

[Seventyniner]

Spurs aren't that great at stopping fastbreaks. They are an average team with 13.7 fastbreak points allowed per game:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-fastbreak-points-per-game

Without the discipline to get back on defense, they would likely be worse but it's impossible to say by how much.

Even when factoring the defensive philosophy, Spurs are just a weak offensive rebounding team. It's one of their main weaknesses.

Thanks for the link to that site; I had never seen it. It will help immensely for future stat posts. Also, they calculate offensive and defensive efficiency differently than basketball-reference.com, so it gives another data point. Your site is probably better because b-r's is an estimate, while teamrankings likely uses total points divided by total possessions.

The four factors tell you exactly where the team weaknesses are for the Spurs (using b-r's data):
OFFENSE: 2nd in eFG%, 24th in TOV%, 30% in ORB%, 19th in FT/FGA, 5th in ORtg
DEFENSE: 4th in eFG%, 12th in TOV%, 1st in DRB%, 3rd in FT/FGA, 3rd in DRtg

So the Spurs are elite in shooting on both ends of the floor, great at getting defensive rebounds and limiting opponent's FTs, around average in getting to the line and forcing turnovers, bad at turning the ball over, and horrendous on the offensive glass. In fact, "elite" doesn't do justice to the Spurs' shooting on offense. How else do you get a 5th-ranked offense when you're 19th or worse in 3 of the 4 factors? Shooting is only weighted 40%, after all.

[racm]

40% is still bigger than all of the other factors by themselves, though.

Also IIRC the Offensive and Defensive ratings are still calculated as adjusting points for and points allowed for pace.

[Obstructed_View]

Thanks for the link to that site; I had never seen it. It will help immensely for future stat posts. Also, they calculate offensive and defensive efficiency differently than basketball-reference.com, so it gives another data point. Your site is probably better because b-r's is an estimate, while teamrankings likely uses total points divided by total possessions.

The four factors tell you exactly where the team weaknesses are for the Spurs (using b-r's data):
OFFENSE: 2nd in eFG%, 24th in TOV%, 30% in ORB%, 19th in FT/FGA, 5th in ORtg
DEFENSE: 4th in eFG%, 12th in TOV%, 1st in DRB%, 3rd in FT/FGA, 3rd in DRtg

So the Spurs are elite in shooting on both ends of the floor, great at getting defensive rebounds and limiting opponent's FTs, around average in getting to the line and forcing turnovers, bad at turning the ball over, and horrendous on the offensive glass. In fact, "elite" doesn't do justice to the Spurs' shooting on offense. How else do you get a 5th-ranked offense when you're 19th or worse in 3 of the 4 factors? Shooting is only weighted 40%, after all.

Assists? This year's Spurs are one of the best passing teams I've ever seen.

[look_at_g_shred]

Assists? This year's Spurs are one of the best passing teams I've ever seen.

Better than last year I think. Especially since Tiago is a better finisher this year.

[spurraider21]

A lack of defensive rebounding is what gives up second-chance points. Offensive rebounding gives your own team second-chance points. The Spurs have an extremely efficient offense. The only thing that kills them in the playoffs is if all the jump shooters get the yips again.
i think he meant giving up as far as giving up on going for second chance points

[Obstructed_View]

i think he meant giving up as far as giving up on going for second chance points

Oh. It's not as important as not allowing easy baskets IMO. When you have an offense that's good at breaking down defenses, and you have a defense that's really tough to break down, it seems like a better strategy. You get more good shots and allow fewer good shots. Gambling is something bad teams have to do, and collecting offensive rebounds is probably something that jump-shooting teams do.

[Captivus]

Anybody knows were to get the Opponent Fast Break Point per team.
To see if theres a relation between that and OFF REB.

[Bruno]

The four factors tell you exactly where the team weaknesses are for the Spurs (using b-r's data):
OFFENSE: 2nd in eFG%, 24th in TOV%, 30th in ORB%, 19th in FT/FGA, 5th in ORtg
DEFENSE: 4th in eFG%, 12th in TOV%, 1st in DRB%, 3rd in FT/FGA, 3rd in DRtg

So the Spurs are elite in shooting on both ends of the floor, great at getting defensive rebounds and limiting opponent's FTs, around average in getting to the line and forcing turnovers, bad at turning the ball over, and horrendous on the offensive glass. In fact, "elite" doesn't do justice to the Spurs' shooting on offense. How else do you get a 5th-ranked offense when you're 19th or worse in 3 of the 4 factors? Shooting is only weighted 40%, after all.

You had to look at the spreads in addition to the rankings. For example, Spurs being 24th in offensive TOV% isn't that bad when you realize that a lot of teams are really close. At 14.2%, Spurs aren't that far from the 4th best team (Bucks at 13.1%).

[Seventyniner]

You had to look at the spreads in addition to the rankings. For example, Spurs being 24th in offensive TOV% isn't that bad when you realize that a lot of teams are really close. At 14.2%, Spurs aren't that far from the 4th best team (Bucks at 13.1%).

Good point. Now I have added a Standard Deviation row in my spreadsheet. It's worth another look:

OFFENSE
eFG%: 2nd, 2.06 standard deviations above the mean
TOV%: 24th, 0.49 standard deviations below the mean
ORB%: 30th, 1.99 standard deviations below the mean
FT/FGA: 19th, 0.14 standard deviations below the mean
DEFENSE
eFG%: 4th, 1.04 standard deviations above the mean
TOV%: 12th, 0.10 standard deviations above the mean
DRB%: 1st, 1.39 standard deviations above the mean
FT/FGA: 3rd, 1.30 standard deviations above the mean

So yeah, the offensive FT/FGA and defensive TOV% are basically league average, while the drivers of the Spurs' 3rd-ranked defense (in DRtg) are as much the DRB% and FT/FGA than the eFG% allowed (more weight, but fewer standard deviations above the mean). It's pretty heartening that the Spurs are above average on defense for each factor, while being >1 standard deviation above the mean for 3 of them.

I stand by my assertion that the Spurs' lights-out shooting is the single most important advantage they have, though.

This all needs further work, because I want to look at past seasons (how far above average was the lockdown Spurs defense in the mid-2000s in terms of standard deviations above the mean?) and see correlations, etc.

[skulls138]

The Spurs are 30th in offensive rebound percentage... But who cares, they're great at getting back on D
Ok, I forgot another crucial part of the equasion. To get a true feel for how good a rebounding team is you cant look at rankings you have to look at who wins the offensive rebound percentage each game. Sure the Spurs are 30th in the NBA but supposedly theyre great at defensive rebounding, which takes away from the opponents offensive rebounding percentage.

So the true stat should be "number of times a team wins the battle of the 'offensive rebound percentage' per game". Is there a stat like that?

[Uriel]

Good point. Now I have added a Standard Deviation row in my spreadsheet. It's worth another look:

OFFENSE
eFG%: 2nd, 2.06 standard deviations above the mean
TOV%: 24th, 0.49 standard deviations below the mean
ORB%: 30th, 1.99 standard deviations below the mean
FT/FGA: 19th, 0.14 standard deviations below the mean
DEFENSE
eFG%: 4th, 1.04 standard deviations above the mean
TOV%: 12th, 0.10 standard deviations above the mean
DRB%: 1st, 1.39 standard deviations above the mean
FT/FGA: 3rd, 1.30 standard deviations above the mean

So yeah, the offensive FT/FGA and defensive TOV% are basically league average, while the drivers of the Spurs' 3rd-ranked defense (in DRtg) are as much the DRB% and FT/FGA than the eFG% allowed (more weight, but fewer standard deviations above the mean). It's pretty heartening that the Spurs are above average on defense for each factor, while being >1 standard deviation above the mean for 3 of them.

I stand by my assertion that the Spurs' lights-out shooting is the single most important advantage they have, though.

This all needs further work, because I want to look at past seasons (how far above average was the lockdown Spurs defense in the mid-2000s in terms of standard deviations above the mean?) and see correlations, etc.
If that's the case, do you think it's sustainable? Can the Spurs legitimately contend for a championship while relying on what you refer to as their "single most important advantage?"

[Seventyniner]

If that's the case, do you think it's sustainable? Can the Spurs legitimately contend for a championship while relying on what you refer to as their "single most important advantage?"

Well, the shooting percentage is bound to go down in the playoffs, because you tend to face above-average defensive teams. Still, it will be a strength relative to any opponent (except Miami, who is 1st in offensive eFG%). Good shooting by itself definitely won't be enough, but if the Spurs can stay slightly below average in offensive TOV% and FT/FGA while maintaining top-4 rankings in 3 defensive factors, I really like their chances.

I also should have included the following:
2013 ORtg: 5th, 1.12 standard deviations above the mean
2013 DRtg: 3rd, 1.63 standard deviations above the mean (below the mean technically, but I mean above as better, not higher)
2012 ORtg: 1st, 1.94 standard deviations above the mean
2012 DRtg: 10th, 0.42 standard deviations above the mean

This year's team is much more balanced (in a good way), which bears itself out on the eye test.

Here are the 2012 factors for comparison:
OFFENSE
eFG%: 1st, 2.23 standard deviations above the mean
TOV%: 3rd, 1.07 standard deviations above the mean
ORB%: 24th, 0.74 standard deviations below the mean
FT/FGA: 19th, 0.55 standard deviations below the mean
DEFENSE
eFG%: 16th, 0.12 standard deviations below the mean
TOV%: 24th, 0.80 standard deviations below the mean
DRB%: 1st, 1.76 standard deviations above the mean
FT/FGA: 2nd, 1.72 standard deviations above the mean

So the huge, mammoth difference this year is defensive eFG%. The TOV% stuff is a bit of a wash; the Spurs are worse about committing turnovers this year, but better at forcing them. The differential is very slightly worse this year, but it's only about 0.3 standard deviations.

To wrap up, offensive eFG% was the Spurs' biggest advantage last year too, and we saw how that ended. I would say that a sudden dropoff in offensive eFG% in a playoff series would be more damaging than a sudden drop in any other category.

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs' good shooting comes from the quality of their shots. If you move the ball, and get good shots near the basket, your field goal percentage goes up. Look at the difference in the Lakers when they jacked up shots and now that they're actually passing to each other. It's not "hot shooting", it's a completely different type of shooting.

Altogether.