Offensive rebounds

Seeing this Pacers-Heat series I wish Pop would let our guys crash the boards a little bit more. Actually this is a thing I've always wanted to see as a Spurs fan. There's no reason to have all 5 guys running to the defensive even before shooting the ball on every single possesion.

Seriously, how many more fastbreak pts per game would the Spurs allow if 2 or 3 guys stay to fight for the offensive board and then get back as oppossed to what we do now? I bet the net difference between offensive boards/fastbreak pts allowed would be positive.

Blair became expendable for hanging around for offensive boards tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urunobili

Blair became expendable for hanging around for offensive boards tbh

---

No, Blair became expendable for being a low IQ 6'5'' bigman that plays no defense and doesn't stretch the floor.

In the long run, not giving up 5-on-4 or 5-on-3 breaks is more valuable than grabbing the occasional strange bounce. If it comes to you, grab it, but trying for an offensive board is the same as trying for a steal in the backcourt. Most teams will make you pay with an easy basket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

In the long run, not giving up 5-on-4 or 5-on-3 breaks is more valuable than grabbing the occasional strange bounce. If it comes to you, grab it, but trying for an offensive board is the same as trying for a steal in the backcourt. Most teams will make you pay with an easy basket.

---

You can try to fight for the rebound, not get it and get back to the other side of the court before your man (probably the guy that grabbed the rebound) makes it there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

You can try to fight for the rebound, not get it and get back to the other side of the court before your man (probably the guy that grabbed the rebound) makes it there.

---

Spurs frontcourt is not that fast to do that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

In the long run, not giving up 5-on-4 or 5-on-3 breaks is more valuable than grabbing the occasional strange bounce. If it comes to you, grab it, but trying for an offensive board is the same as trying for a steal in the backcourt. Most teams will make you pay with an easy basket.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

In the long run, not giving up 5-on-4 or 5-on-3 breaks is more valuable than grabbing the occasional strange bounce. If it comes to you, grab it, but trying for an offensive board is the same as trying for a steal in the backcourt. Most teams will make you pay with an easy basket.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

This.

---

If it was so clear cut every single team would have the same philosophy yet they don't. For ex: Phil Jackson, one of the winningest coaches in history, never had this strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

In the long run, not giving up 5-on-4 or 5-on-3 breaks is more valuable than grabbing the occasional strange bounce. If it comes to you, grab it, but trying for an offensive board is the same as trying for a steal in the backcourt. Most teams will make you pay with an easy basket.

---

I disagree with the whole post as a blanket statement. It might be true for the Spurs, but definitely not for the whole league.

I think the bolded statement is absurd. Offensive rebounds are far easier to get than steals in the backcourt.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...rebounding-pct
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...eak-efficiency
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game

The Pacers are #2 in offensive rebounding percentage and #1 in both opponents' fast break efficiency and opponents' fast break points per game. In other words, there doesn't have to be a tradeoff between offensive rebounding and fast break defense.

The Pacers are actually pretty bad about turning the ball over (2nd worst in the league, just ahead of Houston), so the fact that they give up so few fast break points per game means that their transition defense is elite. Most fast break points come from turnovers and not getting a defensive rebound and beating the other team down the floor, because many turnovers happen far away from the basket, while most rebounds occur close to the basket.

Pop knows the team best, though, so if he's convinced that his particular players can't both aggressively crash the offensive glass and defend the fast break well, then he has to prioritize. My point is that you can't extrapolate this to the whole league.

Here's a PtR article I wrote about the matter:

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2013/...ive-rebounding

The Spurs managed to sweep the Grizzlies despite losing the offensive rebounding battle, and they also swept Indiana in the season series despite being outrebounded by a significant margin.

Worth noting that eFG% is still the best determinant of who can win games among all the Four Factors: The Spurs were 29th in ORB%, but 7th in ORtg, and 5th in DRB% and 3rd in DRtg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

If it was so clear cut every single team would have the same philosophy yet they don't. For ex: Phil Jackson, one of the winningest coaches in history, never had this strategy.

---

Playing the O-Reb hand against the Heat is suicide, IMHO. The Heat struggle with halfcourt offense and dominate on the fastbreak that's why you need force them to be a halfcourt team. You can choose between to things, taking a HUGE risk with those 50-50 offensive rebound balls or you send your guys back to set up the D to prevent fastbreaks and force the Heat to be a team that they are not.

Common sense will tell you to choose the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

Playing the O-Reb hand against the Heat is suicide, IMHO. The Heat struggle with halfcourt offense and dominate on the fastbreak that's why you need force them to be a halfcourt team. You can choose between to things, taking a HUGE risk with those 50-50 offensive rebound balls or you send your guys back to set up the D to prevent fastbreaks and force the Heat to be a team that they are not.

Common sense will tell you to choose the latter.

---

Also, one thing I've noticed: offensive rebounds are often the province of big men. Usually, in the Spurs defensive system, it's guys like Timmy and Tiago who are the first down the floor once it becomes apparent that the shot didn't go in. While this isn't that effective in protecting transition baskets, it does allow them to get set in the halfcourt defense better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

The Pacers are #2 in offensive rebounding percentage and #1 in both opponents' fast break efficiency and opponents' fast break points per game. In other words, there doesn't have to be a tradeoff between offensive rebounding and fast break defense.

---

Well, thanks for providing the stats. I knew it could be done.

Regarding the Spurs I don't think it has to do with the personnel, Parker is the fastest guy on the NBA, Green and Leonard are pretty quick too, Splitter has above average speed for a center, only Tim could be seen as a liability in this department. Besides as long as I can remember Pop has always had this strategy of priorizing transition D over offensive rebounds no matter who was on the team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racm

Also, one thing I've noticed: offensive rebounds are often the province of big men. Usually, in the Spurs defensive system, it's guys like Timmy and Tiago who are the first down the floor once it becomes apparent that the shot didn't go in. While this isn't that effective in protecting transition baskets, it does allow them to get set in the halfcourt defense better.

---

Main thing against the Heat is, you send guys to defend the fastbreak NO MATTER WHAT. You stop the break then you make them a halfcourt team. Though it's good when you get offensive rebounds, it's just not worth the risk against the Heat imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

Main thing against the Heat is, you send guys to defend the fastbreak NO MATTER WHAT. You stop the break then you make them a halfcourt team. Though it's good when you get offensive rebounds, it's just not worth the risk against the Heat imho.

---

Especially since LeBron's gonna beat everyone down the court if that happens. Having the bigs run back earlier allows them to set the defense faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racm

Here's a PtR article I wrote about the matter:

http://www.poundingtherock.com/2013/...ive-rebounding

The Spurs managed to sweep the Grizzlies despite losing the offensive rebounding battle, and they also swept Indiana in the season series despite being outrebounded by a significant margin.

Worth noting that eFG% is still the best determinant of who can win games among all the Four Factors: The Spurs were 29th in ORB%, but 7th in ORtg, and 5th in DRB% and 3rd in DRtg.

---

The thing is we can get away with getting detroyed in the rebounding battle against those teams, against the Heat we need every help we can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

The thing is we can get away with getting detroyed in the rebounding battle against those teams, against the Heat we need every help we can get.

---

We're getting destroyed in the fastbreak so much more either since we have faced no team that relies and thrives in the break like the Heat does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

The thing is we can get away with getting detroyed in the rebounding battle against those teams, against the Heat we need every help we can get.

---

Then win the turnover battle. That's why the Spurs can get away with giving up offensive boards: They're essentially limiting the opponent's extra possession by getting extra possessions themselves.

And offensive rebounds don't always result in points. Contesting putbacks will help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

We're getting destroyed in the fastbreak so much more either since we have faced no team that relies and thrives in the break like the Heat does.

---

Sorry but I didn't understand what you meant. Are you saying that the Spurs got destroyed in fastbreak pts lately or that we would get destroyed by the Heat if we go for offensive rebounds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racm

Then win the turnover battle. That's why the Spurs can get away with giving up offensive boards: They're essentially limiting the opponent's extra possession by getting extra possessions themselves.

And offensive rebounds don't always result in points. Contesting putbacks will help.

---

That would be hard to do, Heat are really good at creating turnovers and we sometimes are really bad at protecting the ball. It's not coincidence that I'm talking about offensive rebounds, the Heat struggle a lot in this area and we are going to let them off the hook by simply conceding the rebounds on that end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

Playing the O-Reb hand against the Heat is suicide, IMHO. The Heat struggle with halfcourt offense and dominate on the fastbreak that's why you need force them to be a halfcourt team. You can choose between to things, taking a HUGE risk with those 50-50 offensive rebound balls or you send your guys back to set up the D to prevent fastbreaks and force the Heat to be a team that they are not.

Common sense will tell you to choose the latter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

Main thing against the Heat is, you send guys to defend the fastbreak NO MATTER WHAT. You stop the break then you make them a halfcourt team. Though it's good when you get offensive rebounds, it's just not worth the risk against the Heat imho.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

We're getting destroyed in the fastbreak so much more either since we have faced no team that relies and thrives in the break like the Heat does.

---

The stats don't back up what you say.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...eak-efficiency

During the regular season, the Heat were #20 in fast break points per game (a bit deceiving, admittedly, because the Heat play at a slow pace), and #25 in fast break efficiency (points scored per fast break possession). Those numbers mean that the Heat are actually pretty bad on the fast break. They're also a poor defensive rebounding team (#25 also), so crashing the offensive glass against the Heat, even if it's at the expense of fast break opportunities the other way, is actually a pretty good strategy. It's what is keeping Indiana in that series.

I don't accept that there's a tradeoff anyway. Definitely not for the Pacers, if you read my first post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

The stats don't back up what you say.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...eak-efficiency

During the regular season, the Heat were #20 in fast break points per game (a bit deceiving, admittedly, because the Heat play at a slow pace), and #25 in fast break efficiency (points scored per fast break possession). Those numbers mean that the Heat are actually pretty bad on the fast break. They're also a poor defensive rebounding team (#25 also), so crashing the offensive glass against the Heat, even if it's at the expense of fast break opportunities the other way, is actually a pretty good strategy. It's what is keeping Indiana in that series.

I don't accept that there's a tradeoff anyway. Definitely not for the Pacers, if you read my first post in this thread.

---

And guess which team managed to prevent good shots, preventing offensive rebounds, and not foul a lot this season (Hint: San Antonio finished top 5 in eFG% and top 3 in DRB% and FT/FGA)?

Indiana's style of play is good against an offensively dominant team like Miami that can't rebound, which is why I think they could beat the 2011 Spurs and give the 2012 Spurs a run for their money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Sorry but I didn't understand what you meant. Are you saying that the Spurs got destroyed in fastbreak pts lately or that we would get destroyed by the Heat if we go for offensive rebounds?

---

What I'm saying is it's risky to go for offensive rebounds because it's always 50-50. But well by Seventyniner 's post, stats dont back up what I'm saying. It's just that watching Lebron and Wade run that break is a very scary scene if you're the opponent. Just using the eye test here, and if those stats will come true, we're even more heavily fckd if the Heat is indeed better at the half court game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

You can try to fight for the rebound, not get it and get back to the other side of the court before your man (probably the guy that grabbed the rebound) makes it there.

---

FWIW, the Pacers aren't exactly crashing the glass as a team strategy - they're just letting Hibbert & West do work when they're not boxed out (which is frequently). I would expect Pop to let Splitter & Duncan (& even Kawhi in small ball) do the same, but I doubt he'll throw any more at the boards, unless they're already under the bucket when the shot goes up.

And vs. Heat transition, it's not so much matching their numbers as they get back as it having 1 man advantage. a 2-on-2 or even a 3-on-3 mini break (if it involves Lebron) is advantage Heat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Seeing this Pacers-Heat series I wish Pop would let our guys crash the boards a little bit more. Actually this is a thing I've always wanted to see as a Spurs fan. There's no reason to have all 5 guys running to the defensive even before shooting the ball on every single possesion.

Seriously, how many more fastbreak pts per game would the Spurs allow if 2 or 3 guys stay to fight for the offensive board and then get back as oppossed to what we do now? I bet the net difference between offensive boards/fastbreak pts allowed would be positive.

---

The Spurs have played 14 playoff games this year. They have held their opponent to 92 points or less in 7 of those games. They are 7-0 when holding their opponent to 92 points or less. And you're pretty sure Pop is stupid for not changing his game plan, to try and score more fast break points? [Edit, per DAF86 - meant to say "second chance points". Just read all the comments about fast break points before posting that.]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

The Spurs have played 14 playoff games this year. They have held their opponent to 92 points or less in 7 of those games. They are 7-0 when holding their opponent to 92 points or less. And you're pretty sure Pop is stupid for not changing his game plan, to try and score more fast break points?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

---

We sure do have a failure to communicate as I don't understand what you meant in that bolded part.

I'm not asking for the Spurs to try and score more fast break pts. If you tried to say that going for offensive rebounds would allow the Heat a lot more fastbreak opportunities, then Seventyniner has already posted the stats that prove that that doesn't necesarily have to be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

That would be hard to do, Heat are really good at creating turnovers and we sometimes are really bad at protecting the ball. It's not coincidence that I'm talking about offensive rebounds, the Heat struggle a lot in this area and we are going to let them off the hook by simply conceding the rebounds on that end.

---

Yea that would pose a dilemma.

But if you look at the big picture... it would seem that getting back on defense as a philosophy would yield the most success. And that Crashing the offensive rebound is fools gold.


If they are poor at offensive rebounds, then by default even if we aren't crashing the boards we're going to come up with some naturally because this is a weakness of theirs. It does not necessarily need to be exploited. Ironically trying to exploit it might backfire.


Miami thrives in the transition game while they have a tougher time with half court offense.

On the other hand our defense is compromised when it's caught scrambling. Our system precision defense with funneling and helping is excellent at stifling half court sets.

So by crashing the boards, if it fails, their transition game is enhanced coupled with the fact our defense is scrambled and out of position.

We give them a chance at an advantage to their strength, while we give up our edge? That's a lose lose. Not very smart.


The other side of that... is if we always get back... as a philosophy.. it helps to limit a strength of theirs and mitigate a weakness of ours, while keeping strong in an area that we already have.

No advantage is given.

They are good at creating turn overs. By creating a mind set of getting back on defense.. when a turnover is created.. the team is trained to already be moving. In theory that means we're already countering on turn overs, while at the same time getting our defense in position.

That dampens transition game of the heat and turnover fecundity. And if we stop the transition game, that forces them into the half court set, which is our bailiwick, our domain.

These are the type of moves I try to find whenever I play chess. Direct pressure, while moving to weaken their strength and also create stronger position.

If we dictate pace we win. You beat speed with timing and discipline.

This will battle of Athleticism/Speed versus Execution and Precision..


That's just my take anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

We sure do have a failure to communicate as I don't understand what you meant in that bolded part.

I'm not asking for the Spurs to try and score more fast break pts. If you tried to say that going for offensive rebounds would allow the Heat a lot more fastbreak opportunities, then Seventyniner has already posted the stats that prove that that doesn't necesarily have to be the case.

---

The tradeoff (does it need its own term now?) is not true for the league, but it could be true for the Spurs given their personnel. Tim and Tiago are not great offensive rebounders, and the two best on the team have other priorities: Leonard needs to defend the break, and Blair needs to keep the bench warm.

Personally, I don't believe in the tradeoff because the main guys getting offensive rebounds are usually the big men, and big men don't generally defend the break. Let's say you have Tim and Tiago on the offensive glass against Bosh and Andersen. Those two Heat players aren't very dangerous on the break, so you don't have to worry too much about them beating Tim and Tiago down the court on the primary break. Bosh and Andersen can run the secondary break, so Tim and Tiago can't just jog back, but Tim and Tiago run the floor well, so I'm not worried about them being a step or two behind after failing to get an offensive rebound.

Basically, you don't have to choose between sending 5 players to the offensive glass and sending none. Sending 2 (Tim and Tiago), while having Parker and two of the Green/Ginobili/Leonard trio defend the break can work pretty well.

And cheers, 100%duncan. The thought of LeBron and Wade constantly throwing down fastbreak dunks on the Spurs gives me nightmares too. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

The tradeoff (does it need its own term now?) is not true for the league, but it could be true for the Spurs given their personnel. Tim and Tiago are not great offensive rebounders, and the two best on the team have other priorities: Leonard needs to defend the break, and Blair needs to keep the bench warm.

Personally, I don't believe in the tradeoff because the main guys getting offensive rebounds are usually the big men, and big men don't generally defend the break. Let's say you have Tim and Tiago on the offensive glass against Bosh and Andersen. Those two Heat players aren't very dangerous on the break, so you don't have to worry too much about them beating Tim and Tiago down the court on the primary break. Bosh and Andersen can run the secondary break, so Tim and Tiago can't just jog back, but Tim and Tiago run the floor well, so I'm not worried about them being a step or two behind after failing to get an offensive rebound.

Basically, you don't have to choose between sending 5 players to the offensive glass and sending none. Sending 2 (Tim and Tiago), while having Parker and two of the Green/Ginobili/Leonard trio defend the break can work pretty well.

And cheers, 100%duncan. The thought of LeBron and Wade constantly throwing down fastbreak dunks on the Spurs gives me nightmares too. :toast

---

Well, that's what I'm asking. Most of the time this Spurs team as a whole sprints to the other side of the court whenever a shot is attempted, I just want two (sometimes three) guys to not give up on the offensive board so easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

You can try to fight for the rebound, not get it and get back to the other side of the court before your man (probably the guy that grabbed the rebound) makes it there.

---

The ball is faster than the man, which is why the Spurs' offense works so well. Teams that crash the boards against the Spurs pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

If it was so clear cut every single team would have the same philosophy yet they don't. For ex: Phil Jackson, one of the winningest coaches in history, never had this strategy.

---

Phil Jackson had the best players in the league. He didn't even have to call timeouts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

I disagree with the whole post as a blanket statement. It might be true for the Spurs, but definitely not for the whole league.

---

Well, it's a statement of results over time, so in general, if it's true for one, it's true for everyone. I see what you mean, though. The Spurs' philosophy is easy shots on offense, no easy shots on defense, so they are going to have five guys ready to play their defense every time down, which means that they will limit your easy baskets for 48 minutes of every single game. Other teams don't do that, but other teams also aren't in the finals, and as a result, it's probably less of an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

I think the bolded statement is absurd. Offensive rebounds are far easier to get than steals in the backcourt.

---

You misinterpreted the statement, which is absurd as you framed it. What I meant is that if you go for an offensive board or try for a steal in the backcourt you are putting your defenders out of position and risk a break the other way. Any kind of gamble is something that bad teams do. It's a massive oversimplification, but you understand what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

The Pacers are #2 in offensive rebounding percentage and #1 in both opponents' fast break efficiency and opponents' fast break points per game.

---

The Spurs don't have a 7'4" guy to stand under the basket grabbing long rebounds and aren't in the second worst division in basketball. The Mavericks would have contended for the central this year.


All that said, Splitter and Duncan are really quick this year. Probably wouldn't hurt to have specific situations where you send a guy like Joseph or Green after rebounds. As a philosophy, I'd much rather focus on my team gathering their own defensive rebounds. When you control your own boards, you don't have to gamble to try to get offensive rebounds, and in turn, you don't risk giving up easy baskets. It's a good solid foundation for winning basketball.

I don't get, because there isn't more Jamming in the NBA: Send some guys to crash and have them pressure the outlet if they dont get it.

I get why it isn't done on Timmy with his nice outlets, but I don't expect Bosh or Haslem to do great.

Duncan is not the rebounder he once was and we really do not have excellent rebounders other than Kawhi and Blair. As for Blair, we all know why he does not get rotation minutes. So perhaps it has become apparent to Pop to not focus on getting offensive rebounds and to get back on D immediately, instead. Rather, OP should be glad on what it has made our team and what our team has accomplished so far: one of the top defensive teams and one of the three remaining teams fighting for the championship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

We sure do have a failure to communicate as I don't understand what you meant in that bolded part.

I'm not asking for the Spurs to try and score more fast break pts. If you tried to say that going for offensive rebounds would allow the Heat a lot more fastbreak opportunities, then Seventyniner has already posted the stats that prove that that doesn't necesarily have to be the case.

---

I meant to say "second chance points". Just read too many comments about fast break points above. But you knew that, didn't you? Never let an opportunity to be a dick go to waste?

This has been talked about many times in ST, but here it is again. Under Pop, the Spurs have always been near the bottom of the league in offensive rebounds. But what most complainers don't take time to notice is that they are routinely at or near the top in defensive rebounds. That's no accident. Pop believes that the Spurs system can hold opponents' FG% to something lower than what the Spurs' offense can shoot. They do that by getting back on defense. And on those nights when the Spurs' offense isn't clicking, it gives them the ability to win ugly lots of times.

And it's not just about stopping the fast break. It's about getting their defense set up early in the possession. That gives them the opportunity to force the offense later into the shot clock, which is almost always a recipe for lowering FG%. Yes, fast break buckets are easy points. But in general, the earlier in the shot clock a team is shooting, the easier the points. Don't believe me? Look on 82games.com, at the advanced team stats. It shows how teams shoot from 0-10 seconds into the shot clock, 10-5 seconds, etc. Shooting percentages decline steadily, the later in the clock you go.

The Spurs' results show that it works. The Spurs have the best winning percentage of any team in any major professional sport, for more than a decade. And all those "ugly wins" that the Spurs get are a direct result of Pop's philosophy.

And in case some of you haven't noticed, the Heat play pretty good transition defense, too. You won't win a series with them if you depend heavily on fast break points. They actually average about 91 possessions per game, as compared to the Spurs' 95 possessions. One reason for that is that they are among the best in the league (maybe the best) at scoring late in the shot clock. Bottom line - if you can hold your opponent to a lower FG% than you shoot, you're going to win most of your games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

Personally, I don't believe in the tradeoff because the main guys getting offensive rebounds are usually the big men, and big men don't generally defend the break. Let's say you have Tim and Tiago on the offensive glass against Bosh and Andersen. Those two Heat players aren't very dangerous on the break, so you don't have to worry too much about them beating Tim and Tiago down the court on the primary break. Bosh and Andersen can run the secondary break, so Tim and Tiago can't just jog back, but Tim and Tiago run the floor well, so I'm not worried about them being a step or two behind after failing to get an offensive rebound.

Basically, you don't have to choose between sending 5 players to the offensive glass and sending none. Sending 2 (Tim and Tiago), while having Parker and two of the Green/Ginobili/Leonard trio defend the break can work pretty well.

---

I think that for teams like Miami, you need all or 4 back on D, not 3, to prevent their transition baskets. See: Lebron James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seventyniner

The Pacers are #2 in offensive rebounding percentage and #1 in both opponents' fast break efficiency and opponents' fast break points per game. In other words, there doesn't have to be a tradeoff between offensive rebounding and fast break defense.

---

There is a tradeoff. Obviously, if you are #2 in offensive rebounding, it means that your opponent DO NOT get to fast break as you get the rebound instead of them. To do that will be a totally different philosophy, and its considered a gamble. If you do not get the offensive rebound, you give up the fast break. Simple as that. So for a team that tries for the offensive rebound, but fails, you lose out. Thats the tradeoff. Either you become very good at offensive rebounding, or you just get back on defense fast enough. Pacers is on one end of the spectrum, and spurs is on the other. Thats why both the defenses are ranked top in the league. Other teams that do a little of both result in lousy defenses.

Spurs FG% is too high to gamble on Offensive rebounds tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

I meant to say "second chance points". Just read too many comments about fast break points above. But you knew that, didn't you? Never let an opportunity to be a dick go to waste?

---

:lol No, I honestly didn't understand. Sorry if you felt offended, it trully wasn't my intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

This has been talked about many times in ST, but here it is again. Under Pop, the Spurs have always been near the bottom of the league in offensive rebounds. But what most complainers don't take time to notice is that they are routinely at or near the top in defensive rebounds. That's no accident. Pop believes that the Spurs system can hold opponents' FG% to something lower than what the Spurs' offense can shoot. They do that by getting back on defense. And on those nights when the Spurs' offense isn't clicking, it gives them the ability to win ugly lots of times.

And it's not just about stopping the fast break. It's about getting their defense set up early in the possession. That gives them the opportunity to force the offense later into the shot clock, which is almost always a recipe for lowering FG%. Yes, fast break buckets are easy points. But in general, the earlier in the shot clock a team is shooting, the easier the points. Don't believe me? Look on 82games.com, at the advanced team stats. It shows how teams shoot from 0-10 seconds into the shot clock, 10-5 seconds, etc. Shooting percentages decline steadily, the later in the clock you go.

The Spurs' results show that it works. The Spurs have the best winning percentage of any team in any major professional sport, for more than a decade. And all those "ugly wins" that the Spurs get are a direct result of Pop's philosophy.

And in case some of you haven't noticed, the Heat play pretty good transition defense, too. You won't win a series with them if you depend heavily on fast break points. They actually average about 91 possessions per game, as compared to the Spurs' 95 possessions. One reason for that is that they are among the best in the league (maybe the best) at scoring late in the shot clock. Bottom line - if you can hold your opponent to a lower FG% than you shoot, you're going to win most of your games.

---

The point is that going for offensive rebounds a bit more doesn't necessarily mean that you will allow more fastbreak points or allow the other team to shoot better. The proof is on the Pacers which are #2 in offensive rebounds and #1 in pts allowed on fastbreak and #1 on FG% allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyhy

There is a tradeoff. Obviously, if you are #2 in offensive rebounding, it means that your opponent DO NOT get to fast break as you get the rebound instead of them. To do that will be a totally different philosophy, and its considered a gamble. If you do not get the offensive rebound, you give up the fast break. Simple as that. So for a team that tries for the offensive rebound, but fails, you lose out. Thats the tradeoff. Either you become very good at offensive rebounding, or you just get back on defense fast enough. Pacers is on one end of the spectrum, and spurs is on the other. Thats why both the defenses are ranked top in the league. Other teams that do a little of both result in lousy defenses.

---

Brooklyn was the #4 team in offensive rebounds and the #13 worst team preventing fastbreak pts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Brooklyn was the #4 team in offensive rebounds and the #13 worst team preventing fastbreak pts.

---

Doesnt that just show how GOOD your offensive rebounding have to be in order to offset the loss in fastbreak pts? Being 4th is not good enough and thats why they are giving up fast break points. Thats why spurs decided to just be on the other end instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyhy

Doesnt that just show how GOOD your offensive rebounding have to be in order to offset the loss in fastbreak pts? Being 4th is not good enough and thats why they are giving up fast break points. Thats why spurs decided to just be on the other end instead.

---

No, it doesn't show that, tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

No, it doesn't show that, tbh.

---

Great comeback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyhy

Great comeback.

---

It was an answer, not a comeback. I didn't realize we were throwing comebacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

It was an answer, not a comeback. I didn't realize we were throwing comebacks.

---

Great answer then. Am i supposed to say "Yes it does show that, tbh"?

Our bigs aren't young and fast enough to do that bro. I'd rather have Duncan back on D 90-95% of the time than get an extra offensive board or two per game anyway though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Seeing this Pacers-Heat series I wish Pop would let our guys crash the boards a little bit more. Actually this is a thing I've always wanted to see as a Spurs fan. There's no reason to have all 5 guys running to the defensive even before shooting the ball on every single possesion.

Seriously, how many more fastbreak pts per game would the Spurs allow if 2 or 3 guys stay to fight for the offensive board and then get back as oppossed to what we do now? I bet the net difference between offensive boards/fastbreak pts allowed would be positive.

---

Against the Heat? 14-15 points.
Seriously? You want to change what has worked for 16 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

You can try to fight for the rebound, not get it and get back to the other side of the court before your man (probably the guy that grabbed the rebound) makes it there.

---

Only idiots would dribble the ball all the way up the court. There's this thing, called an outlet pass....

I'm a bit unsure why anyone is saying, "Hey look at what 49-win Indiana does. Let's do that."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I'm a bit unsure why anyone is saying, "Hey look at what 49-win Indiana does. Let's do that."

---

Because all they're seeing is that Indiana is 2-2 against the 66 win defending champs.

Never mind that the Spurs tore through two post teams with mediocre spacing and a jumpshooting athletic team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by racm

Because all they're seeing is that Indiana is 2-2 against the 66 win defending champs.

---

And we think that the reason Indiana won game 4 against Miami is that big +3 in offensive rebounds and not the +16 in DEFENSIVE rebounds.

I'm fine with pop strategy tbh. I'd rather have Tim and tiago spend their energy on the defensive than struggling against a team boxing out to grab a few more offensive rebounds. Tiago is young enough to do that but he is not strong or tough enough to consistently chase the offensive rebound. If there is a good opportunity go for it if you have to go crazy and physical to get it, just focus on transition defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Only idiots would dribble the ball all the way up the court. There's this thing, called an outlet pass....

---

:rolleyes Of course I'm not saying the man would dribble the ball to the other side. I'm saying that they guy would throw the outlet pass but there wouldn't be any numerical advantage in terms of players on the other side of the floor if the guy that makes the outlet pass doesn't make it to the other side before all of the defensive players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

I'm a bit unsure why anyone is saying, "Hey look at what 49-win Indiana does. Let's do that."

---

Because I'm not bringing this up for the regular season, I bring this up to play the Heat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAF86

Because I'm not bringing this up for the regular season, I bring this up to play the Heat.

---

So again, it's the +3 in offensive rebounds that is the big difference, and not the +16 in defensive rebounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

So again, it's the +3 in offensive rebounds that is the big difference, and not the +16 in defensive rebounds.

---

If the Pacers only have a +3 on offensive rebounds is 'cause the Heat must have been getting tons of offensive rebounds too because the Pacers have been murdering the Heat on the offensive glass and has been one of the main reasons why they're tied 2-2 (and should be up 3-1). If the Heat get a lot of offensive rebounds against this Pacers team they could pretty damn well do the same against us, if we not fight back on their side of the floor it could get ugly.