Reply With Quote
If being top 5 defensively means giving up on the offensive boards, I'll take it any day.
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?
If being top 5 defensively means giving up on the offensive boards, I'll take it any day.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yeah I don't worry about that stat. Getting back on D is much more valuable
High FG%+ getting back on D= lack of offensive rebounding
Yeah, I just used the wrong terms that's all
That said, top 2 in DRB% and top 3 in opponent eFG% is elite, tbh
props on acknowledging blair as an elite rebounder ............ blair haters will never admit it ................
Yeah, I just used the wrong terms that's all
That said, top 2 in DRB% and top 3 in opponent eFG% is elite, tbhalright, 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.
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
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.
Agreed, we're getting back on D much faster than last season.
edit: everyone and their mom has already mentioned getting back on D.
The Spurs are 30th in offensive rebound percentage... But who cares, they're great at getting back on D
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.
^ If getting back on defense stops just one easy fast break bucket a game then it's probably worth it then...
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.
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.
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...oints-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.
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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
