Reply With Quote
Blair became expendable for hanging around for offensive boards tbh
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by GSH; 05-29-2013 at 11:31 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
