Offensive rebounding

[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.