Offensive rebounds

[DAF86]

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.

[Yuixafun]

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.

[Seventyniner]

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.

[DAF86]

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.

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.

[Obstructed_View]

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.

[Obstructed_View]

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.

[Obstructed_View]

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.

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.

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.

[mudyez]

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.

[Vash StampedE]

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.

[GSH]

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 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.

[Vash StampedE]

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

[hyhy]

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.

[Brunodf]

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

[DAF86]

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 go to waste?

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

[DAF86]

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.

[DAF86]

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.

[hyhy]

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.

[DAF86]

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.

[hyhy]

No, it doesn't show that, tbh.

Great comeback.

[DAF86]

Great comeback.

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

[hyhy]

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"?

[Kidd K]

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.

[exstatic]

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?

[exstatic]

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....

[Obstructed_View]

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