http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...sition-defenseDoc Rivers has been perhaps the loudest coach in proclaiming the irrelevancy of the offensive glass:
“So, you’re a big believer in offensive rebounds I think; I’m not. Listen, like I said, you can pick on that all I want. That is a number I rarely look at, is offensive rebounds. Statistically it holds up. I can tell you, you don’t offensive rebound, you stop transition, you win more games than when you get offensive rebounds. I can guarantee you that on those stats.”
But he’s far from the only one. The Spurs under Gregg Popovich have long punted on offensive rebounding out of the same belief, and several of the most successful teams in recent NBA history — Rivers's Celtics, Stan Van Gundy's Magic, Mike Brown's Cavaliers (to a lesser extent), the current Miami Heat — have been happy at the bottom of the league’s offensive rebounding ranks. League-wide, offensive rebounding rate has been on a prolonged drop. “As a coach, you look at what is most important to winning and construct a game plan around that,” says Jeff Van Gundy. “And offensive rebounding just doesn’t seem to have a correlation with winning big.”
Lowe delivers yet again.
A lot of food for thought here.
One matter I think should be discussed with regard to the Spurs: Kawhi's rebounding ability in their offensive schemes. Should the Spurs have Kawhi focus on getting back on transition D to cover the main perimeter threat, or should he take advantage of his rebounding skills and crash the boards? Or should the Spurs have Kawhi read the play and trust in his ability to make the right decision to crash or get back?
He's Kawhi Leonard. I trust him to read the play well.
Offensive rebound that led to Ray Allen's 3 ball says o.
That's a GREAT set of questions. I talked about it a little in my perimeter-defense thread that I made during the Finals. Leonard was awful in transition versus the Heat, and he lost James almost every time. But Green being perhaps the best fastbreak defender in the league meant that James did not kill the Spurs like he would other teams. However, Leonard never seemed to get that, since Green was covering James, he needed to find Wade. So Wade got a good number of open shots when Green forced James to pass while Leonard didn't even cross half court.
So I would say that Green's skills should allow Leonard to continue to be who he is as far as rebounding. They're both elite in their areas, so it should work out very well. However, Leonard needs to get smarter about finding his new man if he doesn't get the rebound. If he doesn't, he's exactly playing into the fear that Pop has.
I think the Spurs are hurting themselves in this regard. Offensive rebounding can really help a good defensive team and weaken the will of the other team defensively. Not all teams are capable of taking advantage of offensive rebounding in transition.
"I can tell you, you don’t offensive rebound, you stop transition, you win more games than when you get offensive rebounds."
Im sorry, but thats just plain stupid.
Of course stopping transition is better...duh!
I have another strategy, full court press and get half court violations in every play.
Add these to the Spurs 4 les, and you have another le from Doc, two from the Heat, and two Finals appearances by SVG and Brown. Yeah, that really makes the case that you should abandon getting back on D and crash the O glass.Rivers's Celtics, Stan Van Gundy's Magic, Mike Brown's Cavaliers (to a lesser extent), the current Miami Heat ....
Well let's not forget those teams all had super players on them too. Two of them had LeBron, one had Dwight (at his peak, and during some of the east's weakest years), one had super Duncan and Parker/Ginobili (when he was stll good), and the other had Garnett, Allen, and Pierce. And all but one of those played in the crappy eastern conference with barely any other decent teams to offer up resistance.
I don't think those examples are neccessarily proof it works. Meanwhile I can recall many, many games where the teams I watch (Bulls/Spurs) almost always lost when they got out offensive rebounded by a significant margin. There's a very high chance of a loss if you get out Off rebounded by 10 or more. It's usually a loss if you get out Off rebounded by half a dozen unless other factors are in your favor (you're making easy stuff, they aren't. You're not turning it over, they are, etc).
I'm sure it's great when you have multiple superstars, the best center in the league in a very weak conference, or a top 10 GOAT player to help make sure your offense works the first time around rather than need the boards, but I don't think it's something that will work for any ol' team. Not a stat or tactic that should be ignored imo. It can help change momentum in your favor and give you team a huge relief during times you're struggling for offense.
I don't think it should be ignored. The only times you should go away from offensive rebounding are when you're facing teams with great transition offenses that you need to stop at all costs like Miami, OKC, etc.
If you get outrebounded by that much on the O glass, you may not have a big problem at all. If you shoot efficiently, you may just have fewer opportunities. That's the other half of the coin. One is that you don't emphasize the O glass, and two is that you run a MONSTER efficient offense that generates GOOD shots that go in at a high rate. A way to close the gap is to emphasize your defensive glass, and Pop DOES emphasize that. He's ALWAYS on the team for not cleaning the defensive glass.
"Defense isn't over until the ball is secured." Sean always quotes that as a Pop mantra if SA bobbles a ball away.
Thst's part of what I was saying. You can get away with not making an effort on the offensive glass if your team has a high quality offense that includes GOAT players like in the examples given. It isn't something that works for all teams and in all situations. It seems more like a strategy for specific teams or to use against specific teams to me.
I know D glass is important too, I've never said it wasn't. Rebounds were always important on either end of the floor, I've always thought that even since I was a kid. Easily the most underrated aspect of basketball that heavily impacts the game imo.
I think having a high quality offense is even more reason to go after the offensive glass. When the Bulls were winning from 96-98 they were top 3 in offensive rebounds and they already had the top offense. To me it speaks to the idea of taking nothing for granted. That reduces the chances of your team getting beat by lucky shots and unlucky bounces. Why does it make sense for a good offensive team to rebound their misses? It's usually easier to score second chance points because the defense is out of position. Giving a good offensive team more chances only helps.
Y'See, they also had this guy named Jordan. Maybe you've heard of him...
Without Leonard gobbling up Offensive Rebounds like PacMan dots we would have lost 4-1.
My point is they were a top offensive team and they still attacked the offensive glass.
My point is, THEY HAD THE GREATEST ING PLAYER OF ALL TIME, and could pretty much play any way they wanted. If the rules had allowed it, the could have run a Four Corners offense, and averaged 38 points per game and STILL dominated. Normal rules and conventions did not apply to them.
Bullcrap. Jordan didn't win for years, around six before he finally won. It took a good philosophy and a good supporting cast to get those champions.
I think the Spurs should game plan for it depending on the team. If its a good running team, no, get back. If its more of a half court team, why not crash?
What's there to discuss? There's 3 options. One of them is the correct option. Nobody knows what the correct option is. And, there's really no way to tell which one is the correct option because you can't go back in time to re-do the "experiment."
You are probably right.. I think 4-2 though since they shot the lights out for two games anyways.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
