1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Awesome article on Grantland: Debunking the Myths of Offensive Rebounding and Transition Defense

Discussion in 'Houston Rockets: Game Action & Roster Moves' started by bmd, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. bmd

    bmd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    3,514
    The article is about 4 months old, but I've never seen it and I assume many of you have not as well. The article talks about how crashing the boards and getting back on defense are not really related. A team can do both well.

    Here is an excerpt. I cut out a lot of paragraphs.:



    Party Crashers: Debunking the Myths of Offensive Rebounding and Transition Defense


    The Pacers were perhaps the league’s best offensive rebounding team — no. 4 in offensive rebounding rate during the regular season, no. 1 by a long shot in the playoffs — and the stingiest transition defense in the league by almost every available measure. There’s a fairly widespread assumption that it’s very hard to be good at both of these things. Crash the offensive glass aggressively enough to earn a meaningful number of extra possessions, and you’ll stab at your own transition defense. That follows in part from the belief among coaches and (some) stats-oriented front-office people that offensive rebounding doesn’t really matter in the construction of winning teams.


    There are two connected assumptions here:

    1. Crashing the boards means sacrificing transition defense.

    2. Offensive rebounding doesn’t really matter.



    The Pacers are basically spitting in the faces of both of those assumptions. And in doing so, they are hinting at a burbling reconsideration around the league of the relative importance of offensive rebounding in general. “We understand it’s extremely difficult to be good at both,” says Frank Vogel, the Pacers’ head coach. “But I think you have to try to be good at both. There are a lot of opportunities to explore.”


    Indiana last season allowed exactly 10 fast-break points per game, the lowest figure in the league in five years, per NBA.com. The stat-tracking service Synergy Sports classified about 11.5 percent of Pacers opponent possessions as “transition” chances — also the lowest mark in the league. The Pacers allowed just 1.03 points per possession on those transition chances. Guess where that mark ranked league-wide?


    When Brian Shaw left to coach the Nuggets, Indiana hired Nate McMillan to work as Vogel’s lead assistant. McMillan’s Portland teams were the proto-Pacers — monsters on the offensive glass and in fast-break prevention. Both coaches have strict rules in place designed to ensure three players chase after every miss, they say.


    If both big men are in the paint, Vogel expects them to pursue offensive rebounds. The third player will be a wing, typically the guy hanging out on the weak side along the baseline, Vogel says. Paul George has the size to be a solid offensive rebounder, and Stephenson brings a desirable combination of athleticism, anticipation, and a lunatic willingness to toss his body around. (Note: This hasn’t yet resulted in either player recording above-average offensive rebounding rates for their position, but Vogel is confident that could change.) The other wing has to scramble back immediately upon the release of a Pacers shot, Vogel says. George Hill does the same, unless a given set play has him positioned along the baseline.


    There are sub-rules. If David West shoots a 20-footer on the pick-and-pop, he’s supposed to get back on defense instead of chasing his miss; a second wing is then allowed to take West’s spot in the crashing hierarchy. And there are techniques, McMillan says. Modern NBA offenses often space the floor by having a shooter in each corner, and under the Vogel-McMillan system, one of those guys is supposed to hit the glass. But that player cannot just take a straight-line path along the baseline, McMillan says. Instead, he should loop from the corner up toward the foul line when a teammate shoots, and once along that path, decide midway whether he’s got a shot at the offensive board.


    Following that curl pattern ensures the player will have already started retreating back on defense in case the rebound goes elsewhere, or if the player concludes he has no chance at it, McMillan says. Scrambling along the baseline would leave that player way behind the action.


    Vogel and McMillan have rarely altered these principles, not even against LeBron’s Heat or the Steve Nash–era Seven Seconds or Less Suns. Both believe having more players crashing the offensive glass might actually make their team’s transition defense better. If opponents know the Pacers are going to chase boards like maniacs, those opponents can’t start leaking out for fast breaks, the coaches say. “We always felt like if we were putting pressure on opponents to box us out,” McMillan recalls, “then they couldn’t get out and run.”


    It’s tempting to look at all this and suggest coaches are leaving points on the table out of caution. That was essentially the conclusion of several MIT students who used camera-tracking data to see (among other things) how often teams had two, three, or even four players crash the offensive glass — and what happened as teams sent an extra body or two to the boards. The general conclusion the authors presented at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March, based on data from the 2011-12 season, was that teams could net about four extra points per game by recalibrating their philosophy toward offensive rebounding — that teams were being too cautious.


    The idea that good offensive rebounding and good transition defense are mutually exclusive appears to be a myth. Heck, even the Spurs allowed Kawhi Leonard some freedom to crash the offensive boards in the Finals by lurking along the baseline instead of chilling in the corner — and against the Heat, a terrifying fast-break team when enabled.


    This is a topic teams are thinking very, very hard about. The truth is still out there. But the Pacers? They know who they are.




    Full article:

    http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2014-01-14/rockets-trade-rumors-omer-asik-jeremy-lin-dwight-howard-james-harden-nba-finals-western-conference-stats-roster
     
  2. flamingdts

    flamingdts Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    4,488
    So this kind of debunks the whole idea that Beverley's tendency to crash the boards for the offensive rebound would mean giving up transition defense.
     
  3. Chemistry

    Chemistry Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    18
    That's clearly not what the coaches believed because they gave Beverly special licensce to do that while expecting others to get back and defend.

    If this is true then all our PGs should be going for the offensive rebound. Lin has decent size for a PG and he should go for it as well. Typically he is the first one back on transition D but usually it's two on one and he can't stop them on his own anyway. He might as well fight for the offensive rebound.
     
  4. bmd

    bmd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    3,514
    It depends on the scheme, I'm sure.

    If Beverley is supposed to get back on defense, but decides to crash the boards instead, if he fails he will be out of position and somebody will be open in transition.

    I don't know what the Rockets' assignments are in transition, so who knows if what Beverley is doing is good or bad.
     
  5. flamingdts

    flamingdts Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    4,488
    Do you have any proof of Beverley getting "special license" to crash the boards?
     
  6. NotChandlerParsons

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    Messages:
    4,013
    Likes Received:
    127

    http://spacecityscoop.com/2013/10/1...ick-beverley-showing-unique-sense-rebounding/
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. flamingdts

    flamingdts Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    4,488
  8. deedee82

    deedee82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    7
    Actually there is, will try digging it out when back in the office. McHale and Lin did a postgame last year saying only Bev was the only guard greenlighted to crash the boards.

    That was one of the high off board games for Bev when the mention was made.
     
  9. Aleron

    Aleron Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,685
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    it's nothing to do with size, it's the ability to look at a ball in flight and make a relatively good estimate that it will be a long rebound and where the ball is going to land. This is a very very very rare ability, most of his rebounds aren't contested (the odd ones are), but those offensive boards are because he's the only guy there.
     
  10. Billionzz

    Billionzz Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    94
    I saw a post or pre game interview where Mchale stated that Bev did have the green light to get offensive rebounds. He also stated that you do give some up on transition defense, but he thought it was worth it because Bev was good at getting rebounds.
     
  11. meh

    meh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    15,348
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Unless I'm misreading something, this seems to be a terrible article. The main line of defense in transition defense are perimeter players. While the main board crashers are bigs. And this occurs in Indy, where West, Hibbert, Scola, and Mahmni have the highest offensive rebound %s.

    So the question is, who is more likely to stop a transition opportunity? Some combination of George/Stephensen/Hill or some combination of Harden/Lin/Parsons? Cause regardless of what he tries to do, Dwight Howard isn't going to make it back in time to stop any transition baskets. While Harden and Lin aren't going to stop anyone in the open court.

    So basically the articles stats that West and Hibbert are beasts on the boards and Stephensen/PG/Hill are incredible perimeter defenders.
     
  12. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    I think this article is fairly obvious.

    Look, you have to go for offensive rebounds, otherwise the other team feels no pressure to rebound. It's just being smart about how you go about going for it. Doing it in a way to minimize cherry picking and outlet passes. That's it.

    Bev can go for offensive rebounds so long as other players are getting back. They probably let him go for it because the point guard isn't streaking for a layup most times, they are coming back to inbound the ball. But Parsons and Harden better be getting back.
     
  13. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    23,966
    It just shows you how important coaching is in terms of defensive schemes. Offensive rebounding is about talent. Transition defense is about coaching.
     
  14. Chemistry

    Chemistry Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    18
    It does not mean that at all. For an intelligent guy you come up with some pretty disingenuous and dare I say, illogical conclusions. It's like you see an effect then attribute whatever cause fits your pre-conceived world view to it. Which other guy is going to get back? Harden?

    The coaches believe that the risk outweighs the reward with regards to Bev. I don't really have a lot of faith in the coaching staff's judgement in general, but that's another issue.

    At the start of last season Lin was grabbing a lot of rebounds too. I remember in some interview Mchale said something to the effect that he needed to get back/not his job to rebound etc. and after that he started getting back.

    Lin sees the court exceptionally well. He could rebound pretty well if given the green light. He has the size and quickness.

    Beverly needs that green light though, without the rebounding his anaemic at best numbers would be utterly pathetic.
     
  15. flamingdts

    flamingdts Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,550
    Likes Received:
    4,488
    Why do you keep bringing Lin into the conversation?

    Nobody here is talking about Lin but you have some obsessive need to bring him up, and your argument consists of basically nothing but "Lin can do what Beverley does but the coach holds Lin back".

    Furthermore, it does mean exactly what I said.

    If the other guys get back on defense, then transition defense is likely not going to fall apart (unless you are saying that Beverley's defense is so good that only he can stop transition defense). The coaches adjusted the defense to account for Beverley's tendency to crash the boards.

    Furthermore, rebounding is a talent. Anyone who watches the game could see Beverley has a nose for the ball, and McHale gives him the green light because Beverley is so good at rebounding.

    It would be nice if for once, the conversation doesn't need to revolve around Lin or how Lin could do what X player could do as well if given the chance.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. meh

    meh Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    15,348
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Yet the Pacers team highlighed in the article did not achieve their insane level of transition defense until Hill and Stephensen replaced Collison and Granger in the lineup in year 3 of Vogel's tenure in Indy.

    Are you saying that Vogel started to coach transition defense in year 3 but didn't bother in years 1 and 2?
     
  17. Billionzz

    Billionzz Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    94
    There is nothing wrong with him bringing Lin up in the discussion.

    The risk reward question was being discussed, and he just brought up the difference between Lin and Bev since they are both Rocket pg's.

    He should be able to make a post without somebody telling him he shouldn't bring up Lin.
     
  18. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    23,966
    I don't know when he started. Do you? The article clearly states that they have specific strategy on how to offensive rebound and transition defend. Are you saying that the result is not for a large part because of coaching?

    JVG himself said that defense has a lot to do with coaching. Of course, you do need good defensive players. But defense is a lot more about coaching than offense is.
     
  19. larsv8

    larsv8 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    21,663
    Likes Received:
    13,913
    Nothing wrong with it at all, except it shows what his real agenda is.

    Prop up Lin while, discrediting Beverley and McHale.

    His points, as mediocre as they are, carry the same validity with or without mention of Lin.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now