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

We are one of the worst teams at defensive rebounding and one of the best at offensive rebounding, so we've seen the evidence for this approach all year.

If I could add something to the article: Going for boards on the offensive end also means you have bodies to pressure the outlet pass which buys time for the rest of your defense to get set. How many times have we seen Harden and Lin blow by 3 defenders for a layup in transition? Getting back means nothing if you don't have the time to get set and force the opposition to slow down.

 

What are you talking about?

How about "people should be able to talk about Beverley without somebody saying Lin can do everything he can but better".

What does the portion of the post below have anything to do with "risk and reward" of their playstyle?

 

Don't think the Rockets agree with the article. Remember Parsons rookie year with all the slam dunk putbacks? Those are basically gone because it would be hard for him to get back on defense if he attempts it on a regular basis.

 

I find the point where the wings on the corners are suppose to loop around to the FT line before crashing the boards should they have a decent shot of getting the offensive rebound.
It makes sense on a lot of levels because should they abandon the attempt, they have already begun running back on defense.
I see this philosophy being similar to playing the outfield in baseball as you are taught to take one step back on flyballs regardless of how short it might land because the idea is to keep everything in front of you.

 

So, Indiana's weakness is still in transition defense. The reason they do what they do is because their SF can defend a ball-handler. You may be pressured to leave five back to rebound and choose not to fast-break. Bad idea.

The Pacers are weak on the wing when they crash the boards with their wing. Next time, we should let them send Paul George, rebound with 4 guys not including George's man, outlet to that player or force a mismatch every time down the court.

Think of it this way, David West shoots, Paul George crashes, West gets back on D, West is now guarding Harden or Chandler because they took off. If passing lanes are not open enough to hit the streaker, you have two ball handlers there to beat Paul George, an oaf and another oaf.

Always counter.

 

The correct counter would not just be to drive against Dave West - because he wouldn't be in the paint alone. It's to shoot a 3. West will run into the paint every time. So when you have that two on two situation with a Parsons and a Harden you are almost guaranteed an open 3.

You have Harden or Parsons shoot a 3 and the other crash the boards coming in from the opposite side with momentum.

 

You're kidding right? The OP posted an article about offensive rebounding and transition defense.

You immediately jump in to apply that to Beverly specifically. No one else had brought Beverly up in this thread. The fact is that the issue of Bev's rebounding and not getting back on transition D is something that has been discussed extensively in other threads, and specifically much in relation to Lin, in terms of what Beverely contributes as a starter. And that is what you were responding to when you made your post. To pretend otherwise is asinine.

So yeah, if you pretend those conversations never happened, and completely ignore the context of the whole issue of who starts between Bev and Lin, then in some magical fairy land your post had nothing to do with Lin. Except that's not the case. Man, you have to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've encountered on here.

You might not have brought Lin up specifically, but your post was very much about the Bev/Lin issue. Your weak attempts to weasel and pretend that you were talking about this in isolation, completely detached from the wider context, are utterly laughable.

Mchale gives Bev the green light because it's the only way to make him look useful as a starter and to justify his decision to start him over Lin. This has ALWAYS been about Mchale's ego and continues to be so. Sadly, to the detriment of the Rockets as a whole.

 

I have no idea what you are blabbering on about. This has nothing to do with Lin.

Beverley is known for his aggressive tendencies to crash the boards, and one of the supposed criticism was his tendency to crash the boards leaves transition defense vulnerable. The article posted here, as well as McHale's statements, prove that the Rockets have designed a defensive gameplan to utilize Beverley's rebounding without giving up transition defense.

For whatever reason, you feel the need to fellate Lin when the discussion does not even concern Lin. The original post doesn't even talk about starter or bench or whatever.

Your pathetic attempt to bring in Lin is precisely the reason why so many people here despise you type of posters.

This was the original post.

This has nothing to do with Beverley vs Lin, or who should start, or anything else along those lines. This is specifically addressing Beverley's tendency to crash the board does not affect transition defense. But for whatever reason, your insecurity leads you to bring in Lin to the discussion.

You could have addressed the post by saying "I think Beverley's tendency to crash the boards is bad for transition D". Instead, you feel the need to say "Lin can crash the board as well Beverley if given the chance", which has nothing to do with what I originally said.

Jeremy Lin would be extremely disappointed in your behavior. You should be a Raymond Felton fan instead.

 

Going in circles time since I would be repeating my post. Good luck to you, Sir.