Biggest Concern: Rebounding

[Mediocre Man]

At this point, I have to think you're advancing some sort of agenda. The rebounding has been terrible, and Nate is running an offense you've been begging for the past 5 years.

What's your deal? Seriously, I'm wondering. I know you've taken over my old role of whining about the mods, but you seem to be dead set on proving some point. Reading your posts is like eating soggy Cheerios. Is that the claim you're making?

Our offense the first game was one I have been wanting the past 5 years. Last game the ball and player movement was a lot worse

 

[tlongII]

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

Think long and hard about this. The blazers have trouble securing DEFENSIVE rebounds, which come from OPPONENT MISSES ... NOT THEIR OWN. Is that clear enough for you?

Yep, I completely mis-read this thread. And I wasn't even drinking last night. smh.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

We are not going to be a team that wins games because of rebounding. Whille our SF, SG, and G should rebound better than average, our franchise PF has never posted strong RB numbers and our centers are the two oldest players in the league. Craig Smith and Johnson should help us, but will not be on the floor but for maybe 20 minutes a night total. On nights we do not shoot well or lose the turnover battle, winning is not going to happen at a high rate.

 

[SantaDora]

Actually since we are talking about defensive rebounding, I would trade 8+ ppg for winning the rebounding battle. The blazers historically are the best when they are one of the best rebounding teams. Op has a point and we need to take care of it. What happens when it becomes a half court game? What happens if our team plays great d and forces a missed shot only to give up a offensive board? Nah I'd like us to take care of the glass in these scenarios.

I am sorry? You are for a team that is on average +3 PPG vs. one that is +8 PPG per "game" (roughly, 100 possessions = 1 game, especially if this team runs) if you win the rebounding war?

Win margin is a more reliable success indicator than rebounding advantage.

 

[jlprk]

Przybilla and Oden are not walking back through that door.

 

[tlongII]

Oden will be BACK baby!

 

[magnifier661]

I am sorry? You are for a team that is on average +3 PPG vs. one that is +8 PPG per "game" (roughly, 100 possessions = 1 game, especially if this team runs) if you win the rebounding war?

Win margin is a more reliable success indicator than rebounding advantage.

If a team has 8 more offensive boards they have 8 more shots. If they shoot 40% fg, that means they earn 3.2 extra shots made; which equals 6.4 ppg. Now if they can have 8 more defensive rebounds; that eliminates 8 more shots; which could equal around 6.4 points missed by their opponent. Basically if they improve their offensive and defensive rebounding by 30%; then they could achieve that goal. So winning the rebounding could give you an even higher ppg difference.

You are basing the extra ppg because they would have a faster pace offense. I am telling you that winning the rebounding battle could give you a better +ppg than not worrying about rebounding.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Przybilla and Oden are not walking back through that door.

Hahahaha that was funny

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If a team has 8 more offensive boards they have 8 more shots. If they shoot 40% fg, that means they earn 3.2 extra shots made; which equals 6.4 ppg. Now if they can have 8 more defensive rebounds; that eliminates 8 more shots; which could equal around 6.4 points missed by their opponent. Basically if they improve their offensive and defensive rebounding by 30%; then they could achieve that goal. So winning the rebounding could give you an even higher ppg difference.

You are basing the extra ppg because they would have a faster pace offense. I am telling you that winning the rebounding battle could give you a better +ppg than not worrying about rebounding.

Mags, I think maybe you're missing that they're talking about point differential rather than just scoring. "+8 ppg" is not referring to us scoring more points overall by playing faster; it refers to how much we outscore our opponents by (per 100 possessions).

The point is that winning the rebounding battle is irrelevant if the measures that allow you to do so also decrease your offensive and defensive efficiency such that your overall point differential actually ends up worse.

 

[jlprk]

If a team has 8 more offensive boards they have 8 more shots. If they shoot 40% fg, that means they earn 3.2 extra shots made; which equals 6.4 ppg. Now if they can have 8 more defensive rebounds; that eliminates 8 more shots; which could equal around 6.4 points missed by their opponent. Basically if they improve their offensive and defensive rebounding by 30%; then they could achieve that goal. So winning the rebounding could give you an even higher ppg difference.

You are basing the extra ppg because they would have a faster pace offense. I am telling you that winning the rebounding battle could give you a better +ppg than not worrying about rebounding.

My head is spinning! Damn you, I was trying to get off the coffee! Where is it...

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, I think maybe you're missing that they're talking about point differential rather than just scoring. "+8 ppg" is not referring to us scoring more points overall by playing faster; it refers to how much we outscore our opponents by (per 100 possessions).

The point is that winning the rebounding battle is irrelevant if the measures that allow you to do so also decrease your offensive and defensive efficiency such that your overall point differential actually ends up worse.

Okay but I was explaining that the years our team was one of the best rebounding teams in the league, we were one of the best as well. And some of those teams, we weren't very effective on a per offensive production basis. More rebounds will give us more opportunities to make and less opportunities for the other team to make.

 

[SantaDora]

If a team has 8 more offensive boards they have 8 more shots. If they shoot 40% fg, that means they earn 3.2 extra shots made; which equals 6.4 ppg. Now if they can have 8 more defensive rebounds; that eliminates 8 more shots; which could equal around 6.4 points missed by their opponent. Basically if they improve their offensive and defensive rebounding by 30%; then they could achieve that goal. So winning the rebounding could give you an even higher ppg difference.

You are basing the extra ppg because they would have a faster pace offense. I am telling you that winning the rebounding battle could give you a better +ppg than not worrying about rebounding.

I am basing it on last year's small-team vs big-team point differential.. The small-team averaged 8 points more than the opposition per 100 possessions. The big-team averaged 3 points more. Basically - the small-team beat teams, on average, by a much bigger margin. It's point differential. We have data - and the small-team was a much better team than the big-team. It gave 1 more point per 100 possessions, but it scored 6 more per the same possessions.

 

[SantaDora]

Okay but I was explaining that the years our team was one of the best rebounding teams in the league, we were one of the best as well. And some of those teams, we weren't very effective on a per offensive production basis. More rebounds will give us more opportunities to make and less opportunities for the other team to make.

A superstar Brandon Roy with a Pryzbilla in his prime are not walking through these doors. Given the current roster, the small-team is the one that needs to be played as much as possible together.

 

[magnifier661]

I am basing it on last year's small-team vs big-team point differential.. The small-team averaged 8 points more than the opposition per 100 possessions. The big-team averaged 3 points more. Basically - the small-team beat teams, on average, by a much bigger margin. It's point differential. We have data - and the small-team was a much better team than the big-team. It gave 1 more point per 100 possessions, but it scored 6 more per the same possessions.

But this is a much different team and the team with Wallace being the pf was a small sample size. There isn't the factor that other teams prepare for the type of offense you use more, which may make that style of play less effective. Also the large team lineup back then consisted of miller being the point, instead of Felton. Felton is a better offensive guard than miller, being a better outside shooter, and arguably quicker to guard other pgs that used to burn us driving to the lane.

But... If you can rebound more effectively, you are given more opportunities to score. So even if you shoot a dismal 40% from the field, if we can average 30% better on the offensive boards, it could equate to about 8 more points than we've ever had.

I look at our previous stats as a reference, but not the end all reference. The reason is this team has a different direction now, different key players, and a different style of play. With that in consideration, it would be wise to focus on our offensive and defensive rebounding. Looking back at last season, our defense was pretty good until the other team was able to get the offensive board. That was discouraging to watch and I hope this team doesn't think this is moot like you or others may claim.

 

[SantaDora]

But this is a much different team and the team with Wallace being the pf was a small sample size. There isn't the factor that other teams prepare for the type of offense you use more, which may make that style of play less effective. Also the large team lineup back then consisted of miller being the point, instead of Felton. Felton is a better offensive guard than miller, being a better outside shooter, and arguably quicker to guard other pgs that used to burn us driving to the lane.

We actually have 1400 minutes from last year with a small team, with either Wallace or Dante at the 4 - not a small sample size - if anything, these numbers (114 per 100) include a lot of minutes with Dante, one would assume that with G-Wallace it actually is better. The only change we have - Felton actually helps this line - it opens the floor - where people before could sag on Aldridge (post) and maybe help when Nic/G-Wallace/Mathews slashed to the post - it would be harder to do so with Felton which can actually shoot the 3.

The reason the Roy team had to have great rebounding - was because it did not have post play, it was mostly jump shooting - with the only player slashing, mostly with the ball - was Roy - so you fanned out to give him room - and had all these tall guys that needed to take rebounds when jump-shots were taken. This team is the exact opposite - it needs to keep the space for LMA in the post - and keep the lanes open for slashers through movement.

But... If you can rebound more effectively, you are given more opportunities to score. So even if you shoot a dismal 40% from the field, if we can average 30% better on the offensive boards, it could equate to about 8 more points than we've ever had.

Who is this mythical team that rebounds so much better? Last year, the Miller-Matthews-Batum-Aldridge-Camby (big team) had a RBR of 54.5%, the small-team of Miller-Matthews-Batum-Wallace-Aldridge had 51% - not a big drop-off, and the supposedly big-team closest to this year with Miller-Matthews-Wallace-Aldridge-Camby was below the small-team at 46% - so if you replace miller with Felton - the proposed small-team of this year is better than the one that has Nic on the bench. We also know that the small-team last year had a higher win% than either of the other 2.

I look at our previous stats as a reference, but not the end all reference. The reason is this team has a different direction now, different key players, and a different style of play. With that in consideration, it would be wise to focus on our offensive and defensive rebounding. Looking back at last season, our defense was pretty good until the other team was able to get the offensive board. That was discouraging to watch and I hope this team doesn't think this is moot like you or others may claim.

The changes that were made to this team were to make it faster and with better spacing - this screams to me that the changes that were made - were made because the small-team was so successful. The changes were not made to have better rebounding - the changes were to make it faster (read - small team) - with better spacing (read, less tall, not-mobile guys clogging the middle).

What is the point of bringing a "push the ball" PG if the idea is to have slow big guys?

You continue to talk about how important rebounding is - but the data we have is that without Greg Oden - this team is going to suck at rebounding if it plays the small-ball or the conventional style - and the difference between the small-ball and the conventional style is rather small in rebounding percentages (not always in the big-team favor) - but the win margin and percentage are both in the small-ball favor.

Until this team gets a mobile big body that can rebound, defend and score (read - healthy Greg Oden) - this team should try to play to it's strength - and that is playing fast, small-ball, space the floor with shooters, give the post-man space to work, give the slashers space to slash via movement. If this team is going to try and play conventional ball with old/not-so-mobile big man that are not really scoring threats unless they are close to the basket - they are going to be beat soundly by the better teams in this league. The only way to combat that is to take them out of their comfort zone and make them adjust to you. You make their big slow man try to stop Wallace from slashing or taking a mid-range jumper - and if they go out on him - it leaves Aldridge room to operate in the post or spin for a lob against slower big guys than him.

 

[magnifier661]

Sorry Santa, you give a great response and your points are very respective, but I must agree to disagree with you on this note. You talk about moves that screams small ball, but I see it differently. I see our team get another big in Thomas and smith; whom traits suit rebounding and defense. I don't like run and gun teams and a big fan of defense. I don't like watching our team put a great defensive effort only to see the other team get a offensive rebound. So I would rather have a team able to play solid d and rebound.

 

[SantaDora]

Sorry Santa, you give a great response and your points are very respective, but I must agree to disagree with you on this note. You talk about moves that screams small ball, but I see it differently. I see our team get another big in Thomas and smith; whom traits suit rebounding and defense. I don't like run and gun teams and a big fan of defense. I don't like watching our team put a great defensive effort only to see the other team get a offensive rebound. So I would rather have a team able to play solid d and rebound.

Got one of Thomas/Smith when it was obvious that Oden is a no go - and neither is a starter material. They were signed to anchor the bench which was just awful last year. Dante started 9 games for Portland last year, and he was our "good" backup big (compared to Barron/Collins/Oberto). These guys were not brought in for starting jobs. They were brought in to help our miserable bench.

It is clear that the idea for this year was to play big with Oden in the middle. When it was clear that he had a "setback" - the knee-jerk reaction is to put Camby back in the starting line - but this was proven to be less than satisfactory last year. Let's hope Nate quickly comes to his senses and does not repeat the "Miller goes to the bench" fiasco from 2 years ago. This team will need the 5 best player to spend heavy minutes together to win big this year. The bench was upgraded compared to last year, so having a good first unit (which, as we have seen, was an elite group last year in terms of point-margin) and having a much better bench that will not put you in a hole is the way to go.

 

[magnifier661]

Got one of Thomas/Smith when it was obvious that Oden is a no go - and neither is a starter material. They were signed to anchor the bench which was just awful last year.

It is clear that the idea for this year was to play big with Oden in the middle. When it was clear that he had a "setback" - the knee-jerk reaction is to put Camby back in the starting line - but this was proven to be less than satisfactory last year. Let's hope Nate quickly comes to his senses and does not repeat the "Miller goes to the bench" fiasco from 2 years ago. This team will need the 5 best player to spend heavy minutes together to win big this year. The bench was upgraded compared to last year, so having a good first unit (which, as we have seen, was an elite group last year in terms of point-margin) and having a much better bench that will not put you in a hole is the way to go.

Okay I agree with you about the best players on the floor. But looking at Dallas, brings out something different. I do agree camby has lost his flavor of being starter material, but I hate watching Aldridge have to post centers and defend them as well. Yeah he is still very effective against them, but defensively I think he isn't. Then you have Wallace being outsized on other bigger poer forwards, which was really apparent during last years playoffs. I still think we can run effectively with a big lineup and I have no doubt Nate will use the small lineup as well. But like I said before. I just can't stomach watching us put a great defensive effort, only to lose the rebound.

I will go mad if this is the same pattern this season.

 

[SantaDora]

Okay I agree with you about the best players on the floor. But looking at Dallas, brings out something different. I do agree camby has lost his flavor of being starter material, but I hate watching Aldridge have to post centers and defend them as well. Yeah he is still very effective against them, but defensively I think he isn't. Then you have Wallace being outsized on other bigger poer forwards, which was really apparent during last years playoffs. I still think we can run effectively with a big lineup and I have no doubt Nate will use the small lineup as well. But like I said before. I just can't stomach watching us put a great defensive effort, only to lose the rebound.

The numbers show that the rebounding difference is minimal, and that the big team defense was only better by 1 point per 100 possessions than the small team, but lost big on offense.

It's the cards this team has, as far as the roster is concerned. The defense is going to be average, the rebounding is going to be sub-par no matter what (unless Oden returns and looks like he did 2 years ago). This team has 1 card to play - and that's explosive offense.

 

[PapaG]

The numbers show that the rebounding difference is minimal, and that the big team defense was only better by 1 point per 100 possessions than the small team, but lost big on offense.

It's the cards this team has, as far as the roster is concerned. The defense is going to be average, the rebounding is going to be sub-par no matter what (unless Oden returns and looks like he did 2 years ago). This team has 1 card to play - and that's explosive offense.

Why are you using last year's stats to predict this year's tendencies? What I noticed, and what is relevant to this year's team, is that Utah pounded the offensive glass, and the Blazers suffered for it in the game at Utah. It's a fairly simple concern; if you can't consistently gather defensive rebounds, then any consistent FB game becomes a moot point, since guards will have to help out on the glass instead of leaking out on the break.

As far as last year, the PG was a completely different player than Felton, and while Miller had obvious limitations, he was very good in the half-court set, no matter the size of the players on the court with him. By all reports, Felton thrives in an uptempo offense, and without defensive rebounding, that advantage becomes somewhat negated.