Yea, boxing out well can make the difference between a ball being 50 50 and being an easy rebound. Jason Collins always stood out for having excellent on/off rebounding impact despite mesiocre individual rebounding numbers.
Plus, you might find things like "game effects" right? Like, what if you find out that a guy like, say, Smart boxes out in a way that wears opponents down and leads to greater team rebounding in the 4th QTR than the 1st, etc. Like, how do you quantify wearing an opponent down?Yea, boxing out well can make the difference between a ball being 50 50 and being an easy rebound. Jason Collins always stood out for having excellent on/off rebounding impact despite mesiocre individual rebounding numbers.
But when we're talking about numbers, garbage in, garbage out, right?
The numbers cited might be like using Range Factor to assess defensive capabilities - a bad idea, close to valueless, but not of zero value. It might be like using Range Factor across positions - absolutely terrible, and certain to lead to bad conclusions. Or it might be like using defensive win shares - not perfect, but takes enough into account that it's at least directionally correct and possibly enough to make firm conclusions.
I asked the questions because I don't know the answers, but I do know those questions are relevant. And if the answer is no, and those simple stats tell us nothing of value, perhaps there are Second Spectrum stats or something else that gives us a clearer picture that's properly adjusted for context.
I'm not going to parse Ale Xander's word "considerably", as that's subjective. But the question of what we know about their respective rebounding capabilities is something I'm interested in seeing answered.
To @Reverend 's point above, among guys 6'7 or shorter who get starters' minutes, only PJ Tucker and Iguodala have higher box-outs/36 than Smart: http://stats.nba.com/players/hustle/?sort=BOX_OUTS&dir=1&PerMode=Per36&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular Season&Height=LT 6-7And, WTF--Smart shocks me. He only got 45.6% of rebounds in the regular season--not that good. Only he (45.6%) and Irving (46.5%) were below 50%. Brown was at 3%.
Adjusted rebound rate (supposedly) accounts for this because it subtracts "deferred rebound chances" - i.e., situations where the player had a "chance" at the rebound (defined as being within 3.5 feet of the rebound) but where a player's teammate gets the actual rebound instead. Interestingly, Smart is only middle of the pack when it comes to deferred rebound chances (Rozier is actually higher than him), but not sure how much of that is just the stats being funky (I know a fair amount of the NBA.com advanced stats can be a bit wonky/obviously inaccurate).He often just boxes his man (often a much bigger player) so that someone else can grab the board. So that's a potential rebound that he doesn't get, which would lower his Rebound Chance %, even while he's partially responsible for the rebound himself. Rozier's a great rebounder regardless, but he definitely benefits from this, as did Avery Bradley (and his crazy jump in rebounding numbers last year). Once you start noticing it, you'll see it all the time.
I think this first point is well-said. Regardless of how well the stats cited are measuring anything, the way that JB and JT are utilized in the schemes at both ends of the court are remarkably similar so there should be very little parsing needed for relative usage.Well, both Tatum and Brown are perimeter players for a team that prefers that its perimeter guys do the rebounding. It's not like this is the 80s and we're comparing the rebounding of a center to a guard.
RebRate basically measures the percentage of available rebounds that a player gets, so if Tatum were a "considerably worse" rebounder his RebRate should be significantly lower rather than basically the same.
Interesting, thanks. I think maybe someone's told me that before and I forgot. That seems like a massive pain in the ass to track.Adjusted rebound rate (supposedly) accounts for this because it subtracts "deferred rebound chances" - i.e., situations where the player had a "chance" at the rebound (defined as being within 3.5 feet of the rebound) but where a player's teammate gets the actual rebound instead. Interestingly, Smart is only middle of the pack when it comes to deferred rebound chances (Rozier is actually higher than him), but not sure how much of that is just the stats being funky (I know a fair amount of the NBA.com advanced stats can be a bit wonky/obviously inaccurate).
I think it's a combination of their switch-happy defense and simple physics. Boston's defense is basically geared to force opponents to shoot long twos, and those 20'+ jumpers generate more rebounding chances in the medium ranges (hence making it easier for smaller players to gather them in).\
To @nighthob 's point that the Celtics scheme has wings working the boards, I wonder if this is just the natural result of having a switchable team, where your guards get switched on opposing bigs down low. I don't know if Bradley switched a lot more than usual last year, but something must explain him nearly doubling his career rebounding rate, then reverting back to his normal when he left.
I believe it was Eddie Sefko of Dallas Morning News. He published his ballot with this homer pick:Jayson Tatum missed by 1 vote being unanimous All-Rookie team. Someone voted him second team. By the way, Josh Jackson, Anunoby, Dillon Brooks, and Teodosic got first team votes.
Semi got a 2nd and 3rd team vote.
To @Reverend 's point above, among guys 6'7 or shorter who get starters' minutes, only PJ Tucker and Iguodala have higher box-outs/36 than Smart: http://stats.nba.com/players/hustle/?sort=BOX_OUTS&dir=1&PerMode=Per36&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular Season&Height=LT 6-7
He often just boxes his man (often a much bigger player) so that someone else can grab the board. So that's a potential rebound that he doesn't get, which would lower his Rebound Chance %, even while he's partially responsible for the rebound himself. Rozier's a great rebounder regardless, but he definitely benefits from this, as did Avery Bradley (and his crazy jump in rebounding numbers last year). Once you start noticing it, you'll see it all the time.
I imagine that, for some schemes, it's kinda like in football where you actually have to know the assignments. I would expect the teams to have internal numbers (well, some of them...) on things like how players rebound in certain "constellations" which is more important than isolating individual contribution in isolation, since nobody plays that way.Adjusted rebound rate (supposedly) accounts for this because it subtracts "deferred rebound chances" - i.e., situations where the player had a "chance" at the rebound (defined as being within 3.5 feet of the rebound) but where a player's teammate gets the actual rebound instead. Interestingly, Smart is only middle of the pack when it comes to deferred rebound chances (Rozier is actually higher than him), but not sure how much of that is just the stats being funky (I know a fair amount of the NBA.com advanced stats can be a bit wonky/obviously inaccurate).
Yeah, the issue for the playoffs is if Tatum isn't playing as well as he could, which the numbers would seem to suggest.All good points.
I think what the numbers show is that Tatum is actually a fine rebounder (at least in comparison to Brown) overall, but he's being beaten in the postseason.
There's one rebounding stat, maybe contested rebounds, where virtually all of the top 50 or so guys are bigs, and somehow Marcus Smart is in there (even though his actual rebounding stats aren't great per se.There are definitely more nuanced ways to look at a player's rebounding prowess than just Reb% or Reb/36. We can also consider team role, team rebounding on/off, contested rebounding %, etc. (To throw out a classic example: the fact that Westbrook has a higher rebounding rate than Steven Adams may require some nuance). But the burden of providing that nuance remains on the person making the claim.
At least in this series.Yeah, the issue for the playoffs is if Tatum isn't playing as well as he could, which the numbers would seem to suggest.
You're right - his usage rate for the series is 20.5% for the CLE series so far, compared with 22.8% for the Bucks series and 26.7% for Philly, per Bball-ref. His usage rate does seem to be correlated with his performance (he played the best in the Philly series when his usage was highest) but as you say it's hard to know whether his usage is down because he's struggling or he's struggling because his usage rate is down.Anyone have his usage rate per series? Seems down now, but not sure if that's because he's struggling or if his numbers are down because we've looked elsewhere.
“He was in high school two years ago and now he’s playing in the Eastern Conference finals,” Justin [Tatum] told Boston.com. “For me to see he has a job he loves and to see his growth, it came all too fast. But when I see all the Tatum jerseys and everybody who enjoys seeing his craft, that’s just a good feeling there.”
Looks to me like he made this adjustment. He's much more direct to the basket and he's doing it with a full head of steam as soon as he gets a half step on his guy. Paid off with lots of free throws tonight.For me it’s Tatum’s significantly superior ability to shoot. I also don’t think their handles are that close. From others who did the hard work, Tatum is at about 50% assisted in the playoffs vs brown around 2/3s. He’s a better isolation scorer today and about 1.5 years younger.
Argggh, and Episode 7 is Curry! But hopefully that curse was exacted in Game 4? The Tatum and LeBron examples would seem to suggest that the "Detail Curse" is only temporary. (But just to be sure, I'd like him to do one on Harden or CP3...)
Not sure about a curse this year but he blessed Jaylen Brown and the Celtics before the year. Thanks Lil B!Argggh, and Episode 7 is Curry! But hopefully that curse was exacted in Game 4? The Tatum and LeBron examples would seem to suggest that the "Detail Curse" is only temporary. (But just to be sure, I'd like him to do one on Harden or CP3...)
Where does the BasedGod curse stand, btw?
Series has shifted considerably when GSW fans are relegated to hoping for a curse.Argggh, and Episode 7 is Curry! But hopefully that curse was exacted in Game 4? The Tatum and LeBron examples would seem to suggest that the "Detail Curse" is only temporary. (But just to be sure, I'd like him to do one on Harden or CP3...)
Where does the BasedGod curse stand, btw?
Also, how about his passing last night?Tatum’s off-ball defensive awareness is just crazy for a guy who can’t legally drink yet. I just keep adjusting my ceiling expectation upwards.
That one to Baynes for the wide open dunk was beautiful. It seemed to happen in slow motion and he read it perfectlyAlso, how about his passing last night?
I mean, these are things we talked about him having to work on in the offseason. He's fucking doing it in the ECF.
Haha, I'm the superstitious type, so don't look at me. I'd be almost as nervous if we were up 3-1 — possibly more so given our history with that lead. :-(Series has shifted considerably when GSW fans are relegated to hoping for a curse.
Give him a break, he's tired.That pass. Oh my.
Pause that playback at 34 seconds, and Lebron is in front of Baynes as they go the other way. Baynes continues ot sort of jog down the court. He is definitely not going full steam, but by the time they get to the three point line, he has two steps on Lebron. Bad hustle there Lebron. Shame
Pretty clearly Thompson and Durant.Depends how liberal you are with the word wing. Who are the wings in GS?
Even that would count as one of the best wing duos since Jordan and Pippen. The only combo that wouldn't is Thompson and Green.Pretty clearly Thompson and Durant.
Didn’t Jordan play guard mostly? Horace Grant and Pippen were the forwards.. what do we mean by wings?Even that would count as one of the best wing duos since Jordan and Pippen. The only combo that wouldn't is Thompson and Green.
I basically mean in the Brad Stevens, ""It may be as simple as three positions now, where you’re either a ball-handler, a wing or a big" sense. That gets messy too- obviously Jordan and Lebron handle the ball a lot- but really any non-point guard, primarily perimeter player. 20 years ago that would've been mostly 2s and 3s, but with the rise of the stretch 4s, the definition has certainly broadened.Didn’t Jordan play guard mostly? Horace Grant and Pippen were the forwards.. what do we mean by wings?
Edit: basically the 2 and the 3?
Increasingly teams use three wing offenses, but back in the day it was the SG/SF slots, the C & PF were your post players.Didn’t Jordan play guard mostly? Horace Grant and Pippen were the forwards.. what do we mean by wings?
Edit: basically the 2 and the 3?
At this point, there's a pretty decent chance he triggers designated player criteria for his contract extension. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this in terms of improving on the fly this rapidly, in these types of situations. Probably the closest was Kawhi going from very good young player to Finals MVP ahead of schedule, and he was 23 then. I guess also Oladipo's jump this year, but that happened mainly over the offseason.Also, how about his passing last night?
I mean, these are things we talked about him having to work on in the offseason. He's fucking doing it in the ECF.
They're not going to do this because they need every dollar to stay under the luxury tax after they (possibly) sign Smart and (probably) sign Kyrie to a max deal.How soon do we rip up his rookie contract and extend the shit out of him? I don't even know the NBA rules about this sort of thing but I see it like he's an Arb-1-eligible. If you're sure about him, buy him out of some injury risk and get a discount while you can.
This just doesn't happen in the NBA, for a lot of reasons.How soon do we rip up his rookie contract and extend the shit out of him? I don't even know the NBA rules about this sort of thing but I see it like he's an Arb-1-eligible. If you're sure about him, buy him out of some injury risk and get a discount while you can.
NBA contracts are maxed at five years and they have control of him on rookie wages for three more. They can also make him a designated player so they can pay him even more on an extension they normally would just for being their player; which is a lot more than he could get leaving town. I see your point, but it’s not really analogous - it’s not a ‘security for discount’ type equation in the same sense as MLB. If he got to FA, every other team can only offer him x. The Celtics will be able to offer him x+. The only real chance of losing him is if he team somehow goes to shit or he has some kind of personal issue arise (neither of which I think anyone is worried about). Plus, as noted above, there’s luxury tax to consider.How soon do we rip up his rookie contract and extend the shit out of him? I don't even know the NBA rules about this sort of thing but I see it like he's an Arb-1-eligible. If you're sure about him, buy him out of some injury risk and get a discount while you can.
No, it’s the rookie scale. Contracts for first round picks run for four years (but they’re only guaranteed for two). You can sign a player to a four year extension after their third season, but the fourth season is still rookie scale.I'm not worried about losing him, I'm worried about saving against the luxury tax in the RFA period or 1-2 years beyond, in order to maximize the length of time we can keep the band together. Sounds like a combination of #1 and #3 will keep that from being viable.
The salary cap in NBA doesn’t work like that (unfortunately) anyways; you can’t tack years on the back end and use an AAV to bring down the hit when he’s making big bucks. Whatever you’re on the books for that year is what goes to the cap/tax. There’s slight increases since max deals are based on % of total cap (which is in turn based on league revenue), but those are essentially accounted for as everything is in scale.I'm not worried about losing him, I'm worried about saving against the luxury tax in the RFA period or 1-2 years beyond, in order to maximize the length of time we can keep the band together. Sounds like a combination of #1 and #3 will keep that from being viable.
If Wyc is willing to spend, they can keep the band together as long as they want.I'm not worried about losing him, I'm worried about saving against the luxury tax in the RFA period or 1-2 years beyond, in order to maximize the length of time we can keep the band together. Sounds like a combination of #1 and #3 will keep that from being viable.