Statisticians prove that higher OREB rate increases ORtg & DRtg (pts per 100)

[3ball]

.
Statisticians proved that 2nd chances from the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increases ORtg by [COLOR="Red"]4 points[/COLOR]:

From Nylon Calculus:

Looking at the league-average level, the takeaway is this: an NBA team generally improves on offense by about 0.62 points per 100 possessions for each percentage point increase in its offensive rebound rate. [COLOR="Navy"]This means that if NBA teams were to improve their offensive rebounding from 23% (where it is now) to 30% (where it was a few years ago), they would generally score about [COLOR="purple"]4.3 points more per 100 possessions[/COLOR].[/COLOR]

http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/01/06/...hree-pointers/https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.c...ve-rebounding/

From Grantland:

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 [COLOR="Navy"]teams could net about [COLOR="purple"]4 extra points[/COLOR] per game by recalibrating their philosophy toward offensive rebounding[/COLOR] — that teams were being too cautious.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pa...ition-defense/

So it's statistical fact that the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increased ORtg by 4 points, and many more points due to greater transition opportunities from crashing the glass.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase created by greater transition opportunities and offensive rebounding.

Ultimately, the different style of play in previous eras (bigs remaining in the paint instead of guarding the perimeter and 3's) and resulting higher offensive rebounding rate is why people are wrong for comparing DRtg across eras.
.

[TheWinningFam]

What are u trying to prove.

[aj1987]

[SouBeachTalents]

[3ball]

What are u trying to prove.

I'll tell you:

People should stop comparing ORtg and DRtg from different eras, since statisticians have proven that points per 100 possessions (ORtg) is significantly affected by offensive rebounding rates, which varies considerably depending on the style of play of that era (i.e. bigs staying in the paint and crashing the glass, versus guarding the perimeter)

does that make sense

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Bad defensive teams = bad defensive rebounding rate = high offensive rebounding rate

[dankok8]

Umm yea...

But offensive rebounding rate is inversely proportional with transition defense. Teams that crash the glass can't run back and teams that run back in transition don't grab many offensive rebounds.

Those tough defenses were allowing more transition baskets and/or fouling a lot more. FT/FGA rate which is one of the four factors influencing ORtg was way higher in Jordan's era as well. Not just offensive rebounding.

[Smoke117]

[3ball]

But offensive rebounding rate is inversely proportional with transition defense. Teams that crash the glass can't run back and teams that run back in transition don't grab many offensive rebounds.

Those tough defenses were allowing more transition baskets

I agree - the ORtg's in the 80's were 1-2 points higher due to greater transition opportunities from crashing the offensive glass more.

However, that means Jordan faced superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, no-spacing) to offset the greater transition opportunities, which is why ORtg's were only 1-2 points higher even though the gap in pace was significantly bigger.
.

[atljonesbro]

[3ball]

.

2nd chances obtained from the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increases ORtg by [COLOR="red"]4 points[/COLOR]:

From Nylon Calculus:

Looking at the league-average level, the takeaway is this: an NBA team generally improves on offense by about 0.62 points per 100 possessions for each percentage point increase in its offensive rebound rate. This means that[COLOR="Navy"] if NBA teams were to improve their offensive rebounding from 23% (where it is now) to 30% (where it was a few years ago), they would generally score about 4.3 points more per 100 possessions[/COLOR][/COLOR].

http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/01/06/...hree-pointers/
https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.c...ve-rebounding/

From Grantland:

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 [COLOR="Navy"]teams could net about 4 extra points per game by recalibrating their philosophy toward offensive rebounding[/COLOR] — that teams were being too cautious.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pa...ition-defense/

In addition to adding 4 points to ORtg, the higher offensive rebounding of the 80's created more high-efficiency transition, which increased pace and ORtg many more points.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase created by greater transition opportunities and offensive rebounding.

[COLOR="darkred"]Conclusion:

Statisticians from Nylon Calculus and Grantland proved that the 2nd chances obtained from the higher offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's increases ORtg by 4 points, in addition to greater transition opportunities from crashing the glass.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase caused by greater transition opportunities and offensive rebounding.[/COLOR]
.

[ClipperRevival]

Honestly 3ball, from what I have read of your posts, you come across as a guy who might've coached or assistant coached at some level, but you don't come across as a guy who played. Maybe I am wrong and I have definitely seen some posts where you do break it down pretty good of a player's game but your reliance on stats a little too much at times makes me think this is the case. Stats are nice but it's about the game itself and the eye test. Am I wrong?

Don't get me wrong, you are no doubt one of the most knowledgable posters on this board. Just curious.

[3ball]

Honestly 3ball, from what I have read of your posts, you come across as a guy who might've coached or assistant coached at some level, but you don't come across as a guy who played. Maybe I am wrong and I have definitely seen some posts where you do break it down pretty good of a player's game but your reliance on stats a little too much at times makes me think this is the case. Stats are nice but it's about the game itself and the eye test. Am I wrong?

Don't get me wrong, you are no doubt one of the most knowledgable posters on this board. Just curious.

People understand my stats-based posts and give them more credit than my eye test posts, which are based on playing with many nba players and that no one can understand

When i made threads about navigational efficiency or jordan's one-of-a-kind hop-step, people had no clue what i was talking about - so now i use stats to inform people of what i see with my eyes.

This thread shows how the statisticians from Nylon Calculus and Grantland proved that 2nd chances yielded from the offensive rebounding level used in the 80's increases ORtg by 4 points, and many more points due to greater transition opportunities from crashing the glass.

However, ORtg was only 1-2 points higher in the 80's, which means that superior halfcourt defense (paint-camping, hand-checking, and no spacing) mostly offset the ORtg increase created by greater transition opportunities/offensive rebounding.
.

[3ball]

.
basically, the 80's helped their offense by crashing the glass more, but hurt their defense in transition DUE TO crashing the glass more - the two effects of higher offensive rebounds (2nd chances, worse transition D) both increase ORtg.

since offensive rebounding rates - and therefore playing style - affects the ORtg calculation, ORtg can't be compared across eras that have different playing styles.