Is this stuff facts?... Or just made-up bullshit?

[3ball]

.

From Nylon Calculus:

"Looking at the league-average level, the takeaway is this: [COLOR="Red"]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 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]"

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

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

These statistics claim that the offensive rebounding rate used in the 80's would increase today's ORtg by [COLOR="DarkRed"]4 points[/COLOR] - and we already know that the greater transition opportunities from crashing the glass increased ORtg many more points.

However, ORtg was only [COLOR="DarkRed"]1-2 points[/COLOR] 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 2nd chance points and greater transition opportunities.

[atljonesbro]

[Kvnzhangyay]

I'll bite- as we all know, correlation is not causation.

I believe this is correlated because, since teams do not FOCUS on offensive rebounding, any offensive rebounds do not come at the expense of free fastbreak points.

If teams were to focus on offensive rebounding, the net points allowed after including all the given up fastbreaks would be negative.

Again, correlation is not causation, so you're wrong anyways to indicate causation

[Nilocon165]

[3ball]

I'll bite- as we all know, correlation is not causation.

I believe this is correlated because, since teams do not FOCUS on offensive rebounding, any offensive rebounds do not come at the expense of free fastbreak points.

If teams were to focus on offensive rebounding, the net points allowed after including all the given up fastbreaks would be negative.

Again, correlation is not causation, so you're wrong anyways to indicate causation

"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."

So the higher offensive rebounding rate of previous eras caused ORtg to be 4 points higher - since offensive rebounding rate affects ORtg, ORtg cannot be compared across eras where different styles of play cause different offensive rebounding rates.

Furthermore, regardless of whether you want to attribute the higher pace of the 80's to higher offensive rebounding rate, it's a fact that pace was higher in the 80's.. The extra fastbreaks increased ORtg along with the aforementioned 4-point boost from a higher offensive rebounding rate - so why wasn't ORtg at least 4 points higher in the 80's?... ORtg was only 1-2 points higher, because the 2nd chances and extra transition was offset by a tougher HALFCOURT defense environment (paint-camping, hand-checking, no spacing).
.

[FKAri]