Daily Thunder.com

People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

In the playoffs it comes down to player matchups and Factor matchups and who can exert their strength.

There probably have been times this season where they've had 2 top 10s and 4 bottom 10s. I don't mean to overemphasize getting into or out of each ten about it is a way to simplify the data and balance is important.

If they can keep 4 top 10s and keep it down to 2 or less bottom 10s they are in pretty good shape. Improve by one or two more Factors- into the top 10 or out of the bottom 10 and you will move up in the standings and in playoff contender status.

Actually it is only 2 now that I think about it. They have a 20th and 21st ranking. The former isn't bottom 10.

It is realistic they could end the season with only 1 bottom 10 Factor- own turnovers. That seems like the least likely to change anytime soon without major personnel change or coaching impact.

@Sammy
And I can definitely understand/respect that.

It might just be the writer side of me that finds the statement incomplete and shockingly misleading (just because they don't reference or acknowledge a fact/statistic (the DRR) that could be used to discredit their overall assertion, which is typically Lesson 1 in writing essays or articles that are argumentative/proving a point based). So it strikes me as either lazy or intentionally misleading.

Actually Thunder only have 3 weakness to the level of bottom 10 right now. Sorry fouls given fluctuates in and out of bottom 10.

If you willing to make any changes to try to address team weakness you'd reduce minutes for poor shooter / scorers and add for better ones (Collison, White if healthy, if you believe) reduce for turnover producers and add for protectors (Harden and White), reduce for weak rebounders and add for strong ones (Ibaka and Collison).

@Crow
So the Thunder have 4 top 10 and 4 bottom 10 out of the 8 factors? I guess that's a good way to exploit strengths/cover weaknesses. Don't try to do everything, but do some things very well. No doubt cutting down on TOs to the point it's no longer bottom 10 would really help.

@J.G.
Going back to the original question, do I feel comfortable with that statement? Yes, yes I do. When you grab more rebounds than the other team on a consistent basis, you're the better rebounding team. That Cleveland is a mediocre offensive rebounding team doesn't mean calling them the "best rebounding team in the league" would be a misleading statement.

I don't know. To me, getting upset at a statement like that is like getting upset if someone were to say "Monta Ellis is one of the highest scorers in the game." Sure, if you want to dig into it, you can bring up efficiency stats and rates and pace to devalue Monta's performance, but the core statement is still pretty impeachably correct.

@Crow
So which one do you think the Thunder are most likely to get out of regarding the four bottom 10 factors?

They can do what they want J.G.

Recent conference finalists have had 1-3 bottom 10 Factors. So that doesn't automatically disqualify.

Thunder do have 4 of those though.

Nobody with a better record has more than 3.

@Crow

@4razr

@Sammy

Pretty sure everyone else has checked out of this thread at this point. :)

about = above

@Sammy
Woops, reversed the stats on that one. My bad, haha! Too many columns on ESPN's Stats Page.

Change that to "they only grab 72.93% of defensive rebounds when 19 other teams rebound about 73.0% and only 8 rebound below 72.93%."

If they were evenly distributed teams would have 2.7. If you have less than that you really don't have many strengths.

Sorry. Top "10" factors.

Houston 1

Top 1- factors for teams right now
(not including everybody, just the ones I wanted to show)

Phoenix 1
Denver 4
Cleveland 4
Atlanta 4
San Antonio 5
Utah 5
Memphis 2
LA Lakers 3
Dallas 3
Orlando 5
Boston 4
New Orleans 2

J.G. :

Sammy :@4razrI don’t think Etan does anything Ibaka doesn’t do as well or better. Interior defense, rebounding, blocks, shaky offense. Plus by playing Ibaka you get the added benefit of developing one of your long-term players. I don’t have a problem at all with sitting Etan.

Now that I’m totally in agreement with you on!

I LOVE the development of Ibaka. And I want him to play. That being said, Thomas brings experience and a steadiness in the post that could be a real asset for the team in the playoffs. But to get there, he has to play and team has to figure out where/how he is going to fit in. Playoffs are a lot about matchups, and he brings a dimension that is lacking with Ibaka. Thomas could even coexist with Collison or Ibaka for limited minutes. Being able to go big is not a bad thing.

@J.G.
Whaaaa??? Thunder grab 72.93% of all rebounds available at the defensive end, not 30%.

@4razr
Haha, J.G. is actually my own initials but I do get confused whenever individuals are talking about Jeff Green and use JG on here sometimes.

And you're right, it wasn't blatantly false.

But since when did any falseness in journalism become acceptable as the standard? "If you get it mostly right, but leave out one-third of the issue that might contradict the other two-thirds then...hey, don't worry about it. It's almost true, right?"

Professors everywhere might be crying inside a little bit if that's the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2F_uSj-SDM

Just watched the video on JP Wilson, and he HAS to be a protoge of David Thomas. He dresses like him, uses some of the same illusions and acts just like the guy. Also, the voice at the beginning is a guy that does a ton of voice work for Frontier City. . driving me crazy that I can't remember his name.

Actually the Thunder have 4 right now. I temporarily forgot about their top 10s on offensive rebounding and getting to the line. So they are in the neighborhood.

Really Sammy, it just comes down to this for individuals I guess.

Are you comfortable in calling a team one of the league's best rebounding teams, when they fail to grab even 30% of all defensive rebounding opportunities they have, thereby allowing their opponent to control 70% of all of their own offensive rebounds? Knowing that this team gets completely dominated (70-30) on the boards on one end of the court?

@J.G.
By "more than most," I mean "more than all but 5 teams." I just don't any reason to get incensed at what is essentially a true statement.

Occasionally teams get into the conference finals with just 3 top 10s but it will usually be on the most important factors and / or joined by some close calls or fewer than average weaknesses.

@J.G.
Oh, I don't know Jeff. OKC is good at limiting Opp FG% and bad at DRR. Does that mean they're not a good defensive team? The statement made was superficial, but it wasn't blatently false.

Sammy :@4razrI don’t think Etan does anything Ibaka doesn’t do as well or better. Interior defense, rebounding, blocks, shaky offense. Plus by playing Ibaka you get the added benefit of developing one of your long-term players. I don’t have a problem at all with sitting Etan.

Now that I'm totally in agreement with you on!

@4razr
I don't think Etan does anything Ibaka doesn't do as well or better. Interior defense, rebounding, blocks, shaky offense. Plus by playing Ibaka you get the added benefit of developing one of your long-term players. I don't have a problem at all with sitting Etan.

@Sammy
More than most teams in total rebounds, yeah, that's true. Absolutely.

And what about total defensive rebounds again? Worse than most, right?

"More than most" does not equal best, unfortunately.

But we're getting into a "chicken or the egg" type of circular argument here.

The Thunder may be, "one of the best rebounding teams in the league," but that statement obscures more than it reveals. It's not necessarily shoddy journalism (they arguably get the facts right), but it is shoddy analysis.

Teams who make the conference finals tend to have at least 4 and as many as 6 top 10 Factors out of the 8 Factors for offense and defense.

So using DSMOk1's regression results the Thunder are top 10 on two of the four most important Factors on defense (shooting defense and forcing turnovers) and bottom ten on 2 on offense (shooting and turnovers). That is pretty good for now but it is not all bests on what counts (unless you go to the differentials and there can be a case for doing that). It probably isn't enough to be a top contender.

@Sammy
Actually, the 04-05 Suns were surprisingly average on defense that season (middle of the road). They held their opponents to 44.5% FG and 33.5% 3PT. I know Basketball Reference had them as the 17th rated defense and the #1 rated Offense.

So when you're 1st in offense across the board and average at defense, you're going to be one of the top teams.

And I'm sorry to disagree with you on this, but when a team is only good in 2 of the 3 phases of a stat, a blanket statement will NEVER be true UNLESS qualified. For a professional journalism institution to fail to qualify it (aka, give all sides of an issue) is down-right shocking.

@Sammy
I don't really care about the article at all, I'm interested in what will make the team better. To that end, I think perhaps we should play Etan Thomas, at least keep him in the mix. Now, maybe he's gone by the trade deadline. But if not, he becomes a real asset for the playoffs, imo. He brings something that no one else on the team really does with his toughness and presence in the paint. He wasn't terrible in the minutes he played this year, and he's a real change of pace. After the deadline, I would love to see this team try everything to win a series in the playoffs, including incorporating the skills and experience of Thomas. I don't really understand why he's not playing, other than 1) he's not in the long-term plans, so we're developing players who are, and 2) it's hard to trade an injured player. But if he remains on the team, he needs to play! Free Etan!

@justin
yeah we are are 30+ win team already if we rebounded just a little better, we would have beat SA we were -5 rebs, -5 OR, bucks -6rebs -8 OR, one laker game we were -7rebs, houston -5OR and another game -11r, -15 Or, cleveland -1reb, kings -15r -7OR, those games all could have flipped with better rebounding, thats +7 wins, 35-14 record, 3rd best team in the league.

@4razr
How is this relevant in any way?

@J.G.
Of all the rebounds available in a game, we grab more than most teams. I don't understand how that doesn't qualify us as one of the best rebounding teams in the league.

Good catch Taz-Mania.

@Sammy
How did that work out for them in the playoffs?

@f5alcon
Ideally, yeah, that's my point. But those guys don't come around much. Might have to be willing to pony up to get one on our team. Might also get lucky: so many fa's, so few teams with cap space this summer, who knows what will happen....

@J.G.
Okay, fine, what about the 04-05 Suns? They were one of the best teams that year. I don't feel the need to qualify that by saying they were mediocre defensively.

All I'm getting at is people are jumping all over that article because it said the Thunder are one of the best rebounding teams in the league. This is a true statement without need for qualification.

Does total rebounding percentage or rebound differential correlate any better with wins than either ORR or DRR? Because those two are so close, it looks like you can win either way. I'd also be interested in seeing these correlations for playoff games only over the last 10 years or so. I want to know what works for winners in the playoffs, not just the regular season. This is one of the places where the Spurs have excelled, imo; they've built their teams and their strategy for the playoffs, for winning low-scoring, grind-it-out games with superior execution.

@4razr
you could get a big thats good at both scoring and rebounding, like bosh, david lee

I didn't mean to start so much controversy.. even putting numbers aside, we've clearly lost several games this season because we gave the opposition more scoring oppotunities (whether via offensive rebounding or our own turnovers). The idea that they even mentioned that in the article and still said we're one of the best rebounding teams in the league bugged me. Yeah, even the best teams have bad games, but the best rebounding teams don't lose as many games as we do because they can't protect the glass.

@Sammy
But NewsOK didn't say best at TRR. They said best at the rebounding. A blanket statement of all aspects of rebounding.

Hence why so many people have an issue with it: It's not true.

The Thunder are one of the best teams in the league at Offensive Rebounds and TRR...AND one of the bottom 10 in defensive rebounds.

Omitting the rebounding stat that would disprove a blanket statement is shoddy journalism at best, misleading and false agenda driven reporting at worst.

@Sammy
Except that GSW's offense isn't one of the best in the league because of their strikingly bad offensive efficiency #'s.

That would lead me to say that despite their high FG%, their low Offensive Efficiency brings their offense to about average and we all know how horrible they are defensively, so average overall offense and below average defense DOES equal worst teams in the league.

@Dylan
Let's break it down a little more. We're a bad (at least, not good) DR team. Looks to me like the team is compensating for weakness/exploiting an advantage by emphasizing ORs. This appears to be a good strategy given the makeup of the team. But if we want to be an elite defensive club, I think the next step is to get better at defensive rebounding. But nothing happens in a vaccum. To get better at DR we could use a big who excells in that. We could also shift defensive scheme to stay at home more and help out less--this leads to better positioning, block-outs, and higher DR rate. Might also lead to higher opponents FG%, but with the right players, maybe not.
ORs represent a gamble--hanging around on the offensive end rather than dropping back on D. This has been one of the concerns about Russ, especially since his man would typically be taking taking off down the floor. I prefer a scheme that doesn't gamble and doesn't give up anything easy. So I agree with you, Dylan, "I'd rather be a strong Defensive rebounding team...." That's partly a statement about strategy. The champions tend not to be teams that gamble (I have no statistical evidence to back up that statement, it's merely a conclusion based on my limited set of personal observations.)
But as you also said, Dylan, "with our personnel, that's not going to happen." Another reason that finding a post presence who brings defense and rebounding is so important, imho. Of course, also has to be decent offensively if he's going to start, unless we sub out Thabo for a better scorer. Can't have two offensive liabilities on your starting five.

@justin
TOV should get lower with time, players get stronger, less easy to rip the ball away, make better decisions passing, the turnovers in part is an age thing

@Sammy
yeah, though it might work out the other way, we would score less but so would they, it would just mean really low scores, the differential also matters, really if our 2nd chance points is more then theirs we are winning the outcome of the rebound battle.