Daily Thunder.com

basketball-reference.com tracks % of offensive, defensive and total rebounds that a player grabs of the total available to either team while he is on the court.

more than halfway down the page
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/2010...

Your suggestion of % of the team's total for the game is also possible and gives a different and useful perspective as well. Yes being dependent on one or two guys has some possible downside if they run into a tough opponent or team tactics to box them out.

Crow :

Kidd isn’t what he used to be but at 6-4 and probably closer to 220 he often has a length and strength edge on his man.

Yeah but it doesn't matter what you have on your man, you're still competing against all the post players that are going up for the same ball. You'd think that a 7 ft guy should be able to get the ball away from the 6'4" guard a little more often than they do.

I personally am most interested to see the stat reb% as in the total number of rebounds collected by one player over the course of a game. Which wouldn't be hard to do it would simply take adding all the rebounds collected in a game and diving an individuals rebounds against that total. Why would this be important??? I think it would show what teams rely on certain players (like Dwight in Orlando) and what teams rebound as a unit (OKC). Also I think you'd start to see some of the difference between technique, strength, and situation start to emerge a little more clearly. A team like GS or NYK shoot more shots per game meaning more rebounding totals so guys like Biedrins and David Lee benefit from that. However, you have teams that run slower offenses that still have high end rebounders, which would mean more efficient and better overall rebounders I would think.

For some more fun rebounding numbers, guys that have been talked about as potential players to bring if this summer: Biedrins (16.3 reb/48), Dalembert (17.7 reb/48), David Lee (15.1 reb/48), Elton Brand (9.6 reb/48) though with his actual 6.1 reb/gm almost half of that came on the offensive side of the ball. In fact for his "bad" numbers this was the first year that brand has ever averaged less than 8 reb/gm and has never averaged fewer than 2.4 off reb/gm. So for everyone who says he can't be a productive pro if 6.1 is his worst which would be good for, 2 best on our team this season, then I'm not sure what everyone's deal is.

Total rebounds per game with get all kinds of mixes of strength, length, hops, technique and effort.

The top 5 on offensive rebounds were Randolph, Howard, Haywood, Lopez and Okafor. At least 4 of those would finish high on a strongest player list.

I think I saw Horford called one of the strongest players on a player's poll.

Kidd isn't what he used to be but at 6-4 and probably closer to 220 he often has a length and strength edge on his man.

Ironically though most of those players are still the top 10 in rebounds during the regular season... maybe rebounding does win championships......

Oops sorry those were post season reb/gm you know when games matter more and every rebound actually matters.

The top 11 rebounders in the league by rebounds per game were: Boozer, Noah, Pau, Dwight, Camby, Duncan, Odom, Lebron, Josh Smith, Horford, and Gerald Wallace. All of those players are strong, strongest in the league?? Probably not. However, they all have very good instincts and great technique and all of them have always been above average rebounders. Sure there are some people that put up crazy per 48 min rebounds, but most of those don't play that many minutes, sure there are some guys that are allowed to just go crazy and attack the glass and get like 3 or 4 offensive rebounds because well at that point in time their team is behind and they need every rebound regardless of fouls. But for good rebounders night in and night out over the course of a season reb/gm is one of the best stats of who has great technique on both ends of the floor since you can't get lucky bounce rebounds for an entire season or career. And just as a fun not a PG was in the top 25 in reb/gm this year, they aren't even close to the strongest players on the court. In fact 7 guards averaged 5+ reb/gm this year, and if you're saying it's all athleticism the one in the top 25 is Jason Kidd and he's not known as being a super athletic PG anymore.

Rodman's strengths included his quick second, third, fourth, etc. jumps and quick feet and quick hands and long arms but without good core strength those other strengths wouldn't have won the battle as often usually against bigger dudes.

Yeah Paul, great rebounding is an art composed of many facets. I focused on strength especially for offensive rebounding because it is rare that you are great on that without it. Rodman was pound for pound one of the strongest guys to play but he was also skilled, smart and intuitive. Milsap and Blair certainly are strong but they wouldn't succeed as much as they do if they weren't getting to the right spot more often than usual. Either you get to the right spot first or you fight your way into it as best you can or you fight the best you can anyways with strength and lots of little techniques.

Getting back to my Orton point earlier, there are no assurances anybody is a guarantee to be a great player. It happens at all points of the draft from Oden and Griffen, to Darko, Tyrus Thomas, Joe Alexander, blah blah blah. Even more granted Presti is in charge and seems to have some grasp but even in the Sonic Era of this Franchise "promising post players" were selected year after year and I hate to bring up their names but seriously Swift and Petro and Sene and even Chris Wilcox were supposed to take care of the teams post problems for years to come. Now none of them are still there. So every year there are all these hopes and dreams of millions of fans placed on the shoulders, however, broad of young men normally around 20 years of age, all of whom are compared to other successful pros and legends and asked to do things to help a team win championships. Sometimes though they don't live up to those expectations. Yet every year most of the 30 teams in the league say how important draft night is for changing the face of their franchise the very next year, sometimes it happens. I just don't want to see some player who could be unbelievably skilled have his career ruined because we expect them to win us championships instantly. Some people can come in and contribute, some can't, prepare for the worst and expect the best.

OOT: Magic is losing now. If they fail again next year, I hope Dwight Howard will ask for a trade, similar to Garnett. Ibaka+Green+Maynor+Weaver+Krstic/Collison/White+ multiple 1st picks for Howard...

@Crow
Dennis Rodman is one of the greatest rebounders of all time and wasn't necessarily the greatest athlete ever. He says that physical prowess is helpful but more important is an understanding and an attitude of owning every lose ball. He said that when he was on teams his single purpose was to grab every lose ball like it was the last game he was ever going to play, his teammates respected that and so they did what their jobs were better because they weren't afraid to miss. Plus he says offensive rebounds are easier when you've played with your teammates for longer because you know what they're going to do and it is easier for you to react to the plays that are run. Blair and Millsap both great rebounders in college and at the pro level have stated that technique is way more important than strength as putting yourself in the right position can make it so that any player can get the ball away from any other player or draw a foul in the process. Not saying strength and endurance or reach are bad, but most players that rebound well do it like it's their only job and do it regardless of their height, strength, reach, or jumping abilities. Those things help but there are plenty of 7 ft players that can't rebound as well as some guards and it's not a strength or endurance issue.

Offensive rebounding clearly benefits from great strength / endurance. Landry and Hayes were short in height but were among the top few on bench reps at their combines and have done well at offensive rebounding in the pros. Brockman didn't take the test, I don't think he was invited to do that part, but probably would have done well then and did very well on offensive rebounding in real games. Of course it also involves technique and hunger and hustle.

Defensive rebounding in more about reach, standing or jumping, but obviously takes strength and the other stuff too.

I'd probably set a goal to get Krstic 3 shots in the 1st quarter. If he doesn't get 2 in that time or at least 4 by half I'd probably mention it to Krstic and Westbrook and maybe even Durant.

yeah when krstic is hot they need to feed him the ball but when he isnt, he isnt doing much good out there

It is not that surprising that a tweener forward might not rebound in the pros at the same rates as he did in college where he was relatively advantaged on strength and not disadvantaged on height.

Beasley is still just barely over 21. Yeah he isn't doing that much but I'll give him another season to step up.

The win% when he shots 8 or 9 is almost as strong. But to spin it around, they were 8-13 when he got less than 6 shots.

Green or Westbrook can exceed your targets when they are hot or somebody else is off.

Krstic got more than 10 shots just 10 times last season and shot 50+% FG% 6 of those times. Not that exciting and not clearly "deserving" a lot more shots, but I'd probably still try it more often... because they won all 10.

@f5alcon

We are on the same wavelength about a shot distribution to at least try.

@Crow
i think the shots could come from green, and russ, maybe even a shot or 2 from durant. But green and russ shoot way too much for their fg% id rather have krstic take 10 shots a game and westbrook take 11. Then westbrook take 14 and krstic 7.5.

I would like to see shot numbers like this
durant 19, westbrook 11, green 10, harden 10, krstic or other starting center 9. ibaka 8, thabo 4, collison 4, maynor 4

@Greg
We have that in ibaka, a scoring center would really free up durant, if we could lob the ball in the paint and the opposing team needing to double it would free up durant outside, even green can hit open shots then.

The guy who continues to surprise me the most of anyone on that graph is Beasley. I thought he was gonna be so much better than he is.

Personally, I think we could get someone like Dalembert or Biedrins or some other center for cheaper than what it might cost to move up and get someone like Monroe or Orton. Doing that we could still use our first round pick to get a decent player as we've mentioned previously there aren't a ton of teams between 13 and 21 that are necessarily going after centers and other players.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
Not sure what you're getting at. If Brockman wasn't super-productive in college, I don't think there's any way he would be able to make it in the NBA.

@Sammy

And doesn't that make you raise your eyebrows at his scatterplot?

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
Given Brockman's shortcomings - short, short-arms, poor athleticism - I don't think you could expect much more of him in the NBA than what he's giving you right now.

@Sammy

Sure, but he's the most obvious guy whos pro career doesn't reflect his scatterplot's suggested ceiling.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
Brockman is a decent energy/rebounding guy off the bench in Sacramento. He's doing well for himself give his draft position.

When moving up what are we really expecting to give up? And is what we are giving up really worth moving up??

@Crow
I don't think we need a scoring center at all. I think we need a physical, strong center who can defend the paint and score on easy buckets and lobs. And have somewhat of a decent post game. Anything else is just gravy.

Monroe is far from a sure thing though.

A starting center in the league on average gets 10 shots a game. Krstic got 7.5 but per minute he was at the average for starters. If you want a center who takes more than 10 shots then you would look more at Monroe. But if your starting center is going to get 10 shots or less or you are picking a backup center then offensive game of that Center pick may not mean as much. If you want a Center to get more shots than Krstic then somebody has to give some shots up.

If he falls past Toronto I could see Orton being available around 21. Toronto makes sense for him though. Orton is more of a power player while Bargnani is a finesse guy.

Houston - likely wouldn't take him, they are going all in on Bosh, Amare, and Boozer and if they miss will likely bring back Scola, while already having Jordan Hill who they like a lot.

Milwaukee - they have Bogut. Is Orton a face-up 4? Not sure about that and I think they'd rather go with a SF/SG(Babbit, George, Anderson, Hayward) to provide more offense and options around Bogut/Jennings.

Bulls - they need a shooter and they have Gibson/Noah in the front court already. James Johnson is also a guy that can play spot minutes at the 4 and they are likely going all out after Bosh, Amare, and Boozer. I think they'll go for a shooter, probably Anderson or Babbit or maybe Henry.

Heat - seems like they are looking to upgrade the PG position. Either Bradley or Bledsoe, whichever one Indiana passes on. They are a possibilty to take Orton though. O'Neal is a FA, Haslem may be let go, Beasley is a tweener. I think they'd land 1 big-name FA to pair with Wade but they'll still need some depth here. I still think they'll go PG though.

Celtics - KG is there for a few more years, Perkins is at center, they have Sheed for 2 more years, and Davis is going to be around. I think they'll look for help along the perimeter to try to get more athletic, they may opt for a shooter since Ray-Ray might leave.

Spurs - who knows. With Duncan, Dyess, Blair, and likely Splitter another 4/5 doesn't make a ton of sense. One thing they lacked was a guy to spot up and hit 3s. Jefferson doesn't have that range, when you saw him he was always spotting up inside the 3 point line, threw off their spacing some. If Babbit or Anderson are still available here I don't see how SA can pass.

Then its OKC picking. He could be there at 21.

The Lopez brothers did have to split the rebounds between them whereas in at least some other cases guys were the one dominant rebounder on their team.

@Paul
I like some of the guys you mentioned like Monroe, Whiteside, and Udoh. Aldrich? I'll pass, and I'd definitely take Orton over Alabi. The problem with Whiteside and Udoh is we already have our rangy shot-blocking threat with massive amounts of potential (Ibaka), so I don't know that they'd fit in here well.

What we do need though, is somebody who is physical and strong and can bang inside with NBA bigs. Orton is one of the very, very few big men in this draft with that capability.

aldrich doesnt have the offensive skill set we need from our bigman.

@Paul
I agree with the notion that hype doesn't always equate to success. Every year there's going to be somebody who never lives up to the hype, but indeed there are some who work out. Obviously one of the best measures in determining whether the hype is justified or not, is on-court performance. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot to judge from Orton when it comes to that. But there is a reason NBA GMs are gushing over his potential. They could be wrong, but could be right. I'll side with whatever Presti does.

There hasn't been much talk about Aldrich or Monroe lately, here or at least in the spots that I've looked around the net. How much would you have to offer to move up to get them and really how much is too much? You could offer a heck of a lot and maybe come out well when you look back in a few years.

So unless Orton is going to fall to the Thunder at 21 why should we move up?? Is he better than say Monroe, Aldridge, Udoh, Alabi, Motiejunas, Whiteside, Pittman, and if so is it really a big enough difference for whatever the cost of moving up will be? Especially when considering we wouldn't have to give up anything and still be sitting in a spot to grab at least one if not more of those names if they fall. So hype for a person that we're saying we only have to move up to like pick 11 means nothing.

@Paul

Agree 100%...

@Greg
Ever hear of Tyrus Thomas???? Same thing nobody knew about him then he had a few decent games during March Madness, declares for the draft and suddenly he's the greatest physical specimen in the draft since Shaq. Rose all the way up the board and was selected no 4. No a few years later he's a "decent" player but nothing special. So hype doesn't always mean good things. The unknown principle isn't always the best.

Brockman had a decent season overall. Amazing offensive rebounder, solid defensive rebounder. Accepted his role player shot level and hit above league average on eFG% and TS%. Turnover rate was average and not a problem. Only problems were the slightly below average one on one defense and played on a well below average team defense. The team's offense did much better with him on the court than off. Generally enough to be a pro backup PF. Let's see if he gets better or if that is his best.

@Paul
Because Orton has a higher upside than Alabi, and Pittman as well. We aren't the only ones talking about him. There's a reason why a guy who played 13 minutes a game in his only collegiate year is soaring up draft boards. A month ago we didn't know if he'd declare, a week later he's a late first rounder, and then all of the sudden he's projected to be a late lottery pick. That's because NBA GMs, like his potential... not just us.

@Paul
i wouldnt move up for orton, but presti might. We should have an easy chance of getting a predraft workout from him, and that i think will tell presti if he is worth it or not.

Really i want the best available center at 21, and 26/32 a eurostash player and a shooter, order doesnt matter for those 2, then i want to trade our 2nd pick for a future 2nd pick in a later draft.

Combine athletic numbers are clues but generally I think they should be used lightly and always compared back to what was seen in games. They are a player's max but they have to sprint, maneuver and jump many dozens of times in games. Average performance after a string of activity ultimately matters more than the max isolated from any prior activity.

Why is everyone going so gaga over Orton but then complaining about people saying the same things about Alabi even though Orton won't be around later when the Thunder are currently expected to pick. Is he really that great that we need to move up? Why not just say let's get Dexter Pittman with our 2nd round pick he's just as big as Orton and didn't just have one year of performing, plus he's obviously committed to getting better as is seen with his attitude to lose weight while at Texas and not to mention he's never had an issue with not getting the ball a ton. Yet nobody seems to talk about how great of a fit at the 32 pick he'd be?? Last year Taj Gibson was one of the most productive rookies and he wasn't even the first rookie picked by the Bulls last year. Last year Blair fell and fell and fell. Why do we want to move up for someone like Orton??? Is he really so great we can't miss him, and if we're going to move up why not move even higher and get someone else or stay where we are and get the talent the falls like in every other draft?

@Paul
I think i want option d, which is have a few great years win a title or two then have a few rebuilding years lottery picks then another few great years. We wont be signing big name free agents probably ever, unless the population here goes up significantly. So we need a few high picks every few years for continued success. But i think playoffs 7 seasons a decade and a title or two would be nice.

I like the combine athletic numbers of Babbitt and James on top on their overall resumes. They'll probably both be gone at 21. I doubt they trade up for them. I can't get away from take the best big available at 21 or trade up higher for the right big if you can and want to. But if you think you can get a good big via trade or free agency though, you have more flexibility.

On Paul's question I'll note that some digging awhile ago basically showed that superstars usually go 5-8 years before their first title. That could argue for either for trying to build a long-term sustainable team, or realizing that the right mix is elusive and do whatever you can to find it, including moving pieces that sort of fit but not to the level of championship winner. Being young is not a proven strategy of winning titles. Getting older and wiser and better is.

@f5alcon
Part of me wonders why he didn't stay. Considering both Cousins and Patterson will be gone, he could shine inside and should dominate (if he has the talent the NBA is gushing over).

But the other part of me wonders if he's leaving because not only are the bigs gone, but Bledsoe and Wall are gone as well. He may have found himself in a Favors situation, where he's surrounded by untalented guards who can't/won't feed the post.

@Sammy
Orton didnt play many meaningful mins, so it is hard to see what he would really be like, in a way im surprised he didnt stay in school another year, be a star and be a top 5 pick next year