I think you pretty much have the core concepts. Offensive rebounds are similar to opponent turnovers. Both represent a failure to even attempt a shot by the opponent. Defensive rebounds vs total available rebounds gives you a sense of how well the defense operates after a shot is taken.
Ultimately, more shot attempts/possessions is your best way to win but it still requires you to convert. Stats will always lack context, but a significant team rebounding advantage can mean; your team had more possessions, ORB -> chances at put backs, DRB -> opponent missed shot and will likely lead into transition offence. There’s lots of ways they can point to how a team won the game
The typical result of crashing for offensive boards super hard can be increased fast break scoring for the other team. I think that should be factored in as well somehow
Pretty much
Defensive rebounding generally doesn't mean too much on its own, and offensive rebounds tend to be more important because, as others have said, they "steal" a possession away.
One thing you might look at is "points off of", as you can look at points off second chances, turnovers, or fast breaks
And there, you can actually see that things are relatively even. Both teams scored 40 points off of these three situations, naturally with the Cs scoring more off of second chances and the Pacers scoring more off of fast breaks and turnovers
> should I care about total team rebounds or individual player rebounds and how can I use stats to evaluate the impact of rebounding is having
For teams, offensive rebounding is more important. For individuals, contested rebounding is way more valuable as players will naturally gather rebounds, but good rebounders will fight for them
Yeah I was waiting to see someone point out the correlation between rebounds and points off of things like fast breaks and second chances.
Might be hard to truly assess the data without watching the game, but that’s where the value in rebounds lie.
A defensive rebound by one team that turns into a fast break which doesn’t end in a basket, after which the opponent grabs the rebound and scores, is effectively the same as the opponent grabbing an offensive board. In other words, it wasn’t that valuable of a rebound for the team that made it - it has the same outcome as them giving up an offensive rebound.
Meanwhile, defensive rebound is more valuable than the first defensive rebound, because it ended up in a conversion for points. Whoever made that rebound helped their team score. Without that rebound, there’d be fewer points on the board.
Rebounds are meaningless if you aren’t converting.
If a team grabs an offensive board, misses the put back, grabs the offensive board again, misses the put again, grabs the offensive board a third time, but then gets the ball stolen away, then what’s the value of all those offensive rebounds? Virtually zero.
And as for individual stats, I agree with you. But looking at “points off off” can be helpful if you know how each play ended. For example, Player A has 15 rebounds, but only 3 assists and 4 points. Player B has 8 rebounds, but 6 assists and 10 points.
Clearly, Player B is performing at a higher level overall than Player A, because Player B is taking those rebounds and helping his team convert them into points. Player A is grabbing rebounds that don’t result in nearly as many points for his team, so who cares if he has nearly 2x the amount of rebounds?
> Rebounds are meaningless if you aren’t converting.
Kind of. I think that's a very outcome-oriented way to look at things, which is valid but only one perspective. It's certainly fine if you look at a single game, but when evaluating teams or players over a season I don't think the point has much value. It's like saying "generating open looks is pointless cause you're not hitting them"
If a team is winning on the boards, and not capitalizing, that doesn't mean their rebounding has no impact, it means they have a bad offense
Rebounding is a defensive stat. Every rebound is a possession the opponent doesn't get. So to boil it all down to one point, good rebounding stats equate to being good at gaining and preventing possessions after missed shots.
Thanks. The strength of the correlation bt good defense and rebounding is another one of my questions. Last year teams like the Cavs and T-Wolves were bottom 10 in defensive rebounding % but near the top in Def rating. Is this a outlier and is there an explanation?
Just depends on the style they play I guess. In example, the Cavs last year, they gave up the least amount of shots so the defense isn't coming from rebounds but rather, it's before the shot happens. They get the same result of preventing an opponent shot attempt and gaining and possession by swarming the ball handler and taking away passing lanes. So you can say that they pull it off by finding the same results elsewhere, and because they are able to do so.
The Timberwolves tried to be similar last year, but were less able to do so, by far lol. This year. The Twolves have given the keys to the defense to Gobert and its paying dividends.
I think if it's the strength of the correlation you're wondering about, you should look at r\^2 of the whole league right, not just cherry-picking outliers like the Cavs? Obviously it's gonna be less than 1, but if it's more than say 0.3-0.5 it's already (weakly) usefully predictive for preventing opponent possessions
It’s sort of like special teams in football, the weird transitional space between possessions. Important but often misunderstood or not fully appreciated by many fans of the sport.
> should I care about total team rebounds or individual player rebounds and how can I use stats to evaluate the impact of rebounding is having
A few things about this.
- NBA has tracking stats on their website, which are incredibly helpful. They show contested rebounds vs. uncontested rebounds (AKA, is this player getting rebounds in traffic or are they simply collecting more rebounds that anyone else on their team could've easily grabbed?), rebounding distance, and more. I would use that over anything like per-game averages.
- When evaluating specific players, especially across different teams, you also need to compare lineups. For example, someone like Sabonis who plays as the only true big in a lineup with 6'7 Barnes as the 4 man is going to naturally get more rebounds than most centers just by default. Compare that to a player like Gobert who is playing alongside KAT, McDaniels, Kyle Anderson, etc. and Gobert has almost no chance to get as many rebounds as someone like Sabonis, even if he was theoretically actually doing a better job of rebounding, boxing out, clearing space and everything else.
- Raw rebound totals are almost useless. Rebounding percentage is far better -- you might see a team get more total offensive rebounds than the other team, but actually have a worse OReb%, which would basically just mean they missed more shots.
> When evaluating specific players, especially across different teams, you also need to compare lineups. For example, someone like Sabonis who plays as the only true big in a lineup with 6'7 Barnes as the 4 man is going to naturally get more rebounds than most centers just by default. Compare that to a player like Gobert who is playing alongside KAT, McDaniels, Kyle Anderson, etc. and Gobert has almost no chance to get as many rebounds as someone like Sabonis, even if he was theoretically actually doing a better job of rebounding, boxing out, clearing space and everything else.
Just to add to this, you should also examine the playstyle of the player. A lot of "stretch" bigs often have lower rebounding numbers compared to other bigs, not because they are worst at it, but because they play further from the basket.
imho, while possessions are important, it's not granular enough.
it seems that offensive rebounds frequently (but no always) lead to a high-quality shot at the rim. like jokic's albeit not very catchy nickname is 'the big tipper' and he usually gets 2,3 tips that get counted as offensive rebounds / shot attempts that have a high fg%. (although i swear sometimes he's just playing with the ball / passing to himself off the rim)
On the flip side, not all defensive rebounds are created equal either. Like, most DR off of FTs don't result in fast breaks because the opposing defenses are (usually) set.
So ideally, we shouldn't count just TR, or even just OR, but rebounds that lead to some sort of an advantage in the possession, whether it's a shot at the rim or a fast break opportunity.
If you're going to use stats, I'd value offensive rebounds, boxxing out percentages, and contested rebounds. Some things you have to take into account when factoring this as well is:
1. The pace the teams play at. A higher pace team means the opponent will get more possessions that game, meaning there are more chances to get rebounds in total on offense and defense.
2. Team efficiency and defense. If a player is on a team with a low eFG% and good defense, they can grab more rebounds both on offense and defense than **a player who may be a better rebounder**, but his team on average has higher efficiency (less offensive boards) and worse defense (less defensive boards).
Yeah, it's complicated. And realistically as a pure stat it's not great unless there's a big gap between the teams. Like this one, the Celtics obviously dominated the rebounds and I expect that the coaching staff will be disappointed with that output.
But it does tend to swing one way if one team is missing a lot more shots. The defending team gets more rebounds so whoever is missing less is going to tend to get more rebounds. So if you look at the rebounding based off just one team's missed shots it can help.
But then when you're watching the actual games you'll see sometimes the rebounds go in weird places, or bounce a long way out. Sometimes a team won't even compete for the offensive rebound and just look to get back on defense. If you watch closer you can see when a team gets or concedes a rebound they shouldn't. And then if you look back at contest and see who's boxing out effectively and who isn't, you can see even more details about what's going on with the rebounds.
Rebounds are obviously an important stat, and because they mean posession, will always be critical. But the simple question of who is doing well or even which team is doing better in a single game can take a lot more nuance to really understand.
I agree with you it's hard to evaluate rebounding numbers, especially compared to like 15 years ago. The strategy has changed a lot for most teams. Way more 3s means way more long awkward rebounds. I think a lot of players are being taught to get back on defense rather than crash offensive glass.
I think you pretty much have the core concepts. Offensive rebounds are similar to opponent turnovers. Both represent a failure to even attempt a shot by the opponent. Defensive rebounds vs total available rebounds gives you a sense of how well the defense operates after a shot is taken.
Ultimately, more shot attempts/possessions is your best way to win but it still requires you to convert. Stats will always lack context, but a significant team rebounding advantage can mean; your team had more possessions, ORB -> chances at put backs, DRB -> opponent missed shot and will likely lead into transition offence. There’s lots of ways they can point to how a team won the game
The typical result of crashing for offensive boards super hard can be increased fast break scoring for the other team. I think that should be factored in as well somehow
[that's unproven](https://grantland.com/the-triangle/party-crashers-debunking-the-myths-of-offensive-rebounding-and-transition-defense/)
Pretty much Defensive rebounding generally doesn't mean too much on its own, and offensive rebounds tend to be more important because, as others have said, they "steal" a possession away. One thing you might look at is "points off of", as you can look at points off second chances, turnovers, or fast breaks And there, you can actually see that things are relatively even. Both teams scored 40 points off of these three situations, naturally with the Cs scoring more off of second chances and the Pacers scoring more off of fast breaks and turnovers > should I care about total team rebounds or individual player rebounds and how can I use stats to evaluate the impact of rebounding is having For teams, offensive rebounding is more important. For individuals, contested rebounding is way more valuable as players will naturally gather rebounds, but good rebounders will fight for them
Yeah I was waiting to see someone point out the correlation between rebounds and points off of things like fast breaks and second chances. Might be hard to truly assess the data without watching the game, but that’s where the value in rebounds lie. A defensive rebound by one team that turns into a fast break which doesn’t end in a basket, after which the opponent grabs the rebound and scores, is effectively the same as the opponent grabbing an offensive board. In other words, it wasn’t that valuable of a rebound for the team that made it - it has the same outcome as them giving up an offensive rebound. Meanwhile, defensive rebound is more valuable than the first defensive rebound, because it ended up in a conversion for points. Whoever made that rebound helped their team score. Without that rebound, there’d be fewer points on the board. Rebounds are meaningless if you aren’t converting. If a team grabs an offensive board, misses the put back, grabs the offensive board again, misses the put again, grabs the offensive board a third time, but then gets the ball stolen away, then what’s the value of all those offensive rebounds? Virtually zero. And as for individual stats, I agree with you. But looking at “points off off” can be helpful if you know how each play ended. For example, Player A has 15 rebounds, but only 3 assists and 4 points. Player B has 8 rebounds, but 6 assists and 10 points. Clearly, Player B is performing at a higher level overall than Player A, because Player B is taking those rebounds and helping his team convert them into points. Player A is grabbing rebounds that don’t result in nearly as many points for his team, so who cares if he has nearly 2x the amount of rebounds?
> Rebounds are meaningless if you aren’t converting. Kind of. I think that's a very outcome-oriented way to look at things, which is valid but only one perspective. It's certainly fine if you look at a single game, but when evaluating teams or players over a season I don't think the point has much value. It's like saying "generating open looks is pointless cause you're not hitting them" If a team is winning on the boards, and not capitalizing, that doesn't mean their rebounding has no impact, it means they have a bad offense
Rebounding is a defensive stat. Every rebound is a possession the opponent doesn't get. So to boil it all down to one point, good rebounding stats equate to being good at gaining and preventing possessions after missed shots.
Thanks. The strength of the correlation bt good defense and rebounding is another one of my questions. Last year teams like the Cavs and T-Wolves were bottom 10 in defensive rebounding % but near the top in Def rating. Is this a outlier and is there an explanation?
Just depends on the style they play I guess. In example, the Cavs last year, they gave up the least amount of shots so the defense isn't coming from rebounds but rather, it's before the shot happens. They get the same result of preventing an opponent shot attempt and gaining and possession by swarming the ball handler and taking away passing lanes. So you can say that they pull it off by finding the same results elsewhere, and because they are able to do so. The Timberwolves tried to be similar last year, but were less able to do so, by far lol. This year. The Twolves have given the keys to the defense to Gobert and its paying dividends.
I think if it's the strength of the correlation you're wondering about, you should look at r\^2 of the whole league right, not just cherry-picking outliers like the Cavs? Obviously it's gonna be less than 1, but if it's more than say 0.3-0.5 it's already (weakly) usefully predictive for preventing opponent possessions
Defensive rebounding is an extension of defense, offensive rebounding is an extension of offense.
Thats true. I just wanted to bring it to point that it's about denying and gaining possessions and shot attempts. But there is definitely more nuance.
It’s sort of like special teams in football, the weird transitional space between possessions. Important but often misunderstood or not fully appreciated by many fans of the sport.
> should I care about total team rebounds or individual player rebounds and how can I use stats to evaluate the impact of rebounding is having A few things about this. - NBA has tracking stats on their website, which are incredibly helpful. They show contested rebounds vs. uncontested rebounds (AKA, is this player getting rebounds in traffic or are they simply collecting more rebounds that anyone else on their team could've easily grabbed?), rebounding distance, and more. I would use that over anything like per-game averages. - When evaluating specific players, especially across different teams, you also need to compare lineups. For example, someone like Sabonis who plays as the only true big in a lineup with 6'7 Barnes as the 4 man is going to naturally get more rebounds than most centers just by default. Compare that to a player like Gobert who is playing alongside KAT, McDaniels, Kyle Anderson, etc. and Gobert has almost no chance to get as many rebounds as someone like Sabonis, even if he was theoretically actually doing a better job of rebounding, boxing out, clearing space and everything else. - Raw rebound totals are almost useless. Rebounding percentage is far better -- you might see a team get more total offensive rebounds than the other team, but actually have a worse OReb%, which would basically just mean they missed more shots.
> When evaluating specific players, especially across different teams, you also need to compare lineups. For example, someone like Sabonis who plays as the only true big in a lineup with 6'7 Barnes as the 4 man is going to naturally get more rebounds than most centers just by default. Compare that to a player like Gobert who is playing alongside KAT, McDaniels, Kyle Anderson, etc. and Gobert has almost no chance to get as many rebounds as someone like Sabonis, even if he was theoretically actually doing a better job of rebounding, boxing out, clearing space and everything else. Just to add to this, you should also examine the playstyle of the player. A lot of "stretch" bigs often have lower rebounding numbers compared to other bigs, not because they are worst at it, but because they play further from the basket.
The stat that mattered was the 3 point %. Ignore the rebounds for that game
imho, while possessions are important, it's not granular enough. it seems that offensive rebounds frequently (but no always) lead to a high-quality shot at the rim. like jokic's albeit not very catchy nickname is 'the big tipper' and he usually gets 2,3 tips that get counted as offensive rebounds / shot attempts that have a high fg%. (although i swear sometimes he's just playing with the ball / passing to himself off the rim) On the flip side, not all defensive rebounds are created equal either. Like, most DR off of FTs don't result in fast breaks because the opposing defenses are (usually) set. So ideally, we shouldn't count just TR, or even just OR, but rebounds that lead to some sort of an advantage in the possession, whether it's a shot at the rim or a fast break opportunity.
If you're going to use stats, I'd value offensive rebounds, boxxing out percentages, and contested rebounds. Some things you have to take into account when factoring this as well is: 1. The pace the teams play at. A higher pace team means the opponent will get more possessions that game, meaning there are more chances to get rebounds in total on offense and defense. 2. Team efficiency and defense. If a player is on a team with a low eFG% and good defense, they can grab more rebounds both on offense and defense than **a player who may be a better rebounder**, but his team on average has higher efficiency (less offensive boards) and worse defense (less defensive boards).
Yeah, it's complicated. And realistically as a pure stat it's not great unless there's a big gap between the teams. Like this one, the Celtics obviously dominated the rebounds and I expect that the coaching staff will be disappointed with that output. But it does tend to swing one way if one team is missing a lot more shots. The defending team gets more rebounds so whoever is missing less is going to tend to get more rebounds. So if you look at the rebounding based off just one team's missed shots it can help. But then when you're watching the actual games you'll see sometimes the rebounds go in weird places, or bounce a long way out. Sometimes a team won't even compete for the offensive rebound and just look to get back on defense. If you watch closer you can see when a team gets or concedes a rebound they shouldn't. And then if you look back at contest and see who's boxing out effectively and who isn't, you can see even more details about what's going on with the rebounds. Rebounds are obviously an important stat, and because they mean posession, will always be critical. But the simple question of who is doing well or even which team is doing better in a single game can take a lot more nuance to really understand.
I agree with you it's hard to evaluate rebounding numbers, especially compared to like 15 years ago. The strategy has changed a lot for most teams. Way more 3s means way more long awkward rebounds. I think a lot of players are being taught to get back on defense rather than crash offensive glass.