If LaMarcus and Jamal shoot a higher percentage it leaves less possibility for the opponent to get defensive boards.
I thought that was obvious in the initial post where I mentioned the offensive rebounding numbers by the Jazz. I guess I'll just really have to start dumbing things down for some of you and be extremely literal.
Or, it gives the Blazers more opportunities for offensive boards if they continue to miss their shots.
At this point, I have to think you're advancing some sort of agenda. The rebounding has been terrible, and Nate is running an offense you've been begging for the past 5 years. What's your deal? Seriously, I'm wondering. I know you've taken over my old role of whining about the mods, but you seem to be dead set on proving some point. Reading your posts is like eating soggy Cheerios. Is that the claim you're making?
Actually since we are talking about defensive rebounding, I would trade 8+ ppg for winning the rebounding battle. The blazers historically are the best when they are one of the best rebounding teams. Op has a point and we need to take care of it. What happens when it becomes a half court game? What happens if our team plays great d and forces a missed shot only to give up a offensive board? Nah I'd like us to take care of the glass in these scenarios.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. Think long and hard about this. The blazers have trouble securing DEFENSIVE rebounds, which come from OPPONENT MISSES ... NOT THEIR OWN. Is that clear enough for you?
Maybe I'm misreading it, but I'm pretty sure he's saying the Blazers had a +8 point differential over their opponent vs. +3 with a large lineup. I'm a little dubious about comparing the pre-Wallace Blazers with the post-Wallace Blazers, but the main point seems to be they outscore opponents by a greater margin, which is far more indicative of increased wins than just winning the rebounding battle.
Our offense the first game was one I have been wanting the past 5 years. Last game the ball and player movement was a lot worse
We are not going to be a team that wins games because of rebounding. Whille our SF, SG, and G should rebound better than average, our franchise PF has never posted strong RB numbers and our centers are the two oldest players in the league. Craig Smith and Johnson should help us, but will not be on the floor but for maybe 20 minutes a night total. On nights we do not shoot well or lose the turnover battle, winning is not going to happen at a high rate.
I am sorry? You are for a team that is on average +3 PPG vs. one that is +8 PPG per "game" (roughly, 100 possessions = 1 game, especially if this team runs) if you win the rebounding war? Win margin is a more reliable success indicator than rebounding advantage.
If a team has 8 more offensive boards they have 8 more shots. If they shoot 40% fg, that means they earn 3.2 extra shots made; which equals 6.4 ppg. Now if they can have 8 more defensive rebounds; that eliminates 8 more shots; which could equal around 6.4 points missed by their opponent. Basically if they improve their offensive and defensive rebounding by 30%; then they could achieve that goal. So winning the rebounding could give you an even higher ppg difference. You are basing the extra ppg because they would have a faster pace offense. I am telling you that winning the rebounding battle could give you a better +ppg than not worrying about rebounding.
Mags, I think maybe you're missing that they're talking about point differential rather than just scoring. "+8 ppg" is not referring to us scoring more points overall by playing faster; it refers to how much we outscore our opponents by (per 100 possessions). The point is that winning the rebounding battle is irrelevant if the measures that allow you to do so also decrease your offensive and defensive efficiency such that your overall point differential actually ends up worse.
