Tristan Thompson

[Scholar]

I wont even engage in this. I hate LeBron and I hate how much credit he gets for making the right basketball play when usually, he makes the game harder for his teammates in order for himself to look much better when he "bails" them out.

If he really did so well on LeBron, then where was he in the 4th, is all I want to know...

Well, I am not Byron's keeper. If I was to give a Jon type answer to this, I'd then tell you that you'd have to ask Mr Scott.

But, seriously, Byron went small with that 3 guard unit. Best I can figure is that he was trying to get more shooting in the line up and added Gibson for that purpose. I do know that Thompson was in some plays at the end because there was that play where he tried to substitute for him but got it in too late so Tristan had to stay in.

[mAo_mAo]

It is just annoying that we can't use him in close games because he is just too atrocious on offense. That really irks me.

[Scholar]

True, but how much does OFFENSIVE rebounding really contribute to that... is the point I was trying to make. We know defensive rebounding is significant since it keeps the opposing team from extra opportunities.

I just think its interesting and something that should be looked at more.

You do realize you are arguing both sides of the same coin. How is the opponent getting extra possessions important, but you getting them not important? Isn't it really just the same thing from different sides?

[Jon]

If he really did so well on LeBron, then where was he in the 4th, is all I want to know...

That's a question for Scott. Now, one thing I said all the time in Mike Brown's defense was that sometimes coaches just have to try something out and see if it works. The thing is, when he'd sit Drew Gooden out in the 4th quarters ... the numbers were very clear that was the right move.

Now, maybe Scott is afraid of Hack-a-Tristan, but I'm not sure he should be. Tristan's free throw % is 55.8%. If he could deliver that in the clutch, it's likely a better point per possession rate than running plays. Plus if he's just getting fouled on a putback, anything he makes is all gravy anyway - and the fouls help push the other team in to the bonus.

My suspicion is that Scott was just playing a hunch and seeing how it went. I kind of doubt Pargo-Waiters-Gibson is going to become our closing unit, but given our record it can't hurt to give it a shot.

[Czvosec]

You do realize you are arguing both sides of the same coin. How is the opponent getting extra possessions important, but you getting them not important? Isn't it really just the same thing from different sides?

Yes and no. The way I'm viewing it (and I could be very wrong on this), getting a defensive rebound results in a stop which directly contributes to a team's defensive efficiency. However, getting an offensive rebound does not necessarily contribute to offensive efficiency because getting an offensive board doesn't mean a team is going to score.

Am I making sense? Sometimes, I'm not even sure...

[RchfldCavRaised]

Thanks for the PM with the link Jon,

I placed my order for the same magical glasses the TT apologists have been using to watch him over the past year and change. Should be here before our next game. Finally I can see what justifies patience and rationalizes his horrible play on the court.

They sent me this confirmation email... I will be amongst you lucky few who truly "get" Tristan, soon enough

[Jon]

True, but how much does OFFENSIVE rebounding really contribute to that... is the point I was trying to make. We know defensive rebounding is significant since it keeps the opposing team from extra opportunities.

I just think its interesting and something that should be looked at more.

Defensive rebounding tends to be over-rated, because you get a fair number of those just for being big. You're supposed to grab those.

The benefit of offensive rebounding is pretty obvious though. If on every 10th shot you get an offensive rebound, and 1/2 the time you score on that, you raise your FG% by .5%. You also run clock, deny the opponent the ball, make them work more on D, potentially draw fouls, and hurt the other team's transition game - this is unless you're not getting enough men back on D.

[Scholar]

Yes and no. The way I'm viewing it (and I could be very wrong on this), getting a defensive rebound results in a stop which directly contributes to a team's defensive efficiency. However, getting an offensive rebound does not necessarily contribute to offensive efficiency because getting an offensive board doesn't mean a team is going to score.

Am I making sense? Sometimes, I'm not even sure...

I understand where you are coming from. I am just not so sure I agree with the stance is all.

[Jon]

I placed my order for the same magical glasses the TT apologists have been using to watch him over the past year and change.

I hope they work for you. btw, how are you watching the games down in Tennessee? Are you in FSOH territory? If you heard some of these opposing announcers go nuts over Andy and Tristan and what they're doing to their team, you wouldn't be so shocked.

[Czvosec]

Defensive rebounding tends to be over-rated, because you get a fair number of those just for being big. You're supposed to grab those.

The benefit of offensive rebounding is pretty obvious though. If on every 10th shot you get an offensive rebound, and 1/2 the time you score on that, you raise your FG% by .5%. You also run clock, deny the opponent the ball, make them work more on D, potentially draw fouls, and hurt the other team's transition game - this is unless you're not getting enough men back on D.

So it essentially comes back to what Scholar said originally. If you're a good offensive team, then offensive rebounding means something. If not, then offensive rebounding is insignificant.

[Czvosec]

I understand where you are coming from. I am just not so sure I agree with the stance is all.

And to be honest, I'm not even sure I agree with what I'm saying. Mostly brought it up as a talking point, and I'm more than willing to change my stance on it if its proven that offensive rebounding correlates to winning.

[RchfldCavRaised]

I hope they work for you. btw, how are you watching the games down in Tennessee? Are you in FSOH territory? If you heard some of these opposing announcers go nuts over Andy and Tristan and what they're doing to their team, you wouldn't be so shocked.

Im watching them on NBA League broadband when I am out of the house. Usually, the archive feed is from the winning team so that gives it away most games, but it also allows for me to listen to the other broadcasters.

Seldom, do they pick apart the weaknesses of our players. They do often ridicule his free throw form and delivery though.

[Tornicade]

So it essentially comes back to what Scholar said originally. If you're a good offensive team, then offensive rebounding means something. If not, then offensive rebounding is insignificant.

no the best way to offset a teams offensive boards is by shoting the ball more efficiently. or allowing the same rate of offensive rebounding as what your getting (utah, Sacramento)


The Cavs shoot 42%. their opponents 49%.

more opportunities benefit any offense.

The Cavs have 175 offensive rebounds. their oppononents 119. thats 56 extra possesions on the season. thats 4 extra possessions more than their opponent.

Cleveland is currently 5th in offensive rebound percentage and 4th in defensive rebounding percentage.

[Birdy89]

Thanks for the PM with the link Jon,

I placed my order for the same magical glasses the TT apologists have been using to watch him over the past year and change. Should be here before our next game. Finally I can see what justifies patience and rationalizes his horrible play on the court.

They sent me this confirmation email... I will be amongst you lucky few who truly "get" Tristan, soon enough

That is completely amazing,

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that that is how Chris Grant makes decisions.

[ArchieBunker7]

Well, there's going to be an obvious correlation to low shooting percentage and higher offensive rebounding numbers. The more chances you get, the higher your numbers should be. So far, the Cavs are a textbook example of this. Our FG% is 25th and we are 5th in both total offensive rebounds and ORB%. I mean, could there be any more of a perfectly assimilated correlation there? But, with that said, we are still only 18th in total scoring offense. So, it seems like we're just not very good at turning opps into points. We get a good number of our misses, but still don't convert at a high rate when given numerous opps.

So, while TT does grab a good number of boards, it seems like he should given the number of opps he gets(TZ is only .9 less ORB per 36 than TT btw). But, it doesn't correlate to winning.

Looking at the rest of the top teams in the NBA:

*OKC is 3rd in FG%, 2nd in ppg, but only 21st in total ORB and 23rd in ORB%.

*NYK is 8th in FG%, 3rd in PPG, but only 29 in total ORB and 28th in ORB%.(As one would assume, they are near the top in 3pt and 3pt%).

*LAC is 5th in FG%, 11th in PPG, but only 18th in total ORB and 14th in ORB%.

*MEM is only 16th in FG%, but they are 6th in PPG, not because they are only 16th in total ORB, but because they are 3rd in ORB%.(Zach Randolph is a beast offensive rebounder who can actually convert second chances).

*SAS are 3rd in FG%, 9th in PPG, but only 25th in total ORB and 26th in ORB%.

*MIA is 1st in FG%, 1st in PPG, but only 27th in total ORB and 25th in ORB%.

Obviously, there are a bunch of other factors not being considered here. But, it seems pretty cut and dry that the most successful teams rely much more on making a better percentage of their shots than those who need to rely on high offensive rebounding percentages. MEM has a slight variance, but I think that only shows what having a guy like Z Bo will do for you. Not only does he grab a bunch of ORB, but he converts them at a high rate as well(exact opposite of TT).

Conversely, we see the exact opposite with losing teams. They mostly seem to shoot a low percentage and grab a much higher rate of ORB.

*DET, WAS, CLE, TOR, SAC all show that having average-poor FG% and average to good ORB rates don't necessarily correlate to above average PPG or W's. They're just not converting their second chances.