How many defensive rebounds is an offense rebound worth?

[oarabbus]

Stated another way, would you rather take a guy who averages 10reb/game (with the occasional offensive board) or a guy who get 5 rebounds a game, all offensive?

[!@#$%Vectors!@#]

Stated another way, would you rather take a guy who averages 10reb/game (with the occasional offensive board) or a guy who get 5 rebounds a game, all offensive?

Offensive guy. Thats 5 extra guaranteed possessions.

[Cocaine80s]

Defensive is worth more because you are giving away offensive rebounds otherwise http://www.kanyetothe.com/forum/Smileys/default/U9bGRy9.png

[DatAsh]

I think there are quite a few people in the analytic community that think defensive rebounds are more valuable.

[oarabbus]

I think there are quite a few people in the analytic community that think defensive rebounds are more valuable.


Interesting, do you happen to know what their justification is?

[Sarcastic]

They are equal. Each equals a possession taken away from the opposition.

With that said it's easier to get a defensive rebound due to positioning. They are much more common.

[jstern]

Without giving it much thought and hearing all of the arguments, since offensive rebounds are harder to come by, if you have a guy that can get more than the norm, then that would be more valuable that getting defensive rebounds.

Speaking of wish, many of Denis Rodman's offensive rebounds could be considered steals. The guy was beautiful to watch doing his thing. In a sense, him getting an offensive rebound was him stealing a certain possession for the offensive team.

[WayOfWade]

Depends on your team philosophy. If you want fast breaks and easy buckets, the the defensive guy. However offensive boards typically lead to many easy buckets themselves, and I personally like them more because then I don't have to run across the court and get tired. As for the question at hand, I'd say 1.5 both for fantasy reasons as well as the demoralizing factor it can have on a defense to go along with easy put-backs

[Nikola_]

Both gives you an opportunity to score moreso if they are contested

[dunksby]

Putting aside the uncontested ones, they are equal, as in if you don't secure a DREB, then you are giving up an offensive rebound and a possession.

[feyki]

2.3 or 2.4 x on offence . Same on defence .

[robert de niro]

how about tapping the ball once or twice after your own miss, are those rebounds also worth more than a defensive one?

[feyki]

how about tapping the ball once or twice after your own miss, are those rebounds also worth more than a defensive one?

How about missed the shot and gave no effort on boards ?

[robert de niro]

How about missed the shot and gave no effort on boards ?
how about having a guy with better shooting percentage and less inflated offensive boards

[Overdrive]

Stated another way, would you rather take a guy who averages 10reb/game (with the occasional offensive board) or a guy who get 5 rebounds a game, all offensive?

Depends on the team rebounding numbers. A guy who can get offensive rebounds on a high rate is a big plus if the team as a whole can get defensive rebounds, but if I had to sacrifice defensive rebound in your scenario for offensive ones I wouldn't do it as the opposing team would get those rebounds and they would be essentially nullified.

So teamwise I think securing defensive boards is more important, but getting defensive boards + offensive ones is a key to winning. Usually the team with more rebounds wins games as the have more chances to score.

Also depends where those offensive boards are made and if it leads to 2nd chance points at a high rate. Offensive rebounds leading to misses are worthless.

[thefatmiral]

Offensive. Some good points for offensive already, i believe since you have to work harder to get them and it keeps you scoring position. If you got a guy who can grab you o boards it's more impactful

[Tarik One]

They are equal. Each equals a possession taken away from the opposition.

With that said it's easier to get a defensive rebound due to positioning. They are much more common.
Individually, they are not equal at all. Defensively, if you miss out on a rebound, chances are one of your teammates will grab the board anyway. On the flip side, if you miss out on an already difficult offensive rebound opportunity, the defensive player is going to get the rock.

[feyki]

how about having a guy with better shooting percentage and less inflated offensive boards

It's not about rebounding .

[chips93]

Interesting, do you happen to know what their justification is?

the thinking is that if you are going for offensive rebounds, while you might get a few, there will be other possessions where your team gives up a fast break when you pursue an offensive rebound but dont get it.

it seems to be the prevailing thinking in the nba these days, not just among stat nerds.


Brett Brown still remembers the mantra Gregg Popovich and his staff in San Antonio recited to warn perimeter players against chasing offensive rebounds.

"We don't care if you get an offensive rebound in your entire life," Brown says, laughing. "And we'd say it to them exactly like that."

Popovich was among the first in a wave of coaches to order four or even all five players to run back on defense the moment a shot went up. Retreating prevents fast-break points and forces opposing offenses to work against both a set defense and the dwindling shot clock. That is the first step in quieting explosive opponents, and any tactic that ran counter to it -- such as having too many guys crash the offensive glass -- would be used only in tiny doses. It is almost orthodoxy in most of the NBA today: Offensive rebounding doesn't matter, especially because it threatens the integrity of your defense.

"San Antonio set the model," says Terry Stotts, the Blazers' coach. "Offensive rebounding has never been a priority for us."

Doc Rivers, Stan Van Gundy, Steve Clifford, Erik Spoelstra and Rick Carlisle are among the coaching giants who have (mostly) gone down the Pop path.

"Right now, everything is tilted toward transition defense," Brown says. "We are all sheep."

- http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14505051/transition-defense-left-offensive-rebounds-cutting-room-floor

this season is on pace to set a new record low for offensive rebounds, teams would rather focus on transition defense.

[Sarcastic]

Individually, they are not equal at all. Defensively, if you miss out on a rebound, chances are one of your teammates will grab the board anyway. On the flip side, if you miss out on an already difficult offensive rebound opportunity, the defensive player is going to get the rock.

I said they have different degrees of difficulty, but in terms of value they are equal.

What's harder, running a mile or walking a mile? Most would say running a mile is harder, but in terms of distance traveled, they are equal.

[bigt]

Depends on the team rebounding numbers. A guy who can get offensive rebounds on a high rate is a big plus if the team as a whole can get defensive rebounds, but if I had to sacrifice defensive rebound in your scenario for offensive ones I wouldn't do it as the opposing team would get those rebounds and they would be essentially nullified.

So teamwise I think securing defensive boards is more important, but getting defensive boards + offensive ones is a key to winning. Usually the team with more rebounds wins games as the have more chances to score.

Also depends where those offensive boards are made and if it leads to 2nd chance points at a high rate. Offensive rebounds leading to misses are worthless.

Pretty much of all of this. If you watch a team who can't secure a defensive board and leak second chance opportunities, it's unbelievably frustrating. Offensive boards are harder to get so you can argue they're 'worth' more on a degree of difficulty scale, but as a team if you can only take one or the other I'm taking defensive boards.

[DatAsh]

Interesting, do you happen to know what their justification is?

I think it comes from regression data that basically says that defensive rebounds correlate stronger with team success.

I read something on apbr metrics that either suggested that offensive rebounds had negative value - ie the less offensive rebounds a player grabs, the better he is - or that they had very little if any positive value - ie a player with 10 ORB isn't much better than a player with 0 ORB.

The justification is that players can have a bigger impact on team success by getting back on defense than they can by crashing the offensive glass. The implication is that players with more offensive rebounds are hurting their team's defense.

I could be mis-remembering what I read though, it's been a year or so I read it.

Here (https://dismalcreature.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/effect-of-offensive-rebounding-on-defense/) is a article I found by googling "offensive rebounding regression analysis" which seems to suggest that oreb% seems to have a very slight negative affect on team defense. I would curious to see similar regressions to correlate oreb% and team offense as well as dreb% and team offense.