Official 2015 Offseason Thread

[Murphy13 185]

And yet we were 8th in the league in DRB%, indicating that what it "seemed like" to you was completely at odds with the actual realities of NBA basketball played last season.

 

Seems like that's more of a problem with your ability to process information than it is with the Magic's defensive rebounding.

 

It may sound counterintuitive, but DRB% is a poor measure for assessing defensive rebounding prowess as the number is skewed upward due to the other teams missing fewer shots in our case. The inverse is also the reason that teams like GSW and HOU have lower DRB% than you would expect due to the skew the other way (fewer made shots means more opportunities for rebounding). In our case it's like saying that one guy shot 50 fish in the ocean, another shot 50 fish in a barrel; the fish shooting % (FS%) for the guy shooting in the barrel is going to be higher due to fewer opportunities to miss compared to the guy shooting in the ocean. This brings on the issues of sample size as well as quality of the rebounds. The only cases where DRB% is accurately reflected is at the extremes where a team is stupid bad at rebounding (MIN) or very good (SAS).

 

By every measure I've seen, we are clearly in the bottom 10 in every rebounding measure, not just DRB. Even if you choose to not question the true value of DRB%, the fact that every single other rebounding statistic shows us near the absolute bottom should throw up a red flag when putting all your weight in the one stat that doesn't reflect what the others do. No matter which way you look at it, we were bad at rebounding. It should be a point of focus for us. I don't think JJZFL was entirely off base in his assessment, nor do I believe it warranted the response you gave...it was unpleasant at best.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

It may sound counterintuitive, but DRB% is a poor measure for assessing defensive rebounding prowess as the number is skewed upward due to the other teams missing fewer shots in our case.

 

Ok, I want to make sure I'm understanding your argument here:

 

You're saying that, because there were slightly fewer defensive rebounding opportunities for the Magic(and by slightly fewer, I mean that the actual difference in defensive rebounding opportunities per game between the Magic and league average was about 1.5 per game, and that had way more to do with how many fouls the Magic committed than their defensive rebounding prowess. If you want, I can show you the math), that the Magic's DRB%, the percentage of the time when there was an available defensive rebound and the Magic got it, was out of whack?

 

Mathematically speaking, logically speaking, and in all other ways of speaking, what you just said makes absolutely no sense.

 

The Magic's raw rebounding numbers were low because the Magic turned it over a ton, committed a metric ton of fouls while drawing very few, and were one of the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league.

 

We don't have to disqualify the things that the Magic actually did well just so we can harp on the things that they were bad at. We have the capacity to keep more than one thought in our heads at a time.

 

As for your last sentence, and this is pretty important: there is nothing I will ever care less about than whether or not people's feelings are hurt when they're told they're wrong. If your the kind of person who judges everything based on gut feelings, you're going to be wrong most of the time. That's JJFZL's hell to live in, sure, but I'm very sure I don't have to accommodate it.

[Catman 380]

I read what you "explained". However, you might be forgetting that we tried a lot of that same strategy last year. We were 25th in the league defensively, mostly due to poor interior defense. It also seemed like we could not get defensive rebounds when it mattered in close games. Just because you say we could "actually do pretty well" doesn't make it true, especially since the strategy didn't look good at all last year. IIRC, you had some theories last summer about why you thought no one would want to play last year's team because they would be so good defensively.

 

Now you can have 100 theories about why you think things will be different this year. And maybe you will be right. But it's very far from a sure thing.

 

Never said anything was a sure thing. That is the first mistake with this post. I said IF the young team gels. Our weakness is youth, not talent IMO.

 

Our defense was not at all like it will be under Skiles so I am not sure why you would compare last year to this.

 

Any theories I had last year on defense hinged on Aaron Gordon being able to switch and guard any position - he was out most of the year.

 

Anyway, I think we have the pieces in place, but Im not saying anythings a sure thing yet. Id like to see the team play.

[JJZFL 619]

Never said anything was a sure thing. That is the first mistake with this post. I said IF the young team gels. Our weakness is youth, not talent IMO.

 

Our defense was not at all like it will be under Skiles so I am not sure why you would compare last year to this.

 

Any theories I had last year on defense hinged on Aaron Gordon being able to switch and guard any position - he was out most of the year.

 

Anyway, I think we have the pieces in place, but Im not saying anythings a sure thing yet. Id like to see the team play.

I agree this. A lot of how much we improve this year, if we improve at all, will depend on how much of a difference the new coach makes, as opposed to how much of a problem we may have with an unbalanced roster that doesn't fit together very well. I agree that we need to see how they play before that can be determined. Given the past three years, I'm just more skeptical than you are.

[JJZFL 619]

It may sound counterintuitive, but DRB% is a poor measure for assessing defensive rebounding prowess as the number is skewed upward due to the other teams missing fewer shots in our case. The inverse is also the reason that teams like GSW and HOU have lower DRB% than you would expect due to the skew the other way (fewer made shots means more opportunities for rebounding). In our case it's like saying that one guy shot 50 fish in the ocean, another shot 50 fish in a barrel; the fish shooting % (FS%) for the guy shooting in the barrel is going to be higher due to fewer opportunities to miss compared to the guy shooting in the ocean. This brings on the issues of sample size as well as quality of the rebounds. The only cases where DRB% is accurately reflected is at the extremes where a team is stupid bad at rebounding (MIN) or very good (SAS).

 

By every measure I've seen, we are clearly in the bottom 10 in every rebounding measure, not just DRB. Even if you choose to not question the true value of DRB%, the fact that every single other rebounding statistic shows us near the absolute bottom should throw up a red flag when putting all your weight in the one stat that doesn't reflect what the others do. No matter which way you look at it, we were bad at rebounding. It should be a point of focus for us. I don't think JJZFL was entirely off base in his assessment, nor do I believe it warranted the response you gave...it was unpleasant at best.

That's just his usual posting style, shedding more heat than light on any topic by being needlessly insulting. Which is why I tend to ignore his posts. He apparently also doesn't read very well, because in my post I never said we couldn't get defensive rebounds. I did say we couldn't get them in close games "when it mattered". Anyone remember us making the key plays, including rebounding, that helped us win the close ones last year?

[Jason Funderburker 111]

Markeiff wants out of Phoenix

[Murphy13 185]

Ok, I want to make sure I'm understanding your argument here:

 

You're saying that, because there were slightly fewer defensive rebounding opportunities for the Magic(and by slightly fewer, I mean that the actual difference in defensive rebounding opportunities per game between the Magic and league average was about 1.5 per game, and that had way more to do with how many fouls the Magic committed than their defensive rebounding prowess. If you want, I can show you the math), that the Magic's DRB%, the percentage of the time when there was an available defensive rebound and the Magic got it, was out of whack?

 

Mathematically speaking, logically speaking, and in all other ways of speaking, what you just said makes absolutely no sense.

 

The Magic's raw rebounding numbers were low because the Magic turned it over a ton, committed a metric ton of fouls while drawing very few, and were one of the worst offensive rebounding teams in the league.

 

We don't have to disqualify the things that the Magic actually did well just so we can harp on the things that they were bad at. We have the capacity to keep more than one thought in our heads at a time.

 

As for your last sentence, and this is pretty important: there is nothing I will ever care less about than whether or not people's feelings are hurt when they're told they're wrong. If your the kind of person who judges everything based on gut feelings, you're going to be wrong most of the time. That's JJFZL's hell to live in, sure, but I'm very sure I don't have to accommodate it.

 

Ok, we were in the lower 33rd percentile in rebounding, whether it was offensive or defensive or combined. If you didn't understand the analogy that explained why DRB% is specifically flawed, I can try to explain it differently-though I'm rather certain your interests don't jive with true understanding. For anyone else that's interested, DRB% unduly weighs value on rebounds collected during stopped time(ft's for example), which is further exacerbated by familiar weaknesses such as poor interior defense (fouls). As Payton4TW mentioned earlier: even one rebound per game difference would have changed our placement by 11 spots last season-that's a big deal when considering there were a few rebounding opportunities at the ft line per game that shouldn't be there. It's a similar argument to the Tobias Harris + 3 pt shooting debate: One person says he is an above average 3 point shooter, he shoots 36% from 3. Another person comes in and says that from one corner he shot 52%, the other four zones he shot considerably below the league average; I contend that he isn't as good a three point shooter as his % suggests. ~When you need a three you probably don't give the ball to him first to make something happen, just like if you need to secure a possession after opp. shot attempt you would not pick the 14/15 Magic first to get the job done.

 

Bottom line is that the metric is flawed, it makes our defensive rebounding look a little better than it probably is...doesn't mean it has absolutely no purpose. It just doesn't work very well, hence why it not usually used by people discussing rebounding, most use rebound rate or its derivative. Now ORB% has tangible value. But that's not the argument of the day-even though it's far more impactful on a game than defensive rebounding-hence why its included in the four factors analysis and DRB% isn't.

 

The point of bringing it up wasn't to debate over a clear team weakness that will likely improve, it was to point out that you said some guy was wrong when he wasn't necessarily, and chose to go about it in a DOM way. Your interest, or lack thereof, in caring how you treat other people is your hell to live in. If it makes you feel good to be insulting on a message board, by all means, just be more correct than the person you are trying to insult and this conversation won't happen. I am certain that your internet persona directly drove people away from this board at a critical time-specifically a few years ago around the board change. So, while you are correct that you don't need to care how terrible you can be to others, you should care anyway. It's not a good look for you, plus it reflected poorly on OMMB when you were more active. I am pretty sure I don't speak for just myself when I say that I would much rather converse with people who aren't 100% right in their opinions but are largely respectful than a curmudgeon who isn't exactly right all the time either-if for no other reason than to increase the traffic here. Feel free to justify the nature of your approach to those you deem wrong if you wish.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Markeiff wants out of Phoenix

[Murphy13 185]

Oh, no. That's perfectly reasonable to expect weaknesses or be pessimistic.

 

It's kinda dumb to say Hennigan is on the hot seat this year. If he was, there would have been no extension or a one year extension.

 

That's not how the nba works. GMs don't get fired for W/L record. GMs get fired for making poor moves or poor planning.

 

This is what will happen before Hennigan is fired:

 

1. He'll start spending a bunch of money on guys that will give us incremental improvement. Like what Sacramento is doing.

 

2. He'll start mortgaging the future for trades that might put us over the hump.

 

 

Ownership always pushes for changes in the plan before changes in personnel.

 

If we do move from development to win at all costs he's going to get a full year to see the results of the change in plan. Thus, it's extremely unlikely that Hennigan is fired this year

 

That's a reasonable position that I can mostly agree with. However, he's already used the holy GM ace-which is firing your coach...next person in basketball scapegoat hierarchy is him. If Amway doesn't like where we are at this time next year, he won't be safe. That doesn't mean he will be fired immediately either, it just means he's next. Extensions have zero to do with firings, GM's (and coaches)get paid regardless, it's a perception move...we want to show that we take care of our people even if it doesn't work out kind of thing. It was a short extension anyway, only through 16/17-right? Or is it 17/18?

[JJZFL 619]

Didn't the Magic extend Jacque Vaughn's contract last year? What happened to him?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Ok, we were in the lower 33rd percentile in rebounding, whether it was offensive or defensive or combined. If you didn't understand the analogy that explained why DRB% is specifically flawed, I can try to explain it differently-though I'm rather certain your interests don't jive with true understanding. For anyone else that's interested, DRB% unduly weighs value on rebounds collected during stopped time(ft's for example), which is further exacerbated by familiar weaknesses such as poor interior defense (fouls).

 

Rebounds collected "during stopped time" aren't rebounds. If Nik Vucevic collects the ball off a missed FT 1 of 2, he doesn't get a rebound for that. No one does.

 

Unless you mean rebounds collected off missed second FTs, in which case I'd have to seriously ask: how many missed FTs per game do you think that was? Because I can tell you that it was incredibly small. The number of FTAs opponents of the Magic missed per game was right at league average, and I do mean RIGHT at league average. (FTAs-FTs)/82 for the Magic and for the league average is 5.7 and change.

 

But since you seem to think that DRB% is some sort of dishonest statistical voodoo, let me explain how the stat is calculated. It's like this:

 

[Team DRBs/(Team DRBs + Opponents' ORBs)]*100 = DRB%

 

That's it.

 

Plugging in the Magic's numbers, you get [2607/(2607+825)] * 100 = 75.96153846153846

 

Also, despite your claim that the Magic were bottom 3rd in in rebounding, whether it was offensive, defensive or combined, the Magic actually ranked 7th in offensive rebounds allowed. Which is explained by the Magic's solid DRB%. Which is what he was saying the Magic were bad at. And they're not. There's math to prove it. Which is what I said originally. That you said was wrong. And it isn't. Which I've said now. Again.

 

I'm honestly not sure how much more I can explain some pretty basic math.

 

As for why DRB% isn't one of the four factors and ORB% is well, ignoring for a second that every stat site I've ever seen lists a team's offensive four factors and it's defensive four factors(or "Opponent's four factors", which is the same thing), it's pretty easy to subtract your opponent's ORB% from 100 to get your team's DRB%. If people had decided to do it the other way around, it wouldn't dismiss the validity of ORB% either. Not including a statistic because including it is redundant to what's already given doesn't dismiss the validity of a statistic.

 

It's the same reason why, when the US Government releases the unemployment percentage for July tomorrow, they won't also release the percentage of people who ARE employed. The information is clearly implied for anyone who wants it, can do basic subtraction, and understands that percentages have to add up to 100.

 

Note: Having gone back and checked, I was wrong about what I said earlier regarding the Magic's fouling; while they did foul far more than average, they were good at limiting themselves, apparently, to non-shooting fouls. Their FTAs allowed is right at league average, almost exactly. I have to admit I'm surprised.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Didn't the Magic extend Jacque Vaughn's contract last year? What happened to him?

 

A one year extension for protection in case Vaughn was a good coach is manageable. That's a huge difference when compared to an extension that runs through 2018...