Quote:
Originally Posted by Male29Dan
Help me understand though how it is more beneficial for the team to have a guy grab a rebound and reset the offense and, potentially end up with a jump shot over a talented offensive player going and fighting for someone else's miss (or even his own at times), coming down with the board, and then putting up a much higher-percentage shot. To me, the fact that you are getting a much higher-percentage shot out of that situation due to that players hustle and offensive abilities makes him even more valuable.
I dunno - I think you are splitting hairs a bit here. It isn't double-dipping to me. It is crediting a player for getting a rebound and for scoring a bucket. He did in fact do both of those things.
|
I would say the put back is more valuable, for sure. That's not what I'm getting at.
Let's try to get at this from a different direction. Amare is averaging 26 points a game, and 3 offensive rebounds a game (with rounding). Let's assume (perhaps incorrectly) that two of those offensive rebounds every game leads to 4 points for Amare.
So if someone were comparing Dirk and Amare, someone might say "Amare scores 26 a game AND grabs three offensive boards a game, he's awesome". And my point is that by saying this, you're giving him double credit. If he doesn't grab three offensive rebounds a game, he doesn't score 26 points.
So based on this concept, I would say that the value of those offensive rebounds (in the context of evaluating performance, not in the game itself) have to be negated somewhat.
On the other hand, as I already mentioned, there's even more evidence that the value of defensive rebounds are inflated in traditional analysis.
Bottom line, though, I'll take the elite offensive player that is an elite defensive rebounder and a terrible offensive rebounder.