What second chance points tell us about the relative importance of rebounds

Today Big Ten Wonk opined that defensive rebounds are more important to defense than offensive rebounds are to offense. As everything comes back to Points Per Possession (PPP), I wondered whether teams score more points after an offensive rebound than they do on an average possession. This is difficult to track down because "second chance points" don't always appear in the box score. Only eight of Illinois's box scores to date have included second chance points. The numbers below are PPP / PPrP (the latter being Points Per rebounded Possession, calculated as second chance points divided by offensive rebounds). The first set is Illinois's defense (the other team's PPP) and the second set is Illinois's offense.

11/19 Florida A&M 1.04 / 0.80
11/21 Savannah State 0.53 / 1.40
11/25 Bradley 1.03 / 1.08
11/28 Maryland 1.01 / 1.11
12/06 IUPUI 0.86 / 1.00
12/17 Belmont 0.70 / 0.80
12/19 Missouri 1.06 / 1.22
12/21 Idaho State 1.10 / 1.18

11/19 vs. Florida A&M 1.39 / 1.16
11/21 vs. Savannah State 1.26 / 0.77
11/25 vs. Bradley 1.08 / 1.20
11/28 vs. Maryland 0.92 / 0.95
12/06 vs. IUPUI 1.27 / 1.25
12/17 vs. Belmont 1.06 / 0.78
12/19 vs. Missouri 1.11 / 1.29
12/21 vs. Idaho State 1.30 / 1.62

The weighted averages on defense are 0.91 / 1.07 -- Illinois gives up 0.16 more points per possession on opponents' offensive-rebounded possessions than on opponents' possessions overall. The numbers for Illinois's offense are more difficult to grasp. I think the weighted averages of 1.16 / 1.10 are misleading, due to early-season rebound fests.

As Wonk often observes, offensive rebounding and defensive rebounding are different skills. Lumping the two together is like using assist-to-turnover ratio -- it provides some insight, but the two aren't that intimately linked. But my point is that if a team's (take a deep breath) offensive marginal points per rebounded possession exceeds its defensive marginal points per rebounded possession, then its offensive rebounds are more important to its offense than its defensive rebounds are to its defense. And if Off mPPrP < Def mPPrP, then its Drebs are more important to its defense than its Orebs are to its offense.

In Illinois's case, right now I'd say that defensive rebounds are more important to the team's defensive consistency than offensive rebounds are to the team's offensive consistency. [It's great to change the question while giving the answer.] We know what's going to happen from game to game when Illinois gives up a defensive rebound -- the other team gets a small boost on the continued possession. When Illinois gets an offensive rebound, though, we really have no idea what's going to happen from game to game.

Appealing a suspension should not be a negotiation

Carmelo Anthony was suspended for 15 games, and now he may appeal his suspension. He must be thinking like Cher in Clueless: "Well, some teachers are trying to low-ball me, Daddy. And I know how you say, 'Never accept a first offer,' so I figure these grades are just a jumping off point to start negotiations."

I once had a professor that told his students that a request for a regrade would open the exam up to any re-evaluation, not just on the issue for which the student thought he was unfairly graded. The insinuation was that a student could end up with a lower score after the regrade.

A 15-game suspension is not inherently unfair. What Anthony's representatives would argue is that it is unfair in the context of the collective bargaining agreement and case law (the league's past disciplinary measures). As the appeal should be handled by a neutral party -- thanks, AP writer, for failing to mention who would handle a prospective appeal -- the NBA Office of Discipline (that would look so great on a business card) would present its own argument. Who's to say whether 15 games is actually an insufficient punishment, and that the arbiter of the appeal could order a longer suspension? [*cough*Stephen Jackson*cough*] I get the feeling this would never happen in the NBA, but we don't hear anything from the players that think, "You know, I got off light, I'll shut my mouth and do the time."

Maybe the NBA could end up where the English Premier League is. On a corner kick in the waning moments of Saturday's match against Sheffield United, Wigan's Lee McCulloch freed himself from his defender with a punch below the right eye. The referee didn't catch it, but the TV cameras did. The FA charged McCulloch with violent conduct, meriting a three-game suspension, and he accepted the suspension. Perhaps this is because the FA gives players under 48 hours to respond. Good luck drafting an argument based on case law in that time. And the FA deals with more extreme cases in the same way: "This is what you did. It was bad. If you can possibly justify it, tell us now, but...I mean, come on."

I know little about NBA case law, but I do remember Michael Barrett clocking A. J. Pierzynski and getting only 10 games (6% of the MLB season...and he didn't appeal). Hockey players fight all the time and usually end up with just a game misconduct. But basketball is different. Closer. More intimate. And case law may not be as applicable here. Fighting is bad, and David Stern wants it out of the game. Why shouldn't Carmelo's actions cost him 18% of the NBA season? Why shouldn't it be more? Is there anything in the CBA that actually supports fighting? What Carmelo did was bad. I know he was egged on, but if fighting is bad, how can he possibly justify what he did?

[Update: Carmelo decided not to appeal, and Marc Stein did mention who handles which appeals.]