Look, it is easy to say offensive rebounds would be the difference maker for the Celtics. And in some games, you would be 100% correct. However, making offensive rebounding the ultimate statistical marker of a good team is silly. Like Doc said, the Spurs had only 6...but nobody was worried about it. I am not in any way saying the team is ok as is and we should just go on like this, but focusing on offensive boards is not the key to winning.
The biggest issue with the Celtics is
because they are not focusing on offensive rebounds, they absolutely have to be able to play solid defense the bulk of every quarter. If they play defense like they have been - in very brief spurts we find decent defense - then no amount of offensive boards (realistically speaking) will make a difference to many outcomes.
What drives me crazy is people thinking getting a big center will be the key because it will increase offensive rebounds. That would not be my goal - it would be to get some size in the middle, someone other than KG who clearly does not want to play the spot - to fill lanes on offense and defense. Sure, a big guy will get some offensive boards, but more importantly he will be a steady option for Rondo, a deterrent to the in-the-paint points we see way too often from opponents (I mean seriously, the Pistons?) and something for the other team to seriously worry about.
The Celtics were not a good offensive rebounding team in 2007-2008 either - and have never been ranked high under Doc. Why? His philosophy is based on positional situations. When you crash the glass - the traditional "follow your shot, man" mentality - you
might find yourself getting more offensive boards, maybe even more second chance points and if everything lines up right, this new part of the offense could win some games. However, in the majority of situations, Doc is basing his ideas on the fact that crashing the boards
rarely ends up as points against a decent defense and will far too often lead to his own defense being in 4-5 situations. The guy who crashes the boards will fail to get the rebound a lot more than he will get it (over the course of a season) and in those cases, he is out of position for defense, lagging behind when the other team pushes the floor and leading to easy buckets for any opponent.
So you will say something like, "But dummy, look at the games we have seen - the other teams have gotten so many second chance points, those come from offensive rebounds!" I grant you that - but this is not a testament to the power of the offensive rebound, but instead an indictment of the defensive breakdowns the Celtics have had all season. If you look back at all the games this year, the gobs of second chance points have not been because of opponents crashing the glass, focused on offensive rebounds, but instead on lackadaisical defense and guys not being in the right position.
I know this is an unpopular opinion and like most sports-related arguments, there is no way to prove it one way or another.
In short, I want to see Ainge go out and get talent for this team, I would especially love size, but I do not want to see Doc turn his team into a worse defense by upping the importance of offensive rebounds.
Let the flaming begin