Poll: Were the Celtics a poor rebounding team last year?

[Chris]

No time to look it up now, but the stat I'd be looking at has to do with opponents' offensive rebounding numbers and the points that flowed from them...dice that up a few ways.

Do opponents get more ORBs against us than other competition?

Have we lost close games because of 2nd chance points off rebounds?  Made games close that wouldn't have been?

My bias leans toward owning the boards, so I tend to think we stink at rebounding, and it drives me nuts.  Bass+future 1st for Varejoa nuts.

I like Andy Varejao, and I've seen him on a lot of wish lists, but doesn't it concern anyone else that the guy has missed over 60% of the Cavs' games due to injury over the course of the last two seasons?

For me, that's a pretty big concern.

My big concern is the way that would make the Cavs laugh.

And this is really where it comes down to on the whole rebounding thing.  It is hard to find players who are good rebounders, AND good in other phases of the game.  A guy like Andy, who is a very good rebounder, very good defender, and at least an average offensive player is very hard to come by.

I don't think they would give him away for an undersized PF who may end up being overpaid when he is not next to Rondo, and a late first rounder. 

I fully believe that if Danny could get a guy like that without giving away the farm, he would have.  But those guys just are not cheap, and he has had little to work with. 

[Mencius]

This clearly illustrates Doc’s aversion to ORBs (because missing them makes you vulnerable on transition), yet desire for DRBs (to help YOU with transition).
The point being simple: Doc clearly has made this a strategic choice. Because of that, you can’t reasonably include ORB stats in the body of rebounds that measure rebounding ability because the team strategically ISN’T TRYING AS HARD for ORBs as it tries for DRBs. Thus they are an invalid measure of ability.

Every team values getting back on D greater than pursuing O rebounds.  So Doc saying this is in no way unique.  However, not every team lapped the field in being the worst offensive rebounding team ever.  You're still trying to value offensive rebounds as of zero value, when they're clearly not.  They're obviously not as valuable as D-boards, but not zero.    Doc creates an even greater than normal emphasis on abandoning O-boards and getting back because we *couldn't do both* with the personnel we had last year.  Some teams can, although you'd like to portray it that all teams utterly abandon O-boards in the manner that we did.  If they all did it, they'd all hover near that worst in league history at O-rebounding like we did.  That's a strategy to mitigate a weakness, it's not borne of a strength.  And O-rebounds do count when considering whether a team was a poor rebounding team or not.  They just don't count as greatly as D-boards do.  But then, you *must* not consider them if you want to make the illogical claim that we were not a poor rebounding team last year.


And since we're quoting from the other thread, here's this:

Here is the crux of why we don’t O rebound, which nullifies your reason for discounting that.
There is an energy component to all of this. It takes a lot more of it to both go for an O-Reb and hustle back with your guy on D. That’s self evident. It’s also evident that our older players simply can no longer do both, so they pace themselves during a game. They must conserve energy or they’ll be toast by the 4th quarter, and they do, and even conserving energy in that way, Garnett, for example, is still playing in 5 minute increments. Younger guys have more energy and can both go for O boards and are able to get back on D. Our older players cannot, so they prudently sacrifice going for O boards to be able to get back on D. It’s more important. That’s no kind of strength or ingenious strategy. It’s a recognition of a weakness and a consequent strategy to mitigate it. Garnett, as an example, was able to both go for O boards, and still get back to cover his man for many, many years. He can’t do it anymore, so having to choose between doing both or choosing one vs the other, he makes the obvious choice to abandon going for the O board to get back on D, because of course, it’s more important. But that doesn’t imply that if he still could do both that he would choose not to. That’s a crazy conclusion. He no longer does both because he can’t do both anymore. That’s why it’s maddening to read arguments that imply that he, and by extension, the team, abandon O rebs to the extent that we did last year because it is a universally superior stategy. All teams emphasize getting back over getting O-boards to some extent, but not all teams emphasized it to the extent that we did.  It’s only superior in OUR case because our team CAN’T do both. They are simply mitigating a known weakness the best way they can by consciously choosing to forgo O-boards in favor of getting back because they don’t have the energy to do both. Again, that’s not a strength. That’s prudently acknowledging what you can no longer do and mitigating the consequences of that weakness.  If Doc had different, younger superstar horses, he'd allow them freer reign to go for O-boards as long as they could still get back, which they still could when they were younger, as evidenced by our then younger Garnett driven team in 07/08.  We were nowhere near worst in league history at it back then, and Doc *still* valued getting back over O-boards, but we were able to do both to a much greater degree 5 years ago.  Hence, the lousy rebounding team that we were last year.

[mmmmm]

This clearly illustrates Doc’s aversion to ORBs (because missing them makes you vulnerable on transition), yet desire for DRBs (to help YOU with transition).
The point being simple: Doc clearly has made this a strategic choice. Because of that, you can’t reasonably include ORB stats in the body of rebounds that measure rebounding ability because the team strategically ISN’T TRYING AS HARD for ORBs as it tries for DRBs. Thus they are an invalid measure of ability.

 You're still trying to value offensive rebounds as of zero value, when they're clearly not.  They're obviously not as valuable as D-boards, but not zero.    Doc creates an even greater than normal emphasis on abandoning O-boards and getting back because we *couldn't do both* with the personnel we had last year. 

No, I am NOT saying offensive rebounds have zero value.  I've _never_ said that and you can't find a quote anywhere where I have said that.

What I (and others) have consistently said is that because of Doc's stated strategy (WHICH, by the way goes back way before the current personnel so that argument isn't valid) you cannot use them in the collective of events that represent successful attempts in earnest.  The argument isn't that an ORB has zero game value.  The argument is that ORBs do not represent a valid measure of rebounding _ability_.

Different teams place different emphasis on going after ORBs.  ALL teams place top priority emphasis on going after DRBs.   Thus only the latter (in the form of DRB%) represents a useful even field measurement of how well teams go after rebounds.

And by that measure, the C's were very clearly and definitively measured as average last year.

[Mencius]

No, I am NOT saying offensive rebounds have zero value.  I've _never_ said that and you can't find a quote anywhere where I have said that.

This is what you have said repeatedly:

--The point being simple: Doc clearly has made this a strategic choice. Because of that, you can’t reasonably include ORB stats in the body of rebounds that measure rebounding ability because the team strategically ISN’T TRYING AS HARD for ORBs as it tries for DRBs. Thus they are an invalid measure of ability.

Without explicitly saying the words “ORBs are worth zero”, saying not to count them, effectively, is tantamount to counting them as zero, as in they're not part of the whole rebounding equation, as in contributing zero to the whole rebounding equation, so let's not split hairs about you having never said the words verbatim, because effectively, you've said that they count zero as to whether the team is a poor rebounding team or not.

--Different teams place different emphasis on going after ORBs.  ALL teams place top priority emphasis on going after DRBs.   Thus only the latter (in the form of DRB%) represents a useful even field measurement of how well teams go after rebounds.

But ALL teams place a greater emphasis on getting back than they do on getting ORBs, and only the C's were worst in league history at ORBs, which might give you a clue that we were really, really bad at it, in spite of ALL teams placing a greater emphasis on getting back on D.

--Doc's stated strategy (WHICH, by the way goes back way before the current personnel so that argument isn't valid) you cannot use them in the collective of events that represent successful attempts in earnest.

You make my own point.  Doc's strategy (along with every other team in the league's, so it's hardly unique) has always been to value getting back more than the ORB, and yet, we weren't historically, epically, the worst in league history at ORBs back in 07/08 when we won it all (and Doc's strategy was essentially the same then.)  Our stars, but most particularly Garnett, were 5 years younger then, and able to both get more ORBs and still get back, as evidenced by our best in the league defense back then.  And, as you just said, Doc's strategy was essentially the same (value getting back over ORBs), which might prompt you to ask yourself, if the strategy is the same, how come we were okay at it in 07/08 and the worst in league history at it last year (hmmm, maybe we just sucked at it last year?).

--And by that [DRBs] measure, the C's were very clearly and definitively measured as average last year.

Sure, mmmm.  If 22nd of 30 is average.  Your argument is so absurd about entirely leaving out ORBs when deciding if a team was a poor rebounding team or not.  22nd out of 30 is already not good, and add in last in league history in ORBs to the equation, they end up 28th out of 30 (which is quite lousy, mmmm, or does that qualify as average in your book, too?).  There is NO legitimate reason to entirely discount our epically bad ORBs, and yet, you're so invested in your putting forth this 'We weren't a bad rebounding team' idea, that you absolutely MUST not consider that data or your whole argument goes swirling down the toilet.

Anyway, all these statistics are tedious.  Most people who did nothing more than watch the games could tell you that we were a lousy rebounding team.

[Prof. Clutch]

I don't think you need a poll to answer this one.  There honestly isn't much opinion to be had here.  The Celtics were a bad rebounding team, plain and simple.  We ranked last in the league in rebounding and had no true rebounding beast (other thank KG in the playoffs, and that was mostly on the defensive end) on our team.

KG ranked 47th in the league in rebounding rate last season, that's as close as we got to a good rebounder.

[SHAQATTACK]

All I gots a say is look out some n is a comming by end of the season.

ya'll watch  KG  got two new young pitbulls  Sul and Fab .  He gets in dem boys head play n mean and all. 

Rebounding gettin better   

[scottwedman]

Rebounding is about desire.  We just didn't care.

[bfrombleacher]

Would you say it's true if we'd rebounded even a little better, we might have won more/won it all?

It's not even about offensive rebounding. Defensive rebounding is vital. Period. The extra possessions really hurt.

[BballTim]

No, I am NOT saying offensive rebounds have zero value.  I've _never_ said that and you can't find a quote anywhere where I have said that.

This is what you have said repeatedly:

--The point being simple: Doc clearly has made this a strategic choice. Because of that, you can’t reasonably include ORB stats in the body of rebounds that measure rebounding ability because the team strategically ISN’T TRYING AS HARD for ORBs as it tries for DRBs. Thus they are an invalid measure of ability.

Without explicitly saying the words “ORBs are worth zero”, saying not to count them, effectively, is tantamount to counting them as zero, as in they're not part of the whole rebounding equation, as in contributing zero to the whole rebounding equation, so let's not split hairs about you having never said the words verbatim, because effectively, you've said that they count zero as to whether the team is a poor rebounding team or not.

--Different teams place different emphasis on going after ORBs.  ALL teams place top priority emphasis on going after DRBs.   Thus only the latter (in the form of DRB%) represents a useful even field measurement of how well teams go after rebounds.

But ALL teams place a greater emphasis on getting back than they do on getting ORBs, and only the C's were worst in league history at ORBs, which might give you a clue that we were really, really bad at it, in spite of ALL teams placing a greater emphasis on getting back on D.

--Doc's stated strategy (WHICH, by the way goes back way before the current personnel so that argument isn't valid) you cannot use them in the collective of events that represent successful attempts in earnest.

You make my own point.  Doc's strategy (along with every other team in the league's, so it's hardly unique) has always been to value getting back more than the ORB, and yet, we weren't historically, epically, the worst in league history at ORBs back in 07/08 when we won it all (and Doc's strategy was essentially the same then.)  Our stars, but most particularly Garnett, were 5 years younger then, and able to both get more ORBs and still get back, as evidenced by our best in the league defense back then.  And, as you just said, Doc's strategy was essentially the same (value getting back over ORBs), which might prompt you to ask yourself, if the strategy is the same, how come we were okay at it in 07/08 and the worst in league history at it last year (hmmm, maybe we just sucked at it last year?).

--And by that [DRBs] measure, the C's were very clearly and definitively measured as average last year.

Sure, mmmm.  If 22nd of 30 is average.  Your argument is so absurd about entirely leaving out ORBs when deciding if a team was a poor rebounding team or not.  22nd out of 30 is already not good, and add in last in league history in ORBs to the equation, they end up 28th out of 30 (which is quite lousy, mmmm, or does that qualify as average in your book, too?).  There is NO legitimate reason to entirely discount our epically bad ORBs, and yet, you're so invested in your putting forth this 'We weren't a bad rebounding team' idea, that you absolutely MUST not consider that data or your whole argument goes swirling down the toilet.

Anyway, all these statistics are tedious.  Most people who did nothing more than watch the games could tell you that we were a lousy rebounding team.

  A couple of points:

  You claim that all teams place more of an emphasis on getting back on defense than getting offensive rebounds, but you also notice that when our players were younger they could get more offensive rebounds and still get back. Obviously teams place different amounts of emphasis on going for rebounds vs getting back on defense, just like the Celts have changed that emphasis over time.

  Also, and it's a smallish point, but while it's true that the Celts are a below average defensive rebonding team, they're probably within a half a rebound a game of being average.

  But, overall, I'd agree that we're not a good rebounding team.

[Chris]

Would you say it's true if we'd rebounded even a little better, we might have won more/won it all?

It's not even about offensive rebounding. Defensive rebounding is vital. Period. The extra possessions really hurt.

Yes and no.  If we had rebounded better, and everything else stayed static, it absolutely would have made us better (not sure if it would have been enough to get us over the hump).  However, its not that easy.  With the roster we had, I am not sure it would have been possible to rebound better, and not have it hurt us in other ways.

Without more all-around players (which are very hard to come by), it is very difficult to improve any area of the game, without sacrificing another. 

[mmmmm]

Sigh .. I hate the endless quote-wars.

No, I am NOT saying offensive rebounds have zero value.  I've _never_ said that and you can't find a quote anywhere where I have said that.

This is what you have said repeatedly:

Nope.   And you are now just making stuff up.

--The point being simple: Doc clearly has made this a strategic choice. Because of that, you can’t reasonably include ORB stats in the body of rebounds that measure rebounding ability because the team strategically ISN’T TRYING AS HARD for ORBs as it tries for DRBs. Thus they are an invalid measure of ability.

Without explicitly saying the words “ORBs are worth zero”, saying not to count them, effectively, is tantamount to counting them as zero, as in they're not part of the whole rebounding equation, as in contributing zero to the whole rebounding equation, so let's not split hairs about you having never said the words verbatim, because effectively, you've said that they count zero as to whether the team is a poor rebounding team or not.

Saying that they are not a useful measure of a team's ability to rebound is not at all the same as saying they have zero value.  You are basically lying about what I've said now or simply unable to comprehend a very simple distinction.

--Different teams place different emphasis on going after ORBs.  ALL teams place top priority emphasis on going after DRBs.   Thus only the latter (in the form of DRB%) represents a useful even field measurement of how well teams go after rebounds.

But ALL teams place a greater emphasis on getting back than they do on getting ORBs, and only the C's were worst in league history at ORBs, which might give you a clue that we were really, really bad at it, in spite of ALL teams placing a greater emphasis on getting back on D.

That makes no sense.   You have not established at all that 'ALL teams place a greater emphasis on getting back than they do on getting ORBs'.   

--Doc's stated strategy (WHICH, by the way goes back way before the current personnel so that argument isn't valid) you cannot use them in the collective of events that represent successful attempts in earnest.

You make my own point.  Doc's strategy (along with every other team in the league's, so it's hardly unique) has always been to value getting back more than the ORB, and yet, we weren't historically, epically, the worst in league history at ORBs back in 07/08 when we won it all (and Doc's strategy was essentially the same then.)  Our stars, but most particularly Garnett, were 5 years younger then, and able to both get more ORBs and still get back, as evidenced by our best in the league defense back then.  And, as you just said, Doc's strategy was essentially the same (value getting back over ORBs), which might prompt you to ask yourself, if the strategy is the same, how come we were okay at it in 07/08 and the worst in league history at it last year (hmmm, maybe we just sucked at it last year?).

It doesn't change the point - even back then - were we 'mediocre' at rebounding as indicated by our 17th ranking in ORB%?  Or were we good at rebounding as indicated by our  #8 ranking in DRB%?   

The 76ers were #1 that year in ORB% (31.8%) yet only 23rd in DRB% (72%).  They allowed teams to shoot eFG% 50.4%.   That doesn't look to me like they shared the same "transition D over ORB" philosophy as the Celtics.  Were they a 'better rebounding team' than the Celtics that year?

They are two distinct pools of events.   The difference between then and now in ORB% could just as easily be explained by the players further buying into Doc's philosophy.   If you think it has some component due to ability because the guys are 'old' (you know - old guys like Bass, Rondo, Stiemsma, Wilcox, Bradley, Hollins, Dooling, etc.) that doesn't change the _fact_ that there is a signficant component of strategic intent that affects the ORB numbers.

Unless you can demonstrate that ALL teams apply the same priority to securing ORBS they simply aren't a useful measure of team rebounding ability.

--And by that [DRBs] measure, the C's were very clearly and definitively measured as average last year.

Sure, mmmm.  If 22nd of 30 is average.  Your argument is so absurd about entirely leaving out ORBs when deciding if a team was a poor rebounding team or not.  22nd out of 30 is already not good, and add in last in league history in ORBs to the equation, they end up 28th out of 30 (which is quite lousy, mmmm, or does that qualify as average in your book, too?).  There is NO legitimate reason to entirely discount our epically bad ORBs, and yet, you're so invested in your putting forth this 'We weren't a bad rebounding team' idea, that you absolutely MUST not consider that data or your whole argument goes swirling down the toilet.

Anyway, all these statistics are tedious.  Most people who did nothing more than watch the games could tell you that we were a lousy rebounding team.

You typically toss the rankings out there with no context at all to what they mean.  You post the '22nd of 30' ranking in _total_ rebounding efficiency - once again conflating ORBs and DRBs together.   You are mixing apples and oranges.

Yes, indeed being ranked 20nd of 30 teams in DRB% last year was definitely 'average'.  All the teams between 10th and 20th are within a fraction of rebound per game of each other- well within the sample noise caused by random chance bounces in a game.  Statistically they are indistinguishable.    The fact is, there really is not that much dynamic range to the DRB% stat.  As explained very clearly before, the difference between the C's and the top ranked DRB% team (the spurs) amounts to about 1.5 rebounds per game.  That, too, is basically in the noise.

There is a certain 'common sense' test that seems to escape you here in this discussion.  If the C's were truly a "lousy rebounding team", doesn't it seem odd that we could be one of the winningest teams in the second half and go so deep in the playoffs?   Strange to be able to do so while being 'lousy' at such a fundamental aspect of the game.

[Mencius]

--Sigh .. I hate the endless quote-wars.

You frequently start your posts with this sighing.  It really adds a lot of gravitas to your posts, right from the get go.

--Saying that they are not a useful measure of a team's ability to rebound is not at all the same as saying they have zero value.  You are basically lying about what I've said now or simply unable to comprehend a very simple distinction.

“Saying that they are not a useful measure of a team's ability to rebound “ IS saying that they don't count as part of rebounding as a whole, as in they have zero value when determining whether a team is a good or poor rebounding team.  It's what you've been contending the entire time.  It's a distinction without a difference.  What part if this don't you understand, mmmm?  If you say to not count ORBs when evaluating whether a team is good or bad at rebounding, then you are effectively saying that they count as zero in that determination.  It's shocking that you don't understand that.

--You have not established at all that 'ALL teams place a greater emphasis on getting back than they do on getting ORBs'. 

Jesus, do you need to go to the weather channel to confirm that the sun is shining when you can see it out your window?  Of course all teams place a greater emphasis on getting back than they do on getting ORBs.  Since you can never rely on your own eyes for anything, then here: the Bulls were far and away the best in the league at grabbing ORBs, and they grabbed 32.6% of those available (and were still best in defensive eFG%.)   Everybody was between that high, and our historically low 19.7%.  If their biggest emphasis were on ORBs, they'd crash the O boards and not care about giving up layups on the other end (taking it to its bizarre logical extreme).  They'd grab a much higher percentage of ORBs, and undoubtedly give up a lot of layups on the other end.  This is true of all teams in the league.  This is really obvious stuff, mmmm, and true for ALL teams, so it's obvious that ALL teams place a higher priority on getting back on D.

--It doesn't change the point - even back then - were we 'mediocre' at rebounding as indicated by our 17th ranking in ORB%?  Or were we good at rebounding as indicated by our  #8 ranking in DRB%?   

Per usual, it's not really an either or thing, now is it mmmm? The things are not mutually exclusive, as you must insist they are.   No, we weren't mediocre at rebounding on the whole because we were 16th at ORB in 07/08.  We were considerably better at ORB at 26.6% in 07/08 than in 11/12 when were were a historically worst in league 19.7%, but you don't judge whether you were good or bad at rebounding solely based on ORBs, as you well know.  They're not even as important as DRBs.  They're just not valued at zero (as you'd like) when considering whether a team is good or bad at rebounding

This is easier to read like this:

…………………Rank……...Rank…..Tot………Relative
…………ORR….......DRR…...........REBR….Standing
7/8…….26.6….16th....74.4….8th.....51.9………4th

11/12…19.7….30th.....72.4….20th....47.3………28th

Clearly, we were better in all three measures, ORR, DRR, and in the aggregate Total Rebounding rate.  Doesn't take a genius to look at those numbers and determine that we were a good rebounding team in 07/08, and we were a lousy rebounding team in 11/12.  But then, that was evident just from watching the games.  The stats just comfirm what the eyes told you in the first place. 

---The 76ers were #1 that year in ORB% (31.8%) yet only 23rd in DRB% (72%).  They allowed teams to shoot eFG% 50.4%.   That doesn't look to me like they shared the same "transition D over ORB" philosophy as the Celtics.  Were they a 'better rebounding team' than the Celtics that year?

The fact that they still got only 31.8% of ORBs available, while being best in the league at it, still indicates that they (and all other teams) still valued getting back on D more than getting ORBs, just like every year.  They were 20th at eFG%, indicating that they were a poor defensive team.  It seems you're trying to draw a correlation between ORB% and eFG%, in an attempt to say 'Don't count ORBs into the equation of whether a team was a poor rebounding team or not'.  Well, there's that Philly example, and then there's the Chicago example of this year, where Chicago was both best in ORB% and best in eFG%.  Doesn't really bolster your argument about throwing out ORBs entirely, now does it?  That line of reasoning was a distraction.  All it really says was that Philly was a poor to mediocre defensive team that year, and there are a lot of factors that go into that.

--Unless you can demonstrate that ALL teams apply the same priority to securing ORBS they simply aren't a useful measure of team rebounding ability.

So...you want to throw out ORBs entirely if I don't demonstrate that ALL teams apply exactly the same priority to securing ORBs?.  You're asking me to prove something that is unprovable, and then concluding from that, that your position is therefore correct.  I'm not sure what the word for that is (i.e. which logical fallacy), but I suspect if I look for logical fallacies, that'll be there.  It's more of you absolutely needing to not count the worst offensive rebounding team in history in with the overall rebounding stats, even if you discounted their value relative to DRBs.  There's no legitimate reason for discounting them entirely.  It's just a nonsensical argument, but it seems to be the only thing you're clinging to to claim that we weren't a poor rebounding team.

Doc had essentially the same strategy back in 07/08 and as the stats shown above indicate, we were much better at ORBs, DRBs, and TotRBs back then, with the same basic strategy.   Face it, mmmm; we were a really poor rebounding team last year.  Why are you so invested in insisting that we weren't, when to the eye we were, and statistically we were? 

 

-- You post the '22nd of 30' ranking in _total_ rebounding efficiency - once again conflating ORBs and DRBs together.   You are mixing apples and oranges.

Mmmm, this is truly dishonest.  Back again claiming that I am valuing ORBs and DRBs equally (conflating ORBs), when I have said I don't know how many times that DRBs are more important than ORBs; just that ORBs are not of zero value and should be counted when determining whether a team is a good rebounding team or not.  Do you have comprehension issues, or are you knowingly making dishonest arguments?  It's one or the other on this issue, and neither is good.

---Yes, indeed being ranked 20nd of 30 teams in DRB% last year was definitely 'average'.  All the teams between 10th and 20th are within a fraction of rebound per game of each other

You have an absolute NEED to hyperfocus on DRBs and whether the ball might have bounced to the left or right and we could have been 10th instead of 20th, and to completely throw out ORBs from the equation, because to include them is to end up 28th in the league, grabbing just 47% of all available rebounds.  It's a distraction from the main question of were the Celtics a poor rebounding team.  Just compare the 07/08 squad with the 11/12 squad, when we were essentially using the same strategy, and we were a good rebounding team then, and a crappy one last year.

--If the C's were truly a "lousy rebounding team", doesn't it seem odd that we could be one of the winningest teams in the second half and go so deep in the playoffs?

 

Yes, it was odd that we won as much as we did last season, and got as far as we did in the post-season, but then, nobody ever claimed rebounding was the end all and be all in determining whether you win or lose.  There's offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, etc, etc, etc,as we all know.  I think it's mere common sense to say that if all other aspects had remained static, and we had rebounded better (say to 07/08 levels), we'd have been even more successful.  I'm almost embarrassed to point that out explicitly, because it seems so obvious, and yet you seem to be missing it.

Also, as pleased as I was at going as far as we did in the playoffs, I think had not Rose blown out his knee, and Noah got hurt too, that they'd have surely beaten Philly, and then us too, in the second round, so there was some luck in our deep run as well.

--There is a certain 'common sense' test that seems to escape you here in this discussion. 

Sure mmmm, all 92.1% of us who saw the Cs as a poor rebounding team lack common sense, but you somehow see the truth of the matter.  You're very special, lol.

[Roy H.]

Knock it off, guys.  The bickering has crossed a line.

[Mencius]

Knock it off, guys.  The bickering has crossed a line.

Just as well.  I just wanted to see how the rest of Celtics nation viewed how the Celics rebounded last year.