If the Celts are going to make a blockbuster...

[Fierce1]

Its really hard to take your obsession with defensive rebounding seriously when you thought the Warriors of the past 5 years were proficient at it.

You are hyper-focused on it, yet cannot recognize its absence it when its been slapping you in the face FOR FIVE YEARS.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2015.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2016.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2017.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2018.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2019.html#all_team_and_opponent

Not once in those 5 seasons GSW had a negative differential in rebounding.

In all 5 seasons of their dynasty, GSW always averaged more rebounds than their opponents in that 5-year span.

[Fafnir]

Its really hard to take your obsession with defensive rebounding seriously when you thought the Warriors of the past 5 years were proficient at it.

You are hyper-focused on it, yet cannot recognize its absence it when its been slapping you in the face FOR FIVE YEARS.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2015.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2016.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2017.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2018.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2019.html#all_team_and_opponent

Not once in those 5 seasons GSW had a negative differential in rebounding.

In all 5 seasons of their dynasty, GSW always averaged more rebounds than their opponents in that 5-year span.

You do not understand how to measure defensive rebounding accurately. I will break it down for you. First of all rebounding differential adds in offensive and defensive boards, there will always be more defensive rebounds than offensive ones so defensive rebounding dominates overall rebounding statistics.

Even the worst rebounding team in the league gets 70% of its opponents misses. So a good defensive team will have a lot more defensive rebounding chances than a bad defensive team. You can't get a rebound when the opponent puts the ball through the rim. Similarly opponents can't get rebounds when you make a bucket.

Golden State was an elite defensive that entire run at FG% defense. They were the best shooting team in league history when it came to making buckets. So what does that mean? They have a lot more chances to get defensive rebounds compared to their opponents.

So you have 5 years of mediocre to awful defensive rebounding that comes out to a "positive" rebounding differential. Go click those links you provided me and search for "DRB%", that's how you should evaluate defensive rebounding.

Bad rebounding has been slapping you in the face with GSW and you cannot recognize it, so again its hard to take your hyper fixation seriously.

To replicate the GSW formula for rebounding differential the C's don't need a big center, they need to become the best shooting team in league history.

[Fierce1]

Its really hard to take your obsession with defensive rebounding seriously when you thought the Warriors of the past 5 years were proficient at it.

You are hyper-focused on it, yet cannot recognize its absence it when its been slapping you in the face FOR FIVE YEARS.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2015.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2016.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2017.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2018.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2019.html#all_team_and_opponent

Not once in those 5 seasons GSW had a negative differential in rebounding.

In all 5 seasons of their dynasty, GSW always averaged more rebounds than their opponents in that 5-year span.

You do not understand how to measure defensive rebounding accurately. I will break it down for you. First of all rebounding differential adds in offensive and defensive boards, there will always be more defensive rebounds than offensive ones so defensive rebounding dominates overall rebounding statistics.

Even the worst rebounding team in the league gets 70% of its opponents misses. So a good defensive team will have a lot more defensive rebounding chances than a bad defensive team. You can't get a rebound when the opponent puts the ball through the rim. Similarly opponents can't get rebounds when you make a bucket.

Golden State was an elite defensive that entire run at FG% defense. They were the best shooting team in league history when it came to making buckets. So what does that mean? They have a lot more chances to get defensive rebounds compared to their opponents.

So you have 5 years of mediocre to awful defensive rebounding that comes out to a "positive" rebounding differential. Go click those links you provided me and search for "DRB%", that's how you should evaluate defensive rebounding.

Bad rebounding has been slapping you in the face with GSW and you cannot recognize it, so again its hard to take your hyper fixation seriously.

To replicate the GSW formula for rebounding differential the C's don't need a big center, they need to become the best shooting team in league history.

You do realize that from 2014-15 to the present, only once the Celts had a positive rebounding differential, the 2017-18 season.

Celts have a negative rebounding differential in 4 out of the last 5 seasons.

So if you say GSW had bad rebounding then how bad is the Celts' rebounding?

I mean GSW always averaged more rebounds per game against their opponents for 5 straight seasons.
If that's bad then the Celts must be really bad in rebounding.

Before you talk about DRB%, the first step is to get more rebounds than your opponents.

How can the Celts replicate what GSW did when the Celts were always having a negative rebounding differential.

All I'm saying is GSW did a good job in rebounding considering they were also a small team.

The Celts don't have MVP players like Curry and KD.
That's why the solution is to get a quality Center so that the Celts will be a more balanced team.

You don't have to take what I say seriously.
All you have to do is watch the Celtic games this season.
Watch and see how non-All-Star Centers like Jarrett Allen and Domantas Sabonis suddenly become All-Stars when they're facing the Celtics.

[Fierce1]

This will all be settled once and for all if Ainge makes a move or not.

If Ainge makes a trade then I was right in saying the Celts need an upgrade.

But if Ainge does not make a trade then I was wrong.

Right now it's very clear the Celts have a big man problem.

Let's see what Ainge does.

[Fafnir]

Are the Bucks the 11th best defense in basketball because they give up the 11th fewest points per game?

[Fafnir]

This will all be settled once and for all if Ainge makes a move or not.

If Ainge makes a trade then I was right in saying the Celts need an upgrade.

But if Ainge does not make a trade then I was wrong.

Right now it's very clear the Celts have a big man problem.

Let's see what Ainge does.

That's a wonderful strawman, I do not agree to this framing at all for my part.

[slamtheking]

This will all be settled once and for all if Ainge makes a move or not.

If Ainge makes a trade then I was right in saying the Celts need an upgrade.

But if Ainge does not make a trade then I was wrong.

Right now it's very clear the Celts have a big man problem.

Let's see what Ainge does.

uh, no.  that's not how logical reasoning works.

point A:  everyone's pretty much in agreement we'd like a better center.  Doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong when everyone agrees on the same basic point.
point B:  a trade for the big man you covet may not present itself at a reasonable cost.  Doesn't mean an upgrade isn't needed or wanted, just not feasible in the timeframe you want.
point C: this team has posted an impressive record with a host of health issues so far this season and with the current assortment of centers we already have.  a need for a better big man may not be as pressing or dire as you think it is.

[The Oracle]

Its really hard to take your obsession with defensive rebounding seriously when you thought the Warriors of the past 5 years were proficient at it.

You are hyper-focused on it, yet cannot recognize its absence it when its been slapping you in the face FOR FIVE YEARS.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2015.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2016.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2017.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2018.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2019.html#all_team_and_opponent

Not once in those 5 seasons GSW had a negative differential in rebounding.

In all 5 seasons of their dynasty, GSW always averaged more rebounds than their opponents in that 5-year span.

You do not understand how to measure defensive rebounding accurately. I will break it down for you. First of all rebounding differential adds in offensive and defensive boards, there will always be more defensive rebounds than offensive ones so defensive rebounding dominates overall rebounding statistics.

Even the worst rebounding team in the league gets 70% of its opponents misses. So a good defensive team will have a lot more defensive rebounding chances than a bad defensive team. You can't get a rebound when the opponent puts the ball through the rim. Similarly opponents can't get rebounds when you make a bucket.

Golden State was an elite defensive that entire run at FG% defense. They were the best shooting team in league history when it came to making buckets. So what does that mean? They have a lot more chances to get defensive rebounds compared to their opponents.

So you have 5 years of mediocre to awful defensive rebounding that comes out to a "positive" rebounding differential. Go click those links you provided me and search for "DRB%", that's how you should evaluate defensive rebounding.

Bad rebounding has been slapping you in the face with GSW and you cannot recognize it, so again its hard to take your hyper fixation seriously.

To replicate the GSW formula for rebounding differential the C's don't need a big center, they need to become the best shooting team in league history.

You do realize that from 2014-15 to the present, only once the Celts had a positive rebounding differential, the 2017-18 season.

Celts have a negative rebounding differential in 4 out of the last 5 seasons.

So if you say GSW had bad rebounding then how bad is the Celts' rebounding?

I mean GSW always averaged more rebounds per game against their opponents for 5 straight seasons.
If that's bad then the Celts must be really bad in rebounding.

Before you talk about DRB%, the first step is to get more rebounds than your opponents.

How can the Celts replicate what GSW did when the Celts were always having a negative rebounding differential.

All I'm saying is GSW did a good job in rebounding considering they were also a small team.

The Celts don't have MVP players like Curry and KD.
That's why the solution is to get a quality Center so that the Celts will be a more balanced team.

You don't have to take what I say seriously.
All you have to do is watch the Celtic games this season.
Watch and see how non-All-Star Centers like Jarrett Allen and Domantas Sabonis suddenly become All-Stars when they're facing the Celtics.

Your line of thinking here is incorrect.  A teams rebounding differential is dependent on a bunch of factors and should not be used to determine whether or not a team is good at rebounding.  The single biggest reason the C's have a slightly negative rebounding differential is because the C's turnover their opponents (16.4 per game) much more often then they commit turnovers themselves (13.5 per game).  That is not a bad thing and it resulting in a poorer rebounding differential is irrelevant.

[Hoopvortex]

Its really hard to take your obsession with defensive rebounding seriously when you thought the Warriors of the past 5 years were proficient at it.

You are hyper-focused on it, yet cannot recognize its absence it when its been slapping you in the face FOR FIVE YEARS.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2015.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2016.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2017.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2018.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2019.html#all_team_and_opponent

Not once in those 5 seasons GSW had a negative differential in rebounding.

In all 5 seasons of their dynasty, GSW always averaged more rebounds than their opponents in that 5-year span.

You do not understand how to measure defensive rebounding accurately. I will break it down for you. First of all rebounding differential adds in offensive and defensive boards, there will always be more defensive rebounds than offensive ones so defensive rebounding dominates overall rebounding statistics.

Even the worst rebounding team in the league gets 70% of its opponents misses. So a good defensive team will have a lot more defensive rebounding chances than a bad defensive team. You can't get a rebound when the opponent puts the ball through the rim. Similarly opponents can't get rebounds when you make a bucket.

Golden State was an elite defensive that entire run at FG% defense. They were the best shooting team in league history when it came to making buckets. So what does that mean? They have a lot more chances to get defensive rebounds compared to their opponents.

So you have 5 years of mediocre to awful defensive rebounding that comes out to a "positive" rebounding differential. Go click those links you provided me and search for "DRB%", that's how you should evaluate defensive rebounding.

Bad rebounding has been slapping you in the face with GSW and you cannot recognize it, so again its hard to take your hyper fixation seriously.

To replicate the GSW formula for rebounding differential the C's don't need a big center, they need to become the best shooting team in league history.

You do realize that from 2014-15 to the present, only once the Celts had a positive rebounding differential, the 2017-18 season.

Celts have a negative rebounding differential in 4 out of the last 5 seasons.

So if you say GSW had bad rebounding then how bad is the Celts' rebounding?

I mean GSW always averaged more rebounds per game against their opponents for 5 straight seasons.
If that's bad then the Celts must be really bad in rebounding.

Before you talk about DRB%, the first step is to get more rebounds than your opponents.

How can the Celts replicate what GSW did when the Celts were always having a negative rebounding differential.

All I'm saying is GSW did a good job in rebounding considering they were also a small team.

The Celts don't have MVP players like Curry and KD.
That's why the solution is to get a quality Center so that the Celts will be a more balanced team.

You don't have to take what I say seriously.
All you have to do is watch the Celtic games this season.
Watch and see how non-All-Star Centers like Jarrett Allen and Domantas Sabonis suddenly become All-Stars when they're facing the Celtics.

Your line of thinking here is incorrect.  A teams rebounding differential is dependent on a bunch of factors and should not be used to determine whether or not a team is good at rebounding.  The single biggest reason the C's have a slightly negative rebounding differential is because the C's turnover their opponents (16.4 per game) much more often then they commit turnovers themselves (13.5 per game).  That is not a bad thing and it resulting in a poorer rebounding differential is irrelevant.

Good point about turnovers, though I’m skeptical that they’re the ‘single biggest reason’.  Consider this: if your Opponent eFG% is lousy (Boston’s is really good right now), there are fewer defensive rebounds to be had; the defense has a big advantage on defensive rebounds, so perversely, bad field goal defense can make your defensive rebounding look better. That’s why you have to use a stat like DReb% that measures performance versus opportunities.

[Hoopvortex]

Are the Bucks the 11th best defense in basketball because they give up the 11th fewest points per game?

The Bucks play the fastest tempo in the league. They are #1 in defense if you measure per possession. There are just more possessions in a Bucks game. If an NBA team has the ball and needs to score, they’re least likely to do it against Milwaukee.

[sgrogan]

Right now the celts have a defensive efg% of .500 and defensive rb% of .761
So with 3 more processions due to turnover differential that would be FGA otherwise (ignoring fouls)
3*.500*.761=1.14 more defensive rebounds per game.
Rebounding differential right now is 0.4, seems pretty significant.

[Fafnir]

Are the Bucks the 11th best defense in basketball because they give up the 11th fewest points per game?

The Bucks play the fastest tempo in the league. They are #1 in defense if you measure per possession. There are just more possessions in a Bucks game. If an NBA team has the ball and needs to score, they’re least likely to do it against Milwaukee.

Shhhh, that question wasn't for you!

I bet your teacher had to ignore your raised hand a lot. 

[footey]

I think we should focus on Mo Bamba. Price is affordable. We would be playing for next year, not this year, which is okay for me.

A center committee of Mo Bamba, R Williams and Tacko Fall would be pretty sweet, especially in a couple of years, when the 2 J's are peaking.

Bamba will be doing stuff like this to Lebron:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mell1TdS0zk

[Fierce1]

This will all be settled once and for all if Ainge makes a move or not.

If Ainge makes a trade then I was right in saying the Celts need an upgrade.

But if Ainge does not make a trade then I was wrong.

Right now it's very clear the Celts have a big man problem.

Let's see what Ainge does.

uh, no.  that's not how logical reasoning works.

point A:  everyone's pretty much in agreement we'd like a better center.  Doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong when everyone agrees on the same basic point.
point B:  a trade for the big man you covet may not present itself at a reasonable cost.  Doesn't mean an upgrade isn't needed or wanted, just not feasible in the timeframe you want.
point C: this team has posted an impressive record with a host of health issues so far this season and with the current assortment of centers we already have.  a need for a better big man may not be as pressing or dire as you think it is.

C: You just have to watch the games and see what happens when non-All-Star bigs like Jarrett Allen and Sabonis suddenly play like All-Stars when they're facing the Celtics.

B: I'm no longer coveting anyone in particular
As long as the Celts trade for a better big man period!

A: Some here don't think Ainge will make a trade this season.
So saying that everybody is in agreement that we need a better Center is not true.
Celts have the assets and have enough salaries to make a trade work.
So why will Ainge not make a move to improve the team?

[Fierce1]

Its really hard to take your obsession with defensive rebounding seriously when you thought the Warriors of the past 5 years were proficient at it.

You are hyper-focused on it, yet cannot recognize its absence it when its been slapping you in the face FOR FIVE YEARS.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2015.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2016.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2017.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2018.html#all_team_and_opponent
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/GSW/2019.html#all_team_and_opponent

Not once in those 5 seasons GSW had a negative differential in rebounding.

In all 5 seasons of their dynasty, GSW always averaged more rebounds than their opponents in that 5-year span.

You do not understand how to measure defensive rebounding accurately. I will break it down for you. First of all rebounding differential adds in offensive and defensive boards, there will always be more defensive rebounds than offensive ones so defensive rebounding dominates overall rebounding statistics.

Even the worst rebounding team in the league gets 70% of its opponents misses. So a good defensive team will have a lot more defensive rebounding chances than a bad defensive team. You can't get a rebound when the opponent puts the ball through the rim. Similarly opponents can't get rebounds when you make a bucket.

Golden State was an elite defensive that entire run at FG% defense. They were the best shooting team in league history when it came to making buckets. So what does that mean? They have a lot more chances to get defensive rebounds compared to their opponents.

So you have 5 years of mediocre to awful defensive rebounding that comes out to a "positive" rebounding differential. Go click those links you provided me and search for "DRB%", that's how you should evaluate defensive rebounding.

Bad rebounding has been slapping you in the face with GSW and you cannot recognize it, so again its hard to take your hyper fixation seriously.

To replicate the GSW formula for rebounding differential the C's don't need a big center, they need to become the best shooting team in league history.

You do realize that from 2014-15 to the present, only once the Celts had a positive rebounding differential, the 2017-18 season.

Celts have a negative rebounding differential in 4 out of the last 5 seasons.

So if you say GSW had bad rebounding then how bad is the Celts' rebounding?

I mean GSW always averaged more rebounds per game against their opponents for 5 straight seasons.
If that's bad then the Celts must be really bad in rebounding.

Before you talk about DRB%, the first step is to get more rebounds than your opponents.

How can the Celts replicate what GSW did when the Celts were always having a negative rebounding differential.

All I'm saying is GSW did a good job in rebounding considering they were also a small team.

The Celts don't have MVP players like Curry and KD.
That's why the solution is to get a quality Center so that the Celts will be a more balanced team.

You don't have to take what I say seriously.
All you have to do is watch the Celtic games this season.
Watch and see how non-All-Star Centers like Jarrett Allen and Domantas Sabonis suddenly become All-Stars when they're facing the Celtics.

Your line of thinking here is incorrect.  A teams rebounding differential is dependent on a bunch of factors and should not be used to determine whether or not a team is good at rebounding.  The single biggest reason the C's have a slightly negative rebounding differential is because the C's turnover their opponents (16.4 per game) much more often then they commit turnovers themselves (13.5 per game).  That is not a bad thing and it resulting in a poorer rebounding differential is irrelevant.

Here's the thing, Celts play great defense but they end up giving opposing teams a lot of 2nd chance points because the Celts can't secure the defensive rebound.

The Cavs burned the Celts for 18 offensive rebounds.
That means the Cavs had 18 2nd attempts at the rim.

When GSW were a dynasty, they were not a great rebounding team, but they were good enough to not let rebounding become a problem.

There are lots of ways to interpret stats, but if you look at the actual Celtic games, you will see the Celts are giving up way too many 2nd chances at the rim.