Celtics Rebounding Philosophy

[tenn_smoothie]

Not the first time i have read this comment this season - actually heard it from Doc recently - but the Celts apparent philosophy on offensive rebounding is that it's a luxury stat:

from Hollinger @ espn:

Boston would also have the worst offensive rebound rate in history by a winning team, with the 2005-06 Suns the current record holder at 22.1.

This information may come as a surprise given Boston's size, but as one longtime Celtic spy told me, "They don't try." Instead Boston focuses on running back on defense, and rarely sends multiple players to the offensive glass.


I have two issues with this proclaimed philosophy ...........

1) Doc said at the same time that while the Celts don't emphasize the offensive boards, they do place a premium on defensive rebounding - then why are opponents getting so many offensive rebounds against us ? offensive boards are a killer and this stat has cost us some games ( i won't mention the most obvious example because it's still too painful to talk about).


2) If i remember right, every single Celtic title team has been very good-to-great on the offensive boards and this factor has played a huge role in winning those championships. all you have to do to be reminded of this fact is to look at the 2008 team which beat the lakers up on the boards with Powe, Garnett, Perk and Baby leading the carnage. Remember '84 when the Celts shot 36% for the entire finals and won ONLY due to their offensive rebounding - i'll never forget Parish and Max in game 7 simply destroying Los Angeles in the 3d quarter when that game was decided. who can forget Cowens & Silas, maybe the greatest rebounding tandem in NBA history winning titles in '74 & '76. and of course Russell and his guys were simply great rebounders - they seem to get every loose ball in that 1969 game 7 win in the forum underneath the balloons.

so there you have it - rebounding wins titles and it has always been a Celtic trademark. we have the biggest frontcourt in the league this season - get healthy and start rebounding better.

No Rebounds, No Rings !!

[Roy H.]

I've been disappointed with the rebounding lately, as our defensive rebounding percentage has declined fairly substantially from the beginning of the season.  A lot of the low ranking could be attributed to Perk's injury, and the decline is probably due to the KG injury, along with injuries to others (Shaq, etc.)  However, we've gone from right around 8th in the league to tied for 13th in defensive rebounding.  That's not good.

In terms of offensive rebounding, I disagree that all of our title teams were "good to great"; our 2008 title team was 18th in the league.  However, that's a far cry from our last place ranking this year.

[The DarkPassenger]

The Celtics rebounding philosophy? "screw it". Kidding kidding... maybe they just think that if they rebound it the then the other team might never get a chance to shoot the ball... and well that's just not fair...

honestly though they really are bad at boxing out and they need to improve that in order to improve rebounding.

[Who]

Once they get healthy, the Celtics will be one of the best rebounding teams in the league.

It is a temporary problem ... Too many minutes for BBD and Erden. A dip in Shaq's form. Garnett's injury. Perk missing most of the season ... As these problems ease up, the Celtics rebounding will improve greatly + be a major strength for the C's.

[snively]

Not the first time i have read this comment this season - actually heard it from Doc recently - but the Celts apparent philosophy on offensive rebounding is that it's a luxury stat:

from Hollinger @ espn:

Boston would also have the worst offensive rebound rate in history by a winning team, with the 2005-06 Suns the current record holder at 22.1.

This information may come as a surprise given Boston's size, but as one longtime Celtic spy told me, "They don't try." Instead Boston focuses on running back on defense, and rarely sends multiple players to the offensive glass.


I have two issues with this proclaimed philosophy ...........

1) Doc said at the same time that while the Celts don't emphasize the offensive boards, they do place a premium on defensive rebounding - then why are opponents getting so many offensive rebounds against us ? offensive boards are a killer and this stat has cost us some games ( i won't mention the most obvious example because it's still too painful to talk about).


2) If i remember right, every single Celtic title team has been very good-to-great on the offensive boards and this factor has played a huge role in winning those championships. all you have to do to be reminded of this fact is to look at the 2008 team which beat the lakers up on the boards with Powe, Garnett, Perk and Baby leading the carnage. Remember '84 when the Celts shot 36% for the entire finals and won ONLY due to their brutal offensive rebounding - i'll never forget Parish and Max in game 7 simply destroying Jabbar & Co. on the glass in the 3d quarter when that game was actually decided. who can forget Cowens & Silas, maybe the greatest rebounding tandem in NBA history winning titles in '74 & '76. and of course Russell and his guys were simply great rebounders - they seem to get every loose ball in that 1969 game 7 win in the forum underneath the balloons.

so there you have it - rebounding wins titles and it'as always been a Celtic trademark. we have the biggest frontcourt in the league this season - get healthy and start rebounding better.

No Rebounds, No Rings !!

We do concede the offensive glass for transition D, but I don't think you can blame Doc for our struggles in keeping opponents off the offensive glass.  Big Baby, one of the worst rebounding big men in the game, has played almost 1/3 of our big man minutes.  When you throw in another 800 minutes of poor to mediocre rebounding from Jermaine and Semih and you can see why we haven't been so hot on the boards.

With Perk back, and Shaq/JO eventually in place to replace Semih, Baby will probably get his minutes cut in half and our rebounding should see a pretty dramatic uptick. 

[tenn_smoothie]

In terms of offensive rebounding, I disagree that all of our title teams were "good to great"; our 2008 title team was 18th in the league.  However, that's a far cry from our last place ranking this year.

maybe during the regular season, but didn't they beat the Lakers up pretty bad on the boards in the Finals ?

your stat from 2008 (18th in the league) does surprise me - i didn't remember that - though i conciously kept an emotional distance from that group that year until I couldn't help but fall in love once again during the early playoffs - so that may be why i am surprised by their mediocre work during the regular schedule - i suppose it's some small comfort to realize that this particular group has always leaned in that direction, though i'm pretty sure they stepped it up in the finals that year.

not sure you can disagree about my other examples - they are practically legendary.

[Roy H.]

not sure you can disagree about my other examples - they are practically legendary.

You know, I was surprised, but the 1986 team ranked 17th out of 23 teams in offensive rebounding percentage (but 1st in defensive rebounding).  The 1984 team was 7th in ORB%, and 3rd in DRB%.

[Celtics4ever]

Which just goes to prove good shooting teams have less offensive rebounds, folks.

[tenn_smoothie]

Which just goes to prove good shooting teams have less offensive rebounds, folks.

absolutely - the Celts ranking 1st in team FG% most of this season goes a long way in explaining their lack of offensive boards. add in the apparent philosophy of, get back on D first & offensive rebound second explains the rest of it.

but the defensive rebounding is a problem right now, no way to hide it.

Roy - whatever the Celts ranked in '84 during the season, the main reason they beat LA in the finals was offensive rebounding - not sure i've ever seen a team rebound like that since. for all Bird did to win that series, Robert Parish was my runner-up mvp in that playoff.

[Roy H.]

Which just goes to prove good shooting teams have less offensive rebounds, folks.

I think the statistics being looked at aren't raw numbers, but rather the percentage of available boards that the Celtics grab on the offensive end.  The Celtics don't have as many opportunities at offensive boards as some other teams, because of 1) their slow pace, 2) their high number of turnovers (which leads to a lack of shots), and 3) their high level of efficiency on offense.

However, where the Celtics rank very poorly is in the percentage of available offense boards that we get.  Our ORB% is 21.4%, which is the lowest percentage (by far) in the league.  The best offensive rebounding teams grab more than 30% of available offensive boards.

I'm curious about what people think of the Celtics philosophy of not trying for rebounds to cut down on transition points.  The Lakers, for instance, rank 5th in offensive rebounding percentage (29.7%), but also do very well on defense (4th in eFG% allowed, 3rd in FG% allowed, 8th in points/100 possessions.)

[BballTim]

Which just goes to prove good shooting teams have less offensive rebounds, folks.

I think the statistics being looked at aren't raw numbers, but rather the percentage of available boards that the Celtics grab on the offensive end.  The Celtics don't have as many opportunities at offensive boards as some other teams, because of 1) their slow pace, 2) their high number of turnovers (which leads to a lack of shots), and 3) their high level of efficiency on offense.

However, where the Celtics rank very poorly is in the percentage of available offense boards that we get.  Our ORB% is 21.4%, which is the lowest percentage (by far) in the league.  The best offensive rebounding teams grab more than 30% of available offensive boards.

I'm curious about what people think of the Celtics philosophy of not trying for rebounds to cut down on transition points.  The Lakers, for instance, rank 5th in offensive rebounding percentage (29.7%), but also do very well on defense (4th in eFG% allowed, 3rd in FG% allowed, 8th in points/100 possessions.)

  If the Celts went from the bottom of the league to the middle that would be about 2 more offensive rebounds a game. If they gave up more than one transition basket going for those offensive rebounds they'd come close to canceling out the benefit of getting those rebounds.

[LooseCannon]

I'm curious about what people think of the Celtics philosophy of not trying for rebounds to cut down on transition points.

I think that if the Celtics did not sacrifice offensive rebounds in order to avoid transition points, you would see more sequences within games that look like Boston is playing the New York Knicks.  How often do you want to see this team having a 30-30 or 32-29 third quarter?

[Eddie20]

The main reason for the poor rebounding is because often times we're out of position due to our defensive philosophy when it comes to defensive rotations. Our defense is great, but sometimes you're going to give up a few things when you rotate as hard as we do in order to contest every shot. If we gave up a few more open looks, and instead sagged back, our rebounding would go up, but so too would our opponents FG%.

[gar]

Shooting numbers are bound to decline as they did dramatically last night, so is dangerous to use that as an excuse. If the Celtics remain complacent about rebounding they will not make the finals. Semih is making a real effort and Perk will make a difference, but not impressed with anyone else at this point.

[Roy H.]

The main reason for the poor rebounding is because often times we're out of position due to our defensive philosophy when it comes to defensive rotations. Our defense is great, but sometimes you're going to give up a few things when you rotate as hard as we do in order to contest every shot. If we gave up a few more open looks, and instead sagged back, our rebounding would go up, but so too would our opponents FG%.

I understand your argument, but I'm, not sure that I buy it.  Good rebounding and good defense aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:

Chicago (1st Def. Rating, 1st eFG% allowed, 8th DRB%)
Celtics (2nd Def. Rating, 3rd eFG% allowed, 11th DRB%)
Hornets (3rd Def. Rating, 4th eFG% allowed, 2nd DRB%)
Heat (4th Def. Rating, 2nd eFG% allowed, 9th DRB%)
Magic (5th Def. Rating, 5th eFG% allowed, 1st DRB%)
Bucks (6th Def. Rating, 6th eFG% allowed, 3rd DRB%)

In other words, it's very possible to both hold opponents to a low eFG% while also controlling the defensive boards; the top three defensive rebounding teams in the league all rank in the top six in defensive rating.  Notably, the Celtics aren't terrible in this category, but there definitely is room for improvement (which will hopefully come with a healthier team.)

The lack of offensive boards may have more of a correlation with good defense.  Only the Bulls and Lakers are in the top ten in both offensive rebounding percentage and defensive rating.