"Rebounding Woes"

[action781]

I'm sick and tired of everyone talking about the Celtics' problems rebounding and that being a cause for their struggles.  It's mentioned much on this blog and I just heard the ABC analysts discussing it.  I think it is mostly garbage.

Whenever people discuss it, the statistic always analyzed is simply the number of rebounds per games.  Boston is 29th in the NBA in with 38.81 rebounds per game.  That sounds TERRIBLE.  But some other stats shed more light onto what kind of rebounding team we really are:

-Boston is 20th in the NBA in rebounding differential at -0.73.  That means we are outrebounded by less than one per game on average.
-Boston is 5th in the NBA in defensive rebounds allowed per game.
-Boston is 8th in the NBA in offensive rebounds allowed per game.
-Boston is 2nd in the NBA in total rebounds allowed per game.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that our low rebounding numbers are actually by design.  Our total rebound numbers are as low as they are because the celtics have been instructed to not attack the offensive glass and instead to get back to prevent transition offense.  That is why the celtics are dead last in the NBA in offensive rebounding % (edit: fixed) but also are second in the NBA in fast break points allowed per game at only 10.9.  So the celtics coaching staff has decided:  total rebound per game numbers are not as important as fast break points allowed per game and we are going to sacrifice rebounds for transition defense.

[Roy H.]

If we're, on average, giving up more rebounds than we collect (i.e., the negative rebound differential), then I think that's a problem.  As good as we are at defense, we should be outrebounding other teams, because we create more defensive rebounds.

Just for perspective, in 2008 were were 3rd in rebounding differential, and were second the following year.  We were terrible last year -- 25th -- which isn't encouraging, since it's rebounding that killed us in the Finals.  I don't find our 20th place ranking this season all that encouraging.

[droopdog7]

I know you are trying to sugarcoats it but we are not a good rebounding team.  The fact is, championship trams are almost always near the top in rebounding. We aren't close to that.

[Who]

The Celtics are a well above average rebounding team when they are healthy.

[droopdog7]

The Celtics are a well above average rebounding team when they are healthy.

This is a pretty sorry excuse, not to mention it is untrue.

[clover]

The Celtics are a well above average rebounding team when they are healthy.

This is a pretty sorry excuse, not to mention it is untrue.

Or its rarity.

[LB3533]

It would be nice if we could rebound, but to me it would be nice not to make stupid turnovers and to actually score the basketball.

Supposedly we were the number 1 FG shooting team in the NBA, but that isn't the case anymore.

Rondo used to be one of the best, if not the best, FG shooting PGs in the game.

We really miss Shaq's 67% shooting, and asking Nenad, JO and Baby to shoot more J's are bringing our percentages down.

We already play at a low pace and we don't offensive rebound so we don't have a lot of possessions to begin with.

If you add in turnovers and poor shooting, there is no doubt our offense is going to struggle.

[DaDoc02]

I called it 2days ago.. Heres wat I wrote
"I think the real reason why we keep losing is because we get out REBOUNDED.... If you look the game 89% of the time no two players stay back to attempt a rebound... If we rebound more we will win the game !!!!"

Lets go Boston!!

[PseudoElite]

The best moment of the had to be when 3 Boston players were fighting for a rebound then fumbled it away, GREATJOB!!!

[action781]

If we're, on average, giving up more rebounds than we collect (i.e., the negative rebound differential), then I think that's a problem.  As good as we are at defense, we should be outrebounding other teams, because we create more defensive rebounds.

We're currently 8th in the NBA in defensive rebounding %.  That is a very high ranking for a "bad rebounding team" at grabbing 74.8% of available defensive rebounds.  The Lakers, who everyone seems to consider the model of frontcourt strength and size, only grab 72.2%.  So, we are actually a better defensive rebounding team than the Lakers.  We are a far worse offensive rebounding team, but it is by design because our coaching staff values transition defense as a higher priority (Lakers give up 3 more fast break ppg than the Celtics do).  We have a differential of +1.9 defensive rebounds per game. 

Celtics like to play a slower halfcourt game.  So, first of all, total numbers for BOTH teams are going to be down in terms of rebounding in those games.  That's why I think % is a more valid statistic to consider that total #'s.

[the_Bird]

The Celtics are a well above average rebounding team when they are healthy.

Probably true, but when a team is deliberately built with older players who are known to be injury prone, this excuse (even if you don't mean it as an excuse) becomes meaningless.  The team can't rebound when it's big men are hurt, but it still "counts" that we're a crappy rebounding team since those big men were pretty much expected to be hurt half the time anyway.

When was the last time the guards dominated on the glass, either?  Pierce can't/doesn't hit the glass as hard as he used to, and I can't remember the last time Rondo was double digits.  Having Jeff "Little Big Man" Green on the floor doesn't help, either.

[Junkyard Dawg]

I agree with the OP here.  And if we were such a good rebounding team in '08, but not last year, what made the difference?  Leon Powe and 1/3 of a season of PJ Brown?  These two guys were the difference between being one of the best rebounding teams in '08 and one of the worst in '10?  I don't buy it... it was a change in coaching philosophy.

[Who]

The Celtics regular season rebounding stats are skewed because:

• Glen Davis leads all big men in minutes played and is fourth overall in minutes. He has played 2200 minutes which comes to almost 30mpg. In the playoffs, with a healthy roster, Glen Davis is the fourth big man in the rotation and shouldn't be playing more than 15-20mpg. Throughout his Celtics tenure, Glen Davis' rebounding has declined whenever he has played more minutes. Regularly a below par rebounder and even worse in long minutes (which he had to do throughout this season).
• Semih Erden was a very poor rebounder who logged 500 minutes and is no longer with the club.
• Nenad Krstic is a poor to very poor rebounder (another 500 minutes) ... but with a healthy roster, he becomes the third string center.

And their also variables which may or may not change come playoff time

• Jermaine O'Neal has struggled with his rebounding due to injury. He has been a better rebounder in recent seasons than he has shown with the Celtics so far. No idea whether this changes or not in the playoffs.
• Jeff Green was an abysmal rebounding PF in OKC but he was a solid rebounding SF during his three and a half years with the Thunder/Sonics. I think that sample size far exceeds the 500 minutes he's gotten with the Celtics while adapting to a new role on a new team. Whether he resumes that solid rebounding this season in the playoffs are not is unclear .. but I wouldn't write him off either. He has shown himself to be a solid rebounding SF in the past.

Playoff Rotation

Starting C - Shaquille O'Neal - above average rebounder
Starting PF - Kevin Garnett - excellent rebounder
Starting SF - Paul Pierce - solid rebounder, very good defensive rebounder
Starting SG - Ray Allen - average rebounder - doesn't grab many boards but does a solid job in team rebounding. Generally in a good position and does a good job of keeping his check off the backboards.
Staring PG - Rajon Rondo - excellent rebounder

Backup Guard - Delonte West - above average rebounder
Backup Forward - Jeff Green - solid rebounder
Main Backup Big - Jermaine O'Neal - slightly below average rebounder
Secondary Backup Big - Glen Davis - inconsistent rebounder, usually a below average rebounder ... but it's worth noting that BBD did a very good job on the boards in the playoffs last season in a smaller role. I wouldn't rule out a repeat of that feat.

Summary -- That first choice Celtics rotation which will hopefully be fit for the playoffs is a well above average rebounding team.

[action781]

Summary -- That first choice Celtics rotation which will hopefully be fit for the playoffs is a well above average rebounding team.

I agree with what you're saying.  I'd like to add on to this by saying that even if we get outrebounded by the #'s, we still could be a "better rebounding team".  For instance, if we grab 32 defensive rebounds and 5 offensive rebounds and our opponents grab 30 defensive rebounds and 10 offensive rebounds, I will still consider our rebounding efforts a win as long as we out score that opponent in fast break points.

[Spicoli]

I just don't understand why they don't switch it up from time to time and just have everybody crash the boards when need be. Why do they have to always stick to the script of getting back on D? It's very rare that this team changes strategies on the fly, or adjusts on the fly, so i'm pretty sure Doc telling them to crash the boards will never happen.