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

[Mencius]

I've read some inventive arguments on this topic lately, so I'd like to check in with C's fans to see how they saw things last year, so please answer the poll question (of course, comments are welcome too):

You watched them.  You're probably aware of the stats as well.

So, C's fans, were the Celtics of last year a poor rebounding team or not?

[wdleehi]

I don't care about he number of offensive rebounds the Celtics get.  They do not chase them as part of their defensive strategy.


The problem is the defensive rebounding.  Other teams grab to many offensive boards, ruining great defense. 

[Jon]

I don't care about he number of offensive rebounds the Celtics get.  They do not chase them as part of their defensive strategy.


The problem is the defensive rebounding.  Other teams grab to many offensive boards, ruining great defense.

This is true.  People get way too upset about the offensive rebounding numbers, but as you mention, that's by design. 

We do have to get better at defensive rebounding, though.  Part of that problem has been caused by routinely playing a smaller lineup largely consisting of older, less athletic players. 

While I don't think we've solved the height problem (not to mention positioning issues, etc), we have gotten young, faster, and more athletic.  Hopefully that at least translates into a couple of more rebounds per game. 

[csfansince60s]

Terrible defensive rebounding.

So bad, that I recall numerous sequences of not just second, but third and fourth chance points.

I know how demoralizing that is to a fan. I can't imagine how demoralizing it is as a player.

That's gotta stop. As Tommmy says ad nauseum, put a body on your guy and stay between him and the basket. Sounds pretty fundamental to me.

In fairness to the players, though, the fact  that the Cs play good 3pt D means that many opponents miss 3s which often result in long caroms, and for some reason, those are tipped back out a lot or land in an opposing player's hands.

[Chris]

Has anyone ever said the C's were not a poor rebounding team last year?  I feel like that would be a pretty tough argument to make.

The question isn't whether they were poor at rebounding, it is how much that hurt them.  I think they sacrificed rebounding for defense and offense, and it ended up working out fine.

There is a delicate balance with rebounding in the NBA.  It is an important part of the game, however, it can be tough to find guys who can rebound as well as defend and score...and when you don't have a ton of assets to work with, sometimes you have to decide what is more important. 

[slamtheking]

Has anyone ever said the C's were not a poor rebounding team last year?  I feel like that would be a pretty tough argument to make.

The question isn't whether they were poor at rebounding, it is how much that hurt them.  I think they sacrificed rebounding for defense and offense, and it ended up working out fine.

There is a delicate balance with rebounding in the NBA.  It is an important part of the game, however, it can be tough to find guys who can rebound as well as defend and score...and when you don't have a ton of assets to work with, sometimes you have to decide what is more important.

I don't think we can name names but there is 1 person on the site that's pretty vocal about the C's NOT being a bad rebounding team.  I understand where that person is coming from in their use of stats but I think it overlooks a key issue.

In quoting defense rebounding percentages and stating the C's are better than average is  misleading at best.  The numbers miss the point of WHEN the C's have their biggest issues on the defensive boards which is when the other team makes a push for offensive boards -- typically at the end of games.  C's play very solid D but it results in the players being out of position for rebounds and typically not in position to box out.

[j804]

Yes.

I've felt like punching my TV plenty of times because of it.

[Celtics18]

The Celtics were a mediocre defensive rebounding team and a poor offensive rebounding team.  Like most, I would like to see them improve on the defensive glass, but don't care as much about the offensive rebounding. 

[SHAQATTACK]

"Poor" is being generous 

My TV has the wounds to prove the Celtics suck at rebounding. 

Thats why I stood on head and screamed to the heavens , "DANNY pleased get some young legs " 

Wilcox , Lee , Sully , and Fab should give us a bit of boost at somepoint.

Just sucks when you expect your point guard to do the rebounding.

Rebounding is why we need Horford & Josh Smith .

I don't care if the guy is 6 ft or 7 ft tall, we need people who will take and throw elbows with the best of them and will box out.  * I think (Sully) maybe be our man by the end of the year..   people who will ruff house , push shove , and not be  tossed aside like a cheap ragdolls under the board. 

Hire the Birdman.

[pearljammer10]

I mean. Yes. Obviously.


I don't care about offensive rebounds, doc
Doesn't crash the boards he calls for the team to get back on defense. Defensive rebounds are what worries me, year after yet.

[Roy H.]

In terms of offensive rebounding, I think blaming the system might be a little bit of an excuse given by the team to justify the poor performance.

2008:  26.6% ORB%; 17th in NBA; -0.1% from league average
2009: 27.9% ORB%; 7th in NBA; +1.2% from league average
2010: 22.8% ORB%; 28th in NBA; -3.5% from league average
2011: 21.1% ORB%; 30th in NBA; -5.3% from league average
2012: 19.7% ORB; 30th in NBA; -7.3% from league average

In the first two years of the "big three" era, we were a respectable, or even good, offensive rebounding team.  Our defense was also elite both years.  Blaming the defense and the defensive philosophy for the lack of rebounding, then, is seemingly nothing but an excuse.

Our offensive rebounding right now is horrific.    We're now getting second chances approximately 8% less than we did previously.  That amounts to a significant number of offensive points that we're giving away through our lack of rebounding.

[colincb]

In terms of offensive rebounding, I think blaming the system might be a little bit of an excuse given by the team to justify the poor performance.

2008:  26.6% ORB%; 17th in NBA; -0.1% from league average
2009: 27.9% ORB%; 7th in NBA; +1.2% from league average
2010: 22.8% ORB%; 28th in NBA; -3.5% from league average
2011: 21.1% ORB%; 30th in NBA; -5.3% from league average
2012: 19.7% ORB; 30th in NBA; -7.3% from league average

In the first two years of the "big three" era, we were a respectable, or even good, offensive rebounding team.  Our defense was also elite both years.  Blaming the defense and the defensive philosophy for the lack of rebounding, then, is seemingly nothing but an excuse.

Our offensive rebounding right now is horrific.    We're now getting second chances approximately 8% less than we did previously.  That amounts to a significant number of offensive points that we're giving away through our lack of rebounding.

So what?

For the last 5 seasons Boston has averaged a 26th place in offensive rebounding.

For the last 5 seasons on average 7 playoff teams have been above the median and 9 below the median in offensive rebounding.

2 of 5 championship teams have been in in the top 10 in offensive rebounding(Lakers twice). 3 of the 5 championship teams have been in the bottom 10 in the league in offensive rebounding (Cs, Mavs, Heat).

All 4 finalists in 2012 were in the bottom 10 in offensive rebounding.

IOW, offensive rebounding stats are very overrated compared to something like effective defensive FG% where the championship teams are almost always in the top 10 and have been for the last 5 seasons.

[mmmmm]

In terms of offensive rebounding, I think blaming the system might be a little bit of an excuse given by the team to justify the poor performance.

2008:  26.6% ORB%; 17th in NBA; -0.1% from league average
2009: 27.9% ORB%; 7th in NBA; +1.2% from league average
2010: 22.8% ORB%; 28th in NBA; -3.5% from league average
2011: 21.1% ORB%; 30th in NBA; -5.3% from league average
2012: 19.7% ORB; 30th in NBA; -7.3% from league average

In the first two years of the "big three" era, we were a respectable, or even good, offensive rebounding team.  Our defense was also elite both years.  Blaming the defense and the defensive philosophy for the lack of rebounding, then, is seemingly nothing but an excuse.

Our offensive rebounding right now is horrific.    We're now getting second chances approximately 8% less than we did previously.  That amounts to a significant number of offensive points that we're giving away through our lack of rebounding.

So what?

For the last 5 seasons Boston has averaged a 26th place in offensive rebounding.

For the last 5 seasons on average 7 playoff teams have been above the median and 9 below the median in offensive rebounding.

2 of 5 championship teams have been in in the top 10 in offensive rebounding(Lakers twice). 3 of the 5 championship teams have been in the bottom 10 in the league in offensive rebounding (Cs, Mavs, Heat).

All 4 finalists in 2012 were in the bottom 10 in offensive rebounding.

IOW, offensive rebounding stats are very overrated compared to something like effective defensive FG% where the championship teams are almost always in the top 10 and have been for the last 5 seasons.

This^

ORBs are nice when you get them, but having high ORB numbers simply doesn't correlate with winning.

Doc has explicitely stated that they are almost indifferent to ORBs as a matter of strategy.  Its not an excuse.  Its a reality.

And, frankly, its hard to argue with the results.  The C's have been among the elite defenses every year and have gone deep in the playoffs almost every year.

I would love to see them be even better on defensive rebounding.  But statistically, they were average last year at that.  And there is not a lot more blood to draw from that stone:  If they had posted the top DRB% of the league last year (Spurs, 76%) that would have amounted to 1.5 rebounds per game over what they grabbed.  Essentially that's in the noise of random chance for a game.

So while I would welcome improved rebounding, it just isn't something to stress about.

I would like to see more post scoring on offense.  That would pump up our offensive FG% (by taking more shots at rim and fewer jump shots) and have a much bigger impact on winning.

Hopefully the addition of guys like Wilcox and Sully will help with that.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I don't care about he number of offensive rebounds the Celtics get.  They do not chase them as part of their defensive strategy.


The problem is the defensive rebounding.  Other teams grab to many offensive boards, ruining great defense.

This.

Grabbing probably just one more defensive rebound would've won us the 2010 Finals, not to mention countless other individual regular-season and playoff games over the past few seasons. Horribly frustrating to watch 23 seconds of great defense, only to surrender a new possession.

[Roy H.]

2 of 5 championship teams have been in in the top 10 in offensive rebounding(Lakers twice). 3 of the 5 championship teams have been in the bottom 10 in the league in offensive rebounding (Cs, Mavs, Heat).

Neither the Celts nor Heat were in the bottom-ten in offensive rebounding percentage.  They both were very close to league average, and not close to the Celtics abysmal rate from last year.  The Mavs were a relatively poor offensive rebounding squad, but they still grabbed 24.1% of offensive boards.  That's significantly better than the Celts have been recently.

All 4 finalists in 2012 were in the bottom 10 in offensive rebounding.

Again, not true, at least in terms of offensive rebounding percentage.  The Spurs and Celtics were in the bottom ten.  The Thunder were 10th, and the Heat were 18th.