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

[Roy H.]

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.

The '08 and '09 teams proved that it's possible to be both elite on defense *and* be a good (or at least average) offensive rebounding team.  The idea that you can't be good at both is a fallacy.

ORB% absolutely *can* affect an offense, though:

2008: 9th in offensive rating
2009: 5th in offensive rating
2010: 9th in offensive rating
2011: 18th in offensive rating
2012: 25th in offensive rating

We've declined from an excellent offensive team, to a bad one.  Most of that is because of our ORB%, as our eFG% has remained excellent.  When you get fewer opportunities to put the ball in the hoop, though, it doesn't matter how good your shooting is.

[bfrombleacher]

30th in rebounding.

Like the other guy said, no defensive rebounding sucks. Box out guys!

[kg is king]

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.

The '08 and '09 teams proved that it's possible to be both elite on defense *and* be a good (or at least average) offensive rebounding team.  The idea that you can't be good at both is a fallacy.

ORB% absolutely *can* affect an offense, though:

2008: 9th in offensive rating
2009: 5th in offensive rating
2010: 9th in offensive rating
2011: 18th in offensive rating
2012: 25th in offensive rating

We've declined from an excellent offensive team, to a bad one.  Most of that is because of our ORB%, as our eFG% has remained excellent.  When you get fewer opportunities to put the ball in the hoop, though, it doesn't matter how good your shooting is.

I really miss Leon Powe now

[arambone]

"I really miss Leon Powe now "

Sullinger's gonna steal your heart and dry those tears.

[Rtpas11]

Yes.

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

What he said ^^^ lol same thing happens in 2K @ times 

[SHAQATTACK]

"I really miss Leon Powe now "

Sullinger's gonna steal your heart and dry those tears.

Yup !! I think Sully has just the right attitude and love for the pushing and shoving to find a niche on this team.

He might wind up with the most technical fouls on the team, but thats ok,  I'll pop a cold one and toast him.   

I can't wait for the season to begin.  I live for the beat ing and banging under the boards.

 

[CelticG1]

hate to be a debbie downer but even if Sullinger is a good offensive rebounder it doesn't change much.

Baby was a good offensive rebounder and as a team we still sucked at it

[Jeff]

I'd welcome a Pro/Con piece on this for the front page - either as a FanPost or if Roy or one of the authors/mods wants to organize it and post it.

[mmmmm]

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.

The '08 and '09 teams proved that it's possible to be both elite on defense *and* be a good (or at least average) offensive rebounding team.  The idea that you can't be good at both is a fallacy.

ORB% absolutely *can* affect an offense, though:

2008: 9th in offensive rating
2009: 5th in offensive rating
2010: 9th in offensive rating
2011: 18th in offensive rating
2012: 25th in offensive rating

We've declined from an excellent offensive team, to a bad one.  Most of that is because of our ORB%, as our eFG% has remained excellent.  When you get fewer opportunities to put the ball in the hoop, though, it doesn't matter how good your shooting is.

What is a fallacy is the idea that someone has said you can't be good at both.  No one has said that.

What we've been saying is that it isn't as _important_ to be good at both as it is to be good at the one - transition D.   And whether you agree with it or not, Doc has clearly chosen to emphasize the latter.  And the latter correlates much better with winning so its hard to argue with his choice.

And also, no one has said that ORB% doesn't correlate with offensive efficiency.  It just doesn't correlate well with _winning_.  Which do you want to be better at?

[Mencius]

What we've been saying is that it isn't as _important_ to be good at both as it is to be good at the one - transition D.   And whether you agree with it or not, Doc has clearly chosen to emphasize the latter.  And the latter correlates much better with winning so its hard to argue with his choice.

Still making the argument that it was a grand tactical decision, eh?

Jeff, this question probably would would make for a good stand-alone thread. 

I can tell you that mmmm and I have practically beaten this issue to death on a couple of different threads where mmmm continues to claim that the Celtics were an average rebounding team last year. 

As for this thread, the question is, were the Celtics a poor rebounding team last year or not, and they clearly were.  The question was not, 'What correlation on winning does offensive rebounding have'.

A little sampler of our exchange in the comments from this post:

http://www.celticsblog.com/2012/8/18/3252419/can-jared-sullinger-become-an-integral-part-of-the-celtic-rotation?login=1345391719

mmmm, try using a little common sense here. Of course I add in the value of offensive rebounds with the defensive. Not weighted even close to evenly, mind you, but not valued at zero, either.
Since they are not valued at zero, then of course they should be included in the whole, even when not weighted near as much as defensive boards. That is not ‘conflation’ of the two to equality. That’s simply adding in an aspect of rebounding that you wish to omit, because to add worst offensive rebounding team in league history (even allowing that offensive boards aren’t nearly as important as defensive), in with 22nd of 30 in defensive boards (already poor), it adds up to a really lousy rebounding team at 28th of 30 (and utterly destroys your argument that they weren't a poor rebounding team). There is no legitimate reason to eliminate the offensive rebounding data entirely as its value is not zero and it is still rebounding.

You can make an argument about how much to weigh offensive boards with legitimacy, but not for their elimination entirely from consideration of whether the C's were a poor rebounding team, because it’s still a part of rebounding.

And you never address the argument that a younger more athletic team (ala the Bulls) can both O-rebound *and* get back and be a great defensive team, and that the reason that we don’t do it, is because we can’t.

You continually portray this as a tactical move only, as if Doc had the legitimate option of both crashing the O-boards and getting back on D effectively but just chose to abandon O-boards because of strategy. I have submitted, repeatedly, that if Doc had the horses to get the O-boards and get back on D, he’d have them do it. Even 5 years ago, during the 07/08 season, we were much better at it than worst in league history, and we still got back to be best in the league at D then.

Look, I understand making the decision to abandon what you can’t do. It’s completely logical. What is illogical is to try to paint that as some grand tactical decision where you really had the horses to both get O-boards and get back on D, but you chose not to get any O-boards (and become worst at that in league history). Does anybody really believe that’s what happened? I think not.

Argue about how you want to weigh O-boards if you will, but there’s no legitimate reason to eliminate that data entirely in the argument of whether the Celtics were a poor rebounding team or not (and I don’t regard you being able to say ‘But we’re really 22nd of 30 if you eliminate O-boards, and that’s average!’ as any sort of legitimate argument.

The other thread where we flogged this horse was in:

http://www.celticsblog.com/2012/7/21/3175088/celtics-sign-center-jason-collins#comments

To me, they were a bad rebounding team to the eye, and then stats backed up what the eye saw.

[colincb]

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.

So let’s use your ORB% stat instead:

For the last 5 seasons Boston has averaged a 22nd place in ORB%.

For the last 5 seasons on average 8 playoff teams have been above the median and 8 below the median in ORB%.

2 of 5 championship teams have been in the top 10 in ORB% (Lakers twice). 1 of the 5 championship teams have been in the bottom 10 in the league in ORB% (Mavs) and 2 have been at the bottom of the middle 10 (C’s and Heat). Average ORB% ranking of the NBA champion was 13th during the last 5 years (and that was fueled by the Lakers, a team with twin towers).  The average ranking for champions in the 5 years prior was 16th in ORB% and for the last 10 years, 15th in ORB%.

2 of 4 finalists in 2012 were in the bottom 10 in ORB% and the average ranking was 20th for the Final 4.

Is this compelling support for the idea that offensive rebounding is as important as offensive and defensive eFG%?

No.  There’s not much correlation between ORB% and winning either.

[mmmmm]

Still making the argument that it was a grand tactical decision, eh?

From the same thread you just cited:

... here is a very recent quote that is relevant:

Q. Doc, Ray Allen, despite his injury, has been doing some of the best rebounding of his career right now during the postseason. Is that a shift in philosophy?
COACH DOC RIVERS: No, no. That’s just Ray doing whatever he can to help the team. I don’t appreciate his offensive rebound attempts, I can tell you that, because against this team if you go for an offensive rebound and don’t get it, then you’re guaranteeing them a fast break.
But his defensive rebounds have been terrific. And we want to just keep stressing that. Listen, we’re not big, obviously. And one of the teams‑‑ we talk about team rebounding. We’ve talked about it all year. There’s nobody on our team that we don’t hold accountable for not going to the defensive glass. We have to do it as all five. It’s always good when a guard gets a rebound, because it gives us a chance to have a fast break. So it’s been terrific. And he’s been great at it.

from: http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=80372
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.

Doc has made other quotes to this effect going back years.   

[More Banners]

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.

[Celtics18]

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. 

[Roy H.]

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.

Last year he had a fractured wrist.  I think that's a freak injury that doesn't normally recur.