Author Topic: 46-26: A Familiar Number  (Read 7407 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

46-26: A Familiar Number
« on: October 08, 2013, 10:06:43 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
The Celtics were dominated on the boards 46-26 last night.

With the additions of hustle-rebounders Humphries and Wallace this off-season, and some added size in Olynyk and Faverani, one might think the Celtics would be much improved on the boards this season.

With Humphries and Olynyk getting time at the center position, however, and Green and Bass playing significant minutes in the frontcourt, it's likely that this team will be regularly beaten on the boards by teams with true centers.  Last night it was Jonas Valanciunas and Ty Hansbrough; one can only imagine what it'll look like against the Roy Hibberts and Joakim Noahs of the world.

Unlike in previous years, there's reason to believe this rebound disparity will have less to do with the offensive boards.  Despite getting killed on the glass last night by 20 boards, the Celtics grabbed 8 offensive boards, while the Raptors grabbed 11.  Rather, this year the culprit will likely be the result of an anemic offense, which includes a lot of misses inside against bigger frontlines.

The Celtics gave up 52% shooting to the Raptors last night, including 52 points in the paint.

Meanwhile, the Celtics shot 39.8% from the floor and had only 34 points in the paint.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2013, 10:09:29 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Neither Faverani nor Olynyk were ever known as great rebounders.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2013, 11:15:08 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34128
  • Tommy Points: 1612
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Why is this a surprise?


The Celtics lost their best rebounder in KG.


They lost Pierce who is a good rebounder for a SF.



Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2013, 11:59:22 AM »

Offline Timdawgg

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1286
  • Tommy Points: 626
Why is this a surprise?


The Celtics lost their best rebounder in KG.


They lost Pierce who is a good rebounder for a SF.

Also, Rondo was out, who is the best rebounding point guard in the game...
MJ made you look slow, Bird made you look stupid." -James Worthy
2025 Fantasy Draft Philadelphia 76ers:
PG: Rajon Rondo '11-'12;  WestBrook; Wall
SG: James Harden '18-'19 Marcus Smart
SF: Andrei Kirilenko '05-'06; Peja Stojakovic
PF: Anthony Davis '17-'18;   Kevin Love, Griffin
C: Amare Stoudemire '04-'05;   Marcus Camby

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2013, 12:20:35 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Neither Faverani nor Olynyk were ever known as great rebounders.

I am well aware of this; but the point was just that though the Celtics added size, that didn't help the rebounding.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2013, 12:21:24 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Why is this a surprise?


The Celtics lost their best rebounder in KG.


They lost Pierce who is a good rebounder for a SF.

Numerous times throughout the summer I saw people making the argument that this team would be much better on the boards with Humphries, Sullinger, and Wallace getting significant minutes.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2013, 12:31:06 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Neither Faverani nor Olynyk were ever known as great rebounders.

I am well aware of this; but the point was just that though the Celtics added size, that didn't help the rebounding.
Yes, precisely my point -- rebounding is a skill, size is... size.

Also, it looks like Humphries is not as good of a rebounder at the C position.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2013, 12:39:48 PM »

Offline Smitty77

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3063
  • Tommy Points: 269
Neither Faverani nor Olynyk were ever known as great rebounders.

I am well aware of this; but the point was just that though the Celtics added size, that didn't help the rebounding.
Yes, precisely my point -- rebounding is a skill, size is... size.

Also, it looks like Humphries is not as good of a rebounder at the C position.

We should definitely judge Kris' rebounding from the center spot by one preseason game:-))))))

Smitty77

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2013, 12:46:02 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Neither Faverani nor Olynyk were ever known as great rebounders.

I am well aware of this; but the point was just that though the Celtics added size, that didn't help the rebounding.
Yes, precisely my point -- rebounding is a skill, size is... size.

Also, it looks like Humphries is not as good of a rebounder at the C position.

I agree with you on both points; I'm speaking to perception here, not the reality.  I think we're on the same page about the reality.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2013, 12:50:53 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
We should definitely judge Kris' rebounding from the center spot by one preseason game:-))))))
In principle, we should judge him from the fact that he's an average-sized PF, who's never really played out of position, but I guess that would be jumping to conclusions.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2013, 01:19:39 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Why is this a surprise?


The Celtics lost their best rebounder in KG.


They lost Pierce who is a good rebounder for a SF.
Those two double as their best offensive player and best defensive player.  Should be plenty of games this season where we get dominated. 

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2013, 01:32:11 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
46 to 26 understates how bad it was, because it leaves out the team rebounds.

Boston had 5 team rebounds to 15 for Toronto. The only reason the C's were even close was that Toronto had 12 more turnovers than the C's.

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2013, 01:38:11 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
46 to 26 understates how bad it was, because it leaves out the team rebounds.

Boston had 5 team rebounds to 15 for Toronto. The only reason the C's were even close was that Toronto had 12 more turnovers than the C's.

Team rebounds?  Can you explain this to me?  It's a foreign concept.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2013, 01:54:19 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
46 to 26 understates how bad it was, because it leaves out the team rebounds.

Boston had 5 team rebounds to 15 for Toronto. The only reason the C's were even close was that Toronto had 12 more turnovers than the C's.

Team rebounds?  Can you explain this to me?  It's a foreign concept.
When the ball bounces out of bounds after a shot there must be a rebound. But no player is credited with it, instead the team that gains possession is credited with a team rebound.

Re: 46-26: A Familiar Number
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2013, 02:15:45 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Why is this a surprise?


The Celtics lost their best rebounder in KG.


They lost Pierce who is a good rebounder for a SF.

Numerous times throughout the summer I saw people making the argument that this team would be much better on the boards with Humphries, Sullinger, and Wallace getting significant minutes.

Also that it was all Doc's fault.

We saw this team crash the boards routinely last night, but they couldn't come up with the ball.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.