Non-Reputable Rumor : Kenneth Faried to Boston

[saltlover]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

This is 100% incorrect.  Golden State had 46.2 rebounds per game.  Their opponents had 43.9 rebounds per game.  Add those two totals together, and there were 90.1 rebounds per game when Golden State was playing.  46.2 is 51.3% of 90.1.  That is how total rebounding is calculated, and Golden State unquestionably out-rebounded their opponents.

[Ilikesports17]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

This is 100% incorrect.  Golden State had 46.2 rebounds per game.  Their opponents had 43.9 rebounds per game.  Add those two totals together, and there were 90.1 rebounds per game when Golden State was playing.  46.2 is 51.3% of 90.1.  That is how total rebounding is calculated, and Golden State unquestionably out-rebounded their opponents.

out-rebounded might be the wrong term but the point is the same. 

[Moranis]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

Golden State did outrebound their opponents by 2.3 rpg. 

OF COURSE they did they missed 472 fewer shots than their opponents did.  Do you get it now.

I understand the math quite well, I mas merely correcting your incorrect statement i.e. Golden State did in fact outrebound their opponents.

[The Oracle]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

Golden State did outrebound their opponents by 2.3 rpg. 

OF COURSE they did they missed 472 fewer shots than their opponents did.  Do you get it now.

I understand the math quite well, I mas merely correcting your incorrect statement i.e. Golden State did in fact outrebound their opponents.

We are talking about rebound %'s not total rebounds, they are 2 completely different things.  A teams total rebounds doesn't tell you whether or not they were the better REBOUNDING team.  OREB.% does, DREB% does, total REB. % doesn't.  Total rebounds are very much a result of one team shooting much better or worse than their opponents along with other factors.

[Moranis]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

Golden State did outrebound their opponents by 2.3 rpg. 

OF COURSE they did they missed 472 fewer shots than their opponents did.  Do you get it now.

I understand the math quite well, I mas merely correcting your incorrect statement i.e. Golden State did in fact outrebound their opponents.

We are talking about rebound %'s not total rebounds, they are 2 completely different things.  A teams total rebounds doesn't tell you whether or not they were the better REBOUNDING team.  OREB.% does, DREB% does, total REB. % doesn't.  Total rebounds are very much a result of one team shooting much better or worse than their opponents along with other factors.

again I understand the math.  That doesn't change the fact that Golden State outrebounded their opponents.  They got more of them then their opponents did.  Plain and simple.  They also weren't as good at rebounding as their opponents, which is why rates are a better measure. 

[The Oracle]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

Golden State did outrebound their opponents by 2.3 rpg. 

OF COURSE they did they missed 472 fewer shots than their opponents did.  Do you get it now.

I understand the math quite well, I mas merely correcting your incorrect statement i.e. Golden State did in fact outrebound their opponents.

We are talking about rebound %'s not total rebounds, they are 2 completely different things.  A teams total rebounds doesn't tell you whether or not they were the better REBOUNDING team.  OREB.% does, DREB% does, total REB. % doesn't.  Total rebounds are very much a result of one team shooting much better or worse than their opponents along with other factors.

again I understand the math.  That doesn't change the fact that Golden State outrebounded their opponents.  They got more of them then their opponents did.  Plain and simple.  They also weren't as good at rebounding as their opponents, which is why rates are a better measure. 

So you think G.S. was a better rebounding team than their opponents even though % wise they were out rebounded on both ends of the floor?  Them ending up with more rebounds has nothing to do with them being better at rebounding, because they were not.  Please tell me somebody gets it other than my 1 helper in Ilikesports17 LOL.

[Moranis]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

Golden State did outrebound their opponents by 2.3 rpg. 

OF COURSE they did they missed 472 fewer shots than their opponents did.  Do you get it now.

I understand the math quite well, I mas merely correcting your incorrect statement i.e. Golden State did in fact outrebound their opponents.

We are talking about rebound %'s not total rebounds, they are 2 completely different things.  A teams total rebounds doesn't tell you whether or not they were the better REBOUNDING team.  OREB.% does, DREB% does, total REB. % doesn't.  Total rebounds are very much a result of one team shooting much better or worse than their opponents along with other factors.

again I understand the math.  That doesn't change the fact that Golden State outrebounded their opponents.  They got more of them then their opponents did.  Plain and simple.  They also weren't as good at rebounding as their opponents, which is why rates are a better measure. 

So you think G.S. was a better rebounding team than their opponents even though % wise they were out rebounded on both ends of the floor?  Them ending up with more rebounds has nothing to do with them being better at rebounding, because they were not.  Please tell me somebody gets it other than my 1 helper in Ilikesports17 LOL.

Nothing I said would lead anyone to the conclusion you drew except apparently you.

[The Oracle]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

Golden State did outrebound their opponents by 2.3 rpg. 

OF COURSE they did they missed 472 fewer shots than their opponents did.  Do you get it now.

I understand the math quite well, I mas merely correcting your incorrect statement i.e. Golden State did in fact outrebound their opponents.

We are talking about rebound %'s not total rebounds, they are 2 completely different things.  A teams total rebounds doesn't tell you whether or not they were the better REBOUNDING team.  OREB.% does, DREB% does, total REB. % doesn't.  Total rebounds are very much a result of one team shooting much better or worse than their opponents along with other factors.

again I understand the math.  That doesn't change the fact that Golden State outrebounded their opponents.  They got more of them then their opponents did.  Plain and simple.  They also weren't as good at rebounding as their opponents, which is why rates are a better measure. 

So you think G.S. was a better rebounding team than their opponents even though % wise they were out rebounded on both ends of the floor?  Them ending up with more rebounds has nothing to do with them being better at rebounding, because they were not.  Please tell me somebody gets it other than my 1 helper in Ilikesports17 LOL.

Nothing I said would lead anyone to the conclusion you drew except apparently you.

You joined a discussion about reb.% and moved the goal posts to total rebounding.  Congrats on effectively sidetracking the discussion. 

[Moranis]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

I agree with that but it would help our rebounding problem out, his contract is actually affordable now and I think him and Horford would work well together.  Would suck to miss out on a free agent next year though if Hayward or Blake wanted to play here.

the celtics ranked FIFTH in the nba last season is rebounds per game. which problem are you referring to please?

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/total-rebounds-per-game

But if you look at rebounding percentage, which takes into account both pace and the fact that Celtics games featured a lot of missed shots from both teams, they are 18th.  They didn't get dominated on the boards (getting 49.4% of them), but it certainly wasn't a team strength, and there is certain room for improvement.

true. but i doubt CBS considers this to be as much a problems as an area for improvement.

CBS doesn't consider rebounding to be a problem because it isn't a problem at all.  There is basically no correlation between rebounding %'s and winning games in the NBA currently.  There are far more important things like defending FG attempts, help defense, spacing and shooting that actually are difference makers.  Kenneth Faried adds none of the above.  There is a 0% chance the Celtics should be interested in him or any other team for that matter, thus Denver wanting to unload him.

I think the "rebounding doesn't matter" argument has been taken a little too extreme at this point.  Of the 8 teams to win a playoff series last season, 7 of them were in the top 10 in rebounding pct for the season.  The four conference finalists were all in the top 8.  They matter.  They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but they do matter.

No this is just people not understanding what they are looking at.  Rebounding % is a misleading statistic.  Really good teams miss fewer shots than their opponents affording them more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents which in turn skews Reb. %.

S.A. 3rd in DREB% in 2015, Cle. 5th, Tor. 8th, G.S., Ind. and O.K.C. finished tied 15th, Bos. and Atl. tied 25th, L.A.C. 28th.

O.K.C. 1st OREB%, Bos. and Cle. 9th tie, Tor. 12th, G.S. 19th, S.A. 23rd, L.A.C. 28th, Atl. 30th

G.S. has a reb.% of 51.3% for 2015 ranking them 8th overall.  This leads you to believe that they out rebounded their opponents when they actually didn't.  G.S. had an OREB% of 23.5%, their Opponents 24%.  G.S. had a DREB% of 76% their Opponents 76.5%.

Golden State did outrebound their opponents by 2.3 rpg. 

OF COURSE they did they missed 472 fewer shots than their opponents did.  Do you get it now.

I understand the math quite well, I mas merely correcting your incorrect statement i.e. Golden State did in fact outrebound their opponents.

We are talking about rebound %'s not total rebounds, they are 2 completely different things.  A teams total rebounds doesn't tell you whether or not they were the better REBOUNDING team.  OREB.% does, DREB% does, total REB. % doesn't.  Total rebounds are very much a result of one team shooting much better or worse than their opponents along with other factors.

again I understand the math.  That doesn't change the fact that Golden State outrebounded their opponents.  They got more of them then their opponents did.  Plain and simple.  They also weren't as good at rebounding as their opponents, which is why rates are a better measure. 

So you think G.S. was a better rebounding team than their opponents even though % wise they were out rebounded on both ends of the floor?  Them ending up with more rebounds has nothing to do with them being better at rebounding, because they were not.  Please tell me somebody gets it other than my 1 helper in Ilikesports17 LOL.

Nothing I said would lead anyone to the conclusion you drew except apparently you.

You joined a discussion about reb.% and moved the goal posts to total rebounding.  Congrats on effectively sidetracking the discussion.

Nope.  You did that when you brought in their % of 51.3 and then made an incorrect statement about how Golden State didn't outrebound their opponents.  They did by 2.3 rebounds per game (which is how the 51.3% is calculated).  They got more rebounds than their opponents, that means they outrebounded them.  They however were not as good at rebounding which the DREB and OREB show and only outrebounded their opponent because they had a lot more defensive rebounding opportunities than their opponents did. 

As I said, I understand the math fully, you just made an incorrect statement, which I corrected. 

[Boris Badenov]

Someone else just started a thread asking whether "this is the slowest time of year on Celticsblog."

I submit the last two pages of this thread as the answer to that question.

[ThaPreacher]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

The article implies the Nuggets want to move on from Faried enough to send out Gary Harris in addition.  I don't love the idea, but could Stevens rehabilitate Faried's value to make him a tradable
piece for a star?  Could he just pair well enough with Horford that a trade isn't necessary? Could Gary Harris take that next step forward that makes Avery Bradley expendable in a trade for a star?  If the cost is Amir and a second-rate prospect or two, is that worth the risk of not being able to create room?

I personally think it is.  Faried has an elite NBA skill, that just so happens to coincide with a weakness on the team.  Meanwhile, his weaknesses (poor offensive decision-making, inability to switch onto perimeter players) would be lessened by a team with multiple other great passing/decision-making bigs, and great perimeter defenders.

Furthermore, it will not cost us a major free agent.  There should be a CBA renegotiation between now and the next free agent signing period.  The prior two CBA's have included an amnesty clause.  It's not unreasonable to expect that this one should as well.  If Boston were able to convince another major free agent to come here (something that should not be taken for granted), and if Faried couldn't be dumped with a pick (despite having one fewer season left on his deal), and if we aren't just able to trade for a star this season anyway, then it's still possible that we could simply clear the room by using an amnesty provision on him.

Mind you, I don't think the Nuggets are really as ready to dump Faried as the article suggests, but if they are, and the price is Amir and one of James Young or RJ Hunter, then that is a deal the Celtics should take.  There is some risk, but there is some definite opportunity for it to pay off as well.

For the love of blog,  First, Lar33Brd, now Saltlover.  Over the past two days they have made some sense!  What the hell is going on here? 
Logical.
Truthful.
And Hardwood Sense.

TP. Saltlover.

[jambr380]

For the love of blog,  First, Lar33Brd, now Saltlover.  Over the past two days they have made some sense!  What the hell is going on here? 
Logical.
Truthful.
And Hardwood Sense.

TP. Saltlover.

What? 

The majority of SL's posts are factual / educational. His contribution to this forum is almost irreplaceable. What he says holds as much weight as anybody else here.

I suppose you may be talking about his opinion-oriented posts, but it's not like these are typically  all that controversial. Usually these posts will include a salary benefit to the Cs.

You must be talking about somebody else, right? 

[YoungOne87]

bad fit for us

[LarBrd33]

Doesn't make sense for the Celtics. If we can't trade for a star we want to have cap space to sign one next year. Faried's salary would prevent that.

The article implies the Nuggets want to move on from Faried enough to send out Gary Harris in addition.  I don't love the idea, but could Stevens rehabilitate Faried's value to make him a tradable
piece for a star?  Could he just pair well enough with Horford that a trade isn't necessary? Could Gary Harris take that next step forward that makes Avery Bradley expendable in a trade for a star?  If the cost is Amir and a second-rate prospect or two, is that worth the risk of not being able to create room?

I personally think it is.  Faried has an elite NBA skill, that just so happens to coincide with a weakness on the team.  Meanwhile, his weaknesses (poor offensive decision-making, inability to switch onto perimeter players) would be lessened by a team with multiple other great passing/decision-making bigs, and great perimeter defenders.

Furthermore, it will not cost us a major free agent.  There should be a CBA renegotiation between now and the next free agent signing period.  The prior two CBA's have included an amnesty clause.  It's not unreasonable to expect that this one should as well.  If Boston were able to convince another major free agent to come here (something that should not be taken for granted), and if Faried couldn't be dumped with a pick (despite having one fewer season left on his deal), and if we aren't just able to trade for a star this season anyway, then it's still possible that we could simply clear the room by using an amnesty provision on him.

Mind you, I don't think the Nuggets are really as ready to dump Faried as the article suggests, but if they are, and the price is Amir and one of James Young or RJ Hunter, then that is a deal the Celtics should take.  There is some risk, but there is some definite opportunity for it to pay off as well.

For the love of blog,  First, Lar33Brd, now Saltlover.  Over the past two days they have made some sense!  What the hell is going on here? 
Logical.
Truthful.
And Hardwood Sense.

TP. Saltlover.

I take offense to you claiming I've ever made any sense on this forum. 

[Celtics4ever]

I personally think it is.  Faried has an elite NBA skill, that just so happens to coincide with a weakness on the team.  Meanwhile, his weaknesses (poor offensive decision-making, inability to switch onto perimeter players) would be lessened by a team with multiple other great passing/decision-making bigs, and great perimeter defenders.

We just got rid of a one trick pony, are you a sucker for punishment wanting another.  Faried is a much better athlete than Sully but he can't spread the floor  (neither could Sully effectively).   We need versatile guys not guys you have to get other guys to cover their weaknesses.

We might be fine adding Horford.   It looks like we have a rebounding problem but we might not.   Horford's RPG might explode without Milsap to battle for them.

Here are Horford and Milsap's stats

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/3213/al-horford

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/3015/paul-millsap

There was a decline  in Horford's numbers when Milsap came to play in ATL.  !0.4 RPG the year prior and in 13-14 when Milsap came 8.4 RPG.  Here he won't have a guy that he has to fight for them as much.   

Ainge won't do this deal, he is not prone to panic.  He will let it ride and see what he has folks.  I could see him doing this deal if the wing was good.  Otherwise, we are up the creek without a paddle.