This really is shameful Fierce, I can't believe this disgusting farce you are trying to pull. You are either one of those people who can't see the forest for the trees on this issue or blatant arrogance where you have armed with a bunch of meaningless stats (compared with the big picture injury issue that created the bad #'s) as excuse to ramble and attempt to look clever. Nobody is denying you don't get injured the older you get, KG had an injury related to age... and was getting 1 reb less in the reg season b/c of it, and 3 less in the postseason b/c of it then he was in '08. What is to blame? His simply being washed up and not having the talent to rebound and help his team win the title?? NO ! Now 2 years older KG avg'd 10.3 rebounds this postseason compared to 10.5 in '08 and 7.4 in '10. So injuries had nothing to do with his rebound woe's? Do you have eyes? Did you see the difference in the player between '08/'12 and '10?? Ray's injury was freakish and created by a dirty thug. If he was 31 like Kobe instead of 34 was he really going to heal up better? Change his shot a little and there is disaster. So did injuries have nothing to do with his 0-16 right after the play? 0-8 in a game we'd have won if he hit TWO 3's or 25% (then taken the title in 5). A 4-28 from 3 performance after just going 7-10? Guess we have to blame rebounding for that as well. What about old man Perkins... he was 25, tore his ACL, was the 2nd leading rebounder on the team, was basically out all of two losses you blame heavily on rebounds. Did that injury help lead to less rebounds?? In the end the C's were not a 42 rebound team anymore b/c KG was nursing himself back to health and Rasheed got so many minutes where his fat @ss camped 22 feet away instead of PJ, Powe and basically anyone who got Sheed mins in '08/'09 being 6-20 feet closer to the rim at all times . So there goes 3 rebounds a game... did that keep us from being in position to win a title on the road game 7 in the finals? Sure didn't. That 38 rebound team was clearly talented enough to win a title. Can't you see that? Did those injuries keep us from being in a position to win a title? Yup... not including KG (his just led directlyto ur rebounding problem proving the injuries came before the reb issues) that team without its starting center for the last 2 games and with its shooting guard limited the last 5 wasn't deserving of a title . They could have overcome KG, who just ran out of gas and wasn't even as good as he was 2-3 weeks earlier, let alone the reg season, and still been a champs on paper. But they couldn't overcome Ray/Perk and so they didn't deserve to win it. It had nothing to do with not having the heart or talent to get more boards in that game but everything to do with guys on a 38 rebound team not being there or being too hurt to do what they did to be so good previously in the playoffs. And STILL they were tied with 5 to go... how pathetic of you to put it all on a statistic. To say injuries played less of a role than rebounding in the overall main reason we lost???? It is arrogance by someone desperate to act like he knows more than everyone else. He doesn't Injuries = main reason '10 lost Rebounding problems = distant 2nd
Posted by rameakap

To all  My post is simply to show that the league has indeed had a team that won the crown with what was the eqivelent of less than 40 rebounds per game. Everything else is irrelevant in this case.  Seems
Posted by SeemsToMe

In Response to Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average : And I agree with you 100%.  You can't set a certain number on rebounds and say we can't win if we don't get to that magic number.  I guarantee you could come up with a stat for every category and say, if we don't get ?? assists no team has ever won a championship. Also  every game in nearly every sport I watch they come up with some new record that hasn't ever been done before.  Sports writers live to come up with that stuff.
Posted by OneOnOne

The statistical wizardry and amusing parlor games by Fierce continues... hahahaha Does he think he will EVER prove a mental midget point by trying to stuff this bull at us? He has already lost this.... badly... why I am I even still on this thread I don't know, I should keep letting everyone else ride all over him as he has nobody but Lakers fand on his side for this one. Just a few quick retorts: - C's were 1.4 rebounds away from the 'magic number' of 40.... if KG wasn't hurt in '09 they would've been there, no doubt, so, umm,  injuries before rebounding issues? - The other 2 less boards a game from the '09/'10  42 per averages came from having Sheed out at the 3 point line over guys like Powe/PJ and Baby closer to the rim. If Fierce wants to hate on Sheed then by all means he can, he deserves it, but it doesn't means we were any less capable of winning a title. We were slighty worse than '08 (umm cuz KG was injured and not the guy he showed he could be again in '12?) But Sheed was there for us in game 7... we just missed out STARTING center, and if everyone was healthy were certainly talented enough and deserving of a title. - Fierce's rebuttal to my McDyess hypothetical is statistically ignorant and VERY amusing. Sure 'if' we had him he could've changed 'everything' (not homecourt tho, hahaha, no way homecourt) but maybe something he did kept Perk healthy? However that is NOT the point . (Fierce misses the points all the time so we have to remind him what they are) Had the C's replaced Wallace with a McD or ANY 5m per year FA (equal talent) who happened to board better (since it is all about that #40) or hey if Sheed tried a little harder and was in a little better shape and bumped us up to 40 boards.... it would still have NOT CHANGED A THING in the finals, if the same players had the same injuries. The C's were w/o their starting C in games 6/7, Sheed doubled his reg season reb avg, did what McD could do at his best in that game (and yea w a 12 reb avg over his carerer McD would have EASILY gotten us 1.6 more than 7 reb over his caeer 'Sheed in same mins). So no equal talent/$ replacement like McD was going to better Sheed's 11/8 game 7 vs. LA's frontline to push us over the top... and Danny had no other moves to make. And none of that has anything to do with Ray's injured leg in game 3, where if he went 2-8 instead of 0-8 this thing is done in 5. And by the time Ray was done going 0-20 or something like that and 'healthy' as Fierce claims, Perk was hurt. So Celts injuries caused 3 of the 4 losses, far more than the EXPECTED losing of the reb battle did and only game 1 was unaffected by injuries. A 38 rebound team (low #'s because of the KG INJURY ) was CLEARLY talented enough to win it all before they got hurt. Then they didn't deserve to win b/c of injuries , not b/c of the low reb #'s. It is just so bizarre Fierce stumbles and fall sOVER and OVER trying to claim otherwise. To the great pleasure of all the LA trolls of course...  
Posted by rameakap

Wait the guy with the weak points has something to say?? He can't admit defeat... og yeah it is Fierce, he claims Mployee is the guy who looks dumb refusing to admit being wrong and then just digs this 'rebounds over injuries' hole for himself.... please, keep trying to tell us all how injuries were not an issue, poor rebounding was unaffected by injuries, and that it was the belowe 40 reg season rebound stat (by a centerless team we put out on the court in game 7) that lost us the title and injuries was not the main reason. hahahahaha Man you look pathetic
Posted by rameakap

In Response to Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average : You're the one who looks pathetic. The evidence is on my side. You have nothing to show for except your opinion. * Celts won championship with Pierce getting injured in Game 1 of 2008 Finals.  * Celts averaged 42.0 rpg in 2008 and Celts won championship. * Celts outrebound the Lakers 4 out of 6 games in 2008 and Celts beat Lakers. In 2010 the team that won the rebounding battle won the game. Lakers win Games 1, 3, 6, and 7 and won rebounding battle in those 4 games. Lakers win championship. You have nothing but your opinion to show for. Seriously, you said because Ray was hurt the Celts lost. But last season when Ray was healthy the Celts lost because they didn't hit their stride yet? hahaha  
Posted by Fiercest34

In Response to Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average : sorry you are talking to yourself again, the better points are mine by bfar Maybe more Lakers trolls will come on to support your 'The Celtics on the court in game 6 and 7 were cowards who wimped out and couldn't get a board, that is why they lost, hahaha, argument' or 'Ray Allen is a choke artist bum, he couldn;t go 2-8 from three isd his life depended on it" I mean clearly that team that was tied with 5 misn to go lost b/c they were healthy and at full stength and simply copuldn't average 40 rebounds hahahahaha
Posted by rameakap

Seems The 1973 Knicks attempted 7,764 shots. The 2010 Celtics attempted 6,294 shots. Both teams played 82 games. Don't tell me 7,764 shot attempts is also equal to 6,294 shot attempts! More rebounds, more shot attempts!
Posted by Fiercest34

In Response to Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average : hahahah you are not on my level, I already killed you on this topic, but if you must ask, is THREE legit articles with quotes by those in the know on Allen being hurt enough for you: http://celticsgreen.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=0506&action=print&thread=6580 Ray Allen got hurt, had a very severe thigh bruise that nobody really talked about in the NBA finals after he had a spectacular game early, in the third game. He had a severe thigh bruise; his legs looked about two inches bigger and all black and blue. - Danny http://www.celticslife.com/2010/07/ainge-on-ray-allen-injury-tony-allen.html http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/20100609ray_allens_game_amiss/
Posted by rameakap

Yawn no injuries means we can place bets on: Ray going 0-8 with his leg not bruised and twice its normal size (I say/bet he goes at least 2-8 and we win game 3 and therefore series in 5) Perk being around for the remaining 90 mins of games 6/7 and not being carted off in demoralizing fashion on the road (I say we don't get beat as badly on the boards but find a way to win one of those 2 games, esp the one we led most of and were tied w 5 mins to go) So two proof positive established injuries to TWO starters contributed to THREE losses and still Fierce posts his weak drivel claiming a season long issue in getting 38 rebounds (instead of 40) was the ' main reason we lost the finals '???? hahahahaha ok whatever you say
Posted by rameakap