Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    In Response to Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers:
    [QUOTE]In 2008 the Celts averaged 42.0 rpg in the regular season. The Celts also averaged 100.5 ppg.  In 2009 the Celts averaged 42.1 rpg and 100.9 ppg. In 2010 the Celts averaged 38.6 rpg and 99.2 ppg. In 2011 the Celts averaged 38.8 rpg and 96.5 ppg. Clearly the evidence shows as the Celts got lesser rebounds, the Celts also scored lesser points. It's a good thing Ainge addressed this problem by getting younger this coming season.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Celts get more rebounds and score more points as Rondo and the young guys will be able to fastbreak more.  
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    The only thing clear is that you (Fierce) have no clue about how to read statistics. 

    AND you left out 2012 because it even further undercuts the logic of your fetish. 


    2008-2009   42.1 rebs    100.9 ppg
    2009-2010   38.6 rebs     99.2 ppg
    2010-2011   38.8 rebs     96.5 ppg
    2011-2012   38.8 rebs     91.8 ppg

    Between 2009 and 2010 C's rebounding decreased by substantial 8.3%  yet their points per game decreased just 1.6%

    Between 2010 and 2011 C's rebounding actually INCREASED by .5% while their PPG DECREASED by 2.7%    (This is a significant move  in the opposite direction that Fierce Rebound Fetish  predicts)

    And between 2011 and 2012 C's rebounding was unchanged yet their PPG decreased by a hefty 4.8%.   (This clearly indicates that factors other than rebounds per game have a stronger effect on ppg)   


    The Celtics rpg and ppg statistics for 2010 2011 and 2012 do NOT show a strong correlation between rpg and ppg...      and these statistics provide NO support for the causal link that the Fierce Rebound Fetish asserts. 

    What this evidence shows is that Fierce can't see the forrest for the trees.
    Good Night!


     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    I predict the C's will avg more points and rebounds this year than any year since '09

    but to even casually imply that the '10 or '12 teams couldn't get over the top b/c they were 38-39 rebound team as the main reason over the bigger reason by far (injuries) is just obnoxious cluelessness.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    Say the Celtics signed Antonio McDyess with the MLE over Sheed in '09 as I would have rather they done at the time.

    In 21 mins he avg's 5.9 reb's a game (playoffs 24.7/6.8)

    In 22.5 mins Rasheed Wallace avg's 4.1 reb's (playoffs 17.1/3.0)

    Well with McD on our team over Sheed we average 40.4 boards a game. Yet when Perk went down Rasheed came up with a 36 minute, 11 point 8 rebound effort. McDyess only had 1 game in 11 those playoffs where he put up those #'s, a 12/10 in a 16 point loss to PHX. The Suns didn't have the frontcourt that LA did. Was he going to change the 13 total and 15 offensive rebound disparity in that game 7?

    So right there, you take away the guy who sat behind the 3 point line, put a a vet known for his toughness and rebounding (avg'd 12 per over his career) in his place and the outcome is likely the same.

    But take away the demoralizing effects of losing your starting center in the opening mins of game 6, and seeing your best shooter go 0-8 in a game 3 you should have won and 4-28 overall from 3 after his leg bruise... and it is completely different...

    you can't be 100% sure those Celtics would have pulled it out... but you can be pretty confident, and darn sure that injuries were more a reason C's lost then the BS Fierce is trying to pull about them not being a 40 rebound team that year

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    Of course the team the Lakers put on the court in games 6 and 7 were a better team then the one Boston put out there.

    Even the one that returned home tied 1-1 wasn't quite as good on paper, but they were playing with heart, confidence and swagger, they were winning the head games, etc. and that slowly fell away with Ron's dirty play as Ray bricked 3's, it took a serious hit when Perk was out and then was taken away completely by the whistles for little to no contact phantom fouls in game 7's 4th quarter.

    You may not think you are a 'sore loser' for repeatedly pointing to one stat and thinking you can wash your hands of '10's failure b/c of a historical number, and what, Danny Ainge's inability to add a rebounder or the players themselves inability to hustle more? But you are terrible Celtic fan and ignorant about the sport if you really think that 38 win team didn't have a shot to win b/c of history relating to 1 stat while injuries are a non-ssie 'part of the game' then I'm glad I don't have to live with your warped train of thought.

    That is just shameful ignorance, and as all of have said, completely flies in the face of reality and what everyone knows was the bigger issue in the big picture.
     
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    No baseball team had ever come back from an 0-3 deficit to win a 7 game series before the Red Sox in '04.

    A fan like Fierce would have given them no shot. Then spent all winter finding stats to tear down a team that was obviously talented enough to win it all (b/c they did)

    A fan like me knew they had what it takes to be champs and come back and held out some hope. You know, since the Sox went on to win the world series they were good enough to be champs (like the '10 Celtics).

    Yet had Jeter's tag on Roberts been a fraction of a second faster they'd have been swept. It would have been obvious and fair to say it just wasn't our year b/c Schilling's ankle fell apart and Pedro was struggling and average compared to what he was in previous years....

    ....but an obnoxious fan like Fierce would have said 'injuries happen' and blamed it on something like poor base stealing % and repeatedly said 'what do you expect, no team that ever was down 0-3 had come back, are you really going to blame injuries on this one, c'mon they couldn't steal a base all year?'

    And if bloody sock schill never came back with his ankle sewn together (like Perk was unable to have his aCL fixed by game 7) then the hated Yanks likely win game 6 at home where Schill went 7 and gave up 1 run.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    In Response to Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers:
    [QUOTE]Clearly the evidence shows as the Celts got lesser rebounds, the Celts also scored lesser points. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]


    Since you seemed to miss the point of my post I assume it was too complicated for you to follow....  so I will simplify....


    2008-2009   42.1 rebs    100.9 ppg
    2009-2010   38.6 rebs     99.2 ppg
    2010-2011   38.8 rebs     96.5 ppg
    2011-2012   38.8 rebs     91.8 ppg

    These numbers DO NOT show that "..as celts got .lesser rebounds celts got lesser points." 

    The only thing clear is that you (Fierce) have no clue about how to read statistics. 
     
    What this evidence shows is that Fierce can't see the forrest for the trees.
    Good Night!
    Now please go away like you promised.   pledged....  Gave your word....   
    Because we all know .....  a man is only as good as his word.  

    and these days, your word hits new lows every day.        



     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    In Response to Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers : Again, "what ifs" and shoulda, woulda, coulda don't count unless you're clairvoyant. Are you clairvoyant? Fact - We got Sheed, not McDyess. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Again missing the point

    McDyess gets us 40.4 rebounds

    He doesn't get us a title... b/c of the injuries... without injuries a 38 rebound team could very well have won a title. With the injuries still even in a scenario like that where they were a 40 rebound team they have less of a shot of winning that title then had Ray/Perk been healthy.

    wake up oh foolish one... your under 40 rebounding stat is pointless compared to the injured team that still almost won the game 7..

    still can't understand why you 'don't get' what everyone else does... ur proving nothing with your stats and not coming off clever as you imagine but just an arrogant jerk beating a dead horse
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    The point with my baseball stat is that eventually some team is the 'first to' do something statistically

    so when ur team is injured, the injuries directly led to the poor stat you rail about constantly, and ur still tied with 5 mins to go in a game 7, it is clear the injuries were the bigger issue.

    You can't grasp it b/c you are so in love with your 40 +/- rebounding stat that you have created a monster in your head and the only way to justify yourslef is to say injuries are a 'sore loser excuse'

    wow, what a big man you are!

    Now that I have dumped a mountain of evidence proving your foolishness again, and making it clear, AGAIN that injuries were the bigger issue, it is time to retire

    night Fierce... keep those wheels turning and twisting, try to turn more fantasies into fact, I'll be here to laugh it off. As if the sad fate of the injuried '10 Celtics can be easily laughed at...
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from videoburns. Show videoburns's posts

    Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers

    In Response to Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Breaking Down the Rebounding Numbers : You're supposed to be 31 years old and you're making assumptions that we can never know the answer to. How sure are you that McDyess will turn out the way you want him to if he became a Celtic? The only way you would know how McDyess would turn out if he were a Celtic is if you're clairvoyant! Just because a player averages a certain number for a team it doesn't automatically mean he'll do the same if the Celts got him. That's common sense!
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]



    projecting that DcDyess will get x number of rebounds because that is what he had done over his whole career is THE SAME as projecting that the celts can't beat the Lakers in a championship series unless the get 40 rebs during the3 season.....     

    You are an illogical boy... especially when it comes to defending your Rebound Fetish.....

    now please go away .... you embarrass yourself every post you make here....   you dishonor your family ...     do your parents know about you renigging on your bet..... is it something you admit to your friends?    or is it your little private secret badness?....
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share