Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

     

     

    The Heat proved that teams can average under 40 rebounds and win titles, something Fiercy claimed was not going to happen. Egg all over his face.

     

     

     

    Injuries caused Boston to lose in 2010 more than their sub 40 rebounding average.

     

     

     

    This debate was already put to rest.

     

     



    Since the start of the NBA in 1946, only one team won a championship averaging less than 40 rebounds per game.

     

     

    So in 67 years of the NBA's existence, only one time a team averaging less than 40 rebounds per game won a championship.

     

    That's 1 out of 67.

      

    DUH!!!



      How many teams in the first 37 years of the league averaged less than 40 rebounds per game?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    In response to Fiercy's comment:


    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:



     


     


    How many teams in the first 37 years of the league averaged less than 40 rebounds per game?


     


     




    Doesn't matter.


     


     


    The point is if you're a bad rebounding team, most probably you're not going to win a championship.


     


    Just like the Celts in 2010.


     


    When the Celts were a very good rebounding team in 2008, they won a championship.





      You introduced the statistic.  I asked a simple question about it. And you respond by saying your(Fiercy's) entire previous post doesn't matter.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

      The 1963-64 St. Louis Hawks had the fewest rebounds per game in the league.  4959 rebounds in 80 games.  62 per.

      The 84-85 Knicks are the first team I found that averaged less than 40 per game.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:

     

     

      The 1963-64 St. Louis Hawks had the fewest rebounds per game in the league.  4959 rebounds in 80 games.  62 per.

     

      The 84-85 Knicks are the first team I found that averaged less than 40 per game.

     

     



    Yes, but the Knicks didn't make the Finals that year.

     

     

    They didn't even make the playoffs that year.

     

    I'm referring to NBA champions.



      Yes, but nothing.

      You talked about 67 years.  For the first 37 years no such team existed.  When you started this thread you had already dishonestly skewed the criteria.  You compounded that by specifically saying 67 years.  As demonstrated, the game has changed over the years.  40 rebounds a game has no relevance to a huge portion of NBA history.  When the worst rebound per game team in the league gets 62 rebounds per game it is ridiculous to say that no team getting less than 40 rebounds per game won the championship that year.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

      It is you who is trying to move the goalposts.  You said 40 per game 1 out of 67 Duh!!!.  37 out of 67 can be dismissed as irrelevant. Those goalposts didn't even exist for a huge chunk of the NBA's history.


     


      Now you say "have to be at least a decent rebounding team".  That is far different from less than 40 per game which describes a small number of teams over NBA history.  Move the goalposts much?

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:

     

     

      It is you who is trying to move the goalposts.  You said 40 per game 1 out of 67 Duh!!!.  37 out of 67 can be dismissed as irrelevant. Those goalposts didn't even exist for a huge chunk of the NBA's history.

     

      Now you say "have to be at least a decent rebounding team".  That is far different from less than 40 per game which describes a small number of teams over NBA history.  Move the goalposts much?
     

     

     



    You can disagree with whatever I say.

     

     

    I'm not going to force you to believe me.

     

    But it's a fact that the Heat are the only team in NBA history to win a championship averaging less than 40 rebounds per game and it only happened once!


       I ask you a simple question about the relevance of your statistic and all you can do is repeat the statistic.

     

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    We should be celebrating a team put together properly and plays the game the right way beating a team of mercenaries, cowards and steroid users.... not arguing about 40 rebounds +/- determining a champion.

    Is it better to average 40+ boards? Sure.

    Do you have to do it it win a title? Nope.

    Were injuries a bigger reason than that stat for why the Celtics didn't win in 2010? Yup.




    I will always remember 2010 as the season the Cs lost to the Lakers in the Finals 's with their ASPG shooting a remarkable 26% (7-19, 2.7 FTA/G) from the charity stripe. (Team shot FTs at 77%, 85% w/o Rondo)

    We would have been far better served if Rondo had been injured instead of Perk.

    Pud

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    We should be celebrating a team put together properly and plays the game the right way beating a team of mercenaries, cowards and steroid users.... not arguing about 40 rebounds +/- determining a champion.

    Is it better to average 40+ boards? Sure.

    Do you have to do it it win a title? Nope.

    Were injuries a bigger reason than that stat for why the Celtics didn't win in 2010? Yup.




    I will always remember 2010 as the season the Cs lost to the Lakers in the Finals 's with their ASPG shooting a remarkable 26% (7-19, 2.7 FTA/G) from the charity stripe. (Team shot FTs at 77%, 85% w/o Rondo)

    We would have been far better served if Rondo had been injured instead of Perk.

    Pud



    Rondo shot 1-2 from the line in game 7 and went 1-2 from 3. I'll take that anyday. He played 44 minutes and contributed 14 points, 10 assists and 8 rebounds.

    In the other agonizing loss, game 3, Rondo did go 1-4 from the line, but was a +2 in a game we lost by 7, where Ray was 0-8 on 3's after the dirty Artest play injured his leg. Had Ray shot 37.5% from three, slightly below his career average, we'd have won the game (3-8 on 3's). Had Rondo shot 75% from the line (3-4) slightly above his averages, we'd have still lost. That was a game robbed of us by Artest and officials.

    In the two close losses that swung this series, games 3 and 7, it was members of the big 3 that let this team down more than Rondo. Game 3 was a great KG game, terrible Ray game and mediocre/vanilla Pierce game. Game 7 was a great defensive game for Ray, a 2-7 from 3 performance that would have won us a title if it was 4-7, a terrible KG performance and another vanilla/mediocre Pierce game.

    Rondo did not assert himself like an all-star should, but he was 24 year old and he was letdown by Injuries, officiating and his Hall of Fame teammates (in that order) before he can look to his own performance.

     

     

    Rarely has... rarely will.

    When you can't choot4chit and refuse to play defense, your options for asserting yourself are very limited.

    Pud

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share