Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    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.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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!!!

    [/QUOTE]

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

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. 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:


    [QUOTE]


     


     


    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.


    [/QUOTE]


      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.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. 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.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

      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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

      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.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. 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?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

      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?
     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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!

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

     

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    In response to Mployee8's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fiercy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

      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?
     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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!

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

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    and the biggest nit-picker on BDC calls you the same for questioning the integrity of his stat!

    [/QUOTE]


    Fiercy said that the Celtics didn't win in 2010 because they averaged less than 40 rebounds and no team that does that has or ever will win a title. He was wrong.

    I said they lost because of injuries. When your best player is hampered all season returning from a major leg injury, your best shooters legs are taken away for the middle 3 games of the finals by a dirty play and your starting center is done for the final 7 quarters when you are up 3-2, it is clearly injuries and not a regular season rebounding stat that doomed the C's.

    The Heat winning in 2013 proved Fiercy's argument wrong.

    I was right about injuries being the bigger reason to begin with, but the only leg he stood on with the regular season rebounding stat went out the window when the Heat won. The C's starting center was OUT OF THE GAME, of course they will have a hard time rebounding in games 6 and 7. Injuries were FAR worse, if they didn't happen the C's would have been the first sub 40 rebound team to win a title, not the Heat.

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

    Re: Less Than 40 Rebounds Per Game

    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.

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share