Is rebounding going to be a problem?

[CelticPride2016]

We were not good at rebounding during the Doc era, but that might have been more about the strategy to let them go and get back on defense.

I think it's too early to worry about this. It's like saying Marcus Smart cannot play any point guard. It's a declarative statement we simply do not know at this point whether it's true or not.

The only thing we know is that Avery Bradley cannot play any point guard.

Sullinger is great at rebounding, no debate. Our fear is that his leaving has left a gap in that area. However, Sully was holding us back in so many other ways. James Young can hit shots, but what else can he do? I think it's better to be mediocre in many areas than to be great at one thing but lousy in most of everything else. That is the difference between Hunter and Young and why the former still has a chance to remain a Celtic. If Young stays, I will be extremely shocked.

We don't have to be great at rebounding. I think Philly was putting up some decent specialized stats on defense. Blocks, etc.. They also ended up with the league's worst record.

What the Big Three and Doc taught us was that if you put the ball in the hoop, there is no need to rebound.

On defense, yes, it becomes a problem and deflates a team when they defend perfectly only to have to do it all over again because no one grabbed the rebound. This is something to think about, but I think it's too early to worry.

[Who]

All good points and it really could be a problem.  However, someone who is not a lazy as I am should look up the rebounding stats for GS, who IIRC are not a great rebounding team.  That said, CLE, OKC and SAS are vey good rebounding teams.

Also keep in mind that rebounding is dependent on opportunity which translates to offensive and defense FG%, along with pace as mentioned above.

Golden State were 8th in the league in rebounding differential with a +2.3 boards per game.

[The Oracle]

All good points and it really could be a problem.  However, someone who is not a lazy as I am should look up the rebounding stats for GS, who IIRC are not a great rebounding team.  That said, CLE, OKC and SAS are vey good rebounding teams.

Also keep in mind that rebounding is dependent on opportunity which translates to offensive and defense FG%, along with pace as mentioned above.

Golden State were 8th in the league in rebounding differential with a +2.3 boards per game.

Rebounding differential tells you nothing.  G.S. was the best shooting team in the league their opponents were not.  Their opponents were therefor afforded many fewer defensive rebounding opportunities.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Some posters have mentioned the team's strategic decision to not go for offensive rebounds, but defensive rebounding has been problematic too.

[RJ87]

Some posters have mentioned the team's strategic decision to not go for offensive rebounds, but defensive rebounding has been problematic too.

Right now, the collective defensive rebounding % of this team is mediocre at best... And I feel like I'm being generous by saying it's mediocre.

[The Oracle]

Some posters have mentioned the team's strategic decision to not go for offensive rebounds, but defensive rebounding has been problematic too.

Defensive rebounding is also a choice.  Do you aggressively contest all shot attempts?  Do you aggressively defend the perimeter with your bigs or do you pack it in?  The Olynyk/Sullinger pairing was the 2nd worst defensive rebounding pairing the Celtics had last year among all pairings that played 200 minutes (70.6%).  They were also the highest rated pairing the Celtics had at +13.7 net rating.  Olynyk/Amir numbers are much the same (71.0%) 3rd worst, yet 3rd highest net rating at +9.9. 

There are significant trade offs/losses/gains on both ends for adding or subtracting rebounding.  It appears the league is trending heavily to giving up some rebounding for spacing/shooting/speed.

[Beat LA]

Rebounding has been a big problem for the better part of the last decade, imo, unfortunately, and while we did sign Horford (who isn't exactly the best rebounder, himself), none of that will matter if Stevens keeps 'switching everything' on defense , imo, because no matter how good your perimeter guys are at rebounding, there are simply too many size mismatches, and for those of you who think that rebounding doesn't matter, well, go look at how the Thunder were beating the Warriors in the western conference finals, and then how the Cavs ultimately beat them - on the boards; and it's not only because Golden State lacked size, in my view, but it's also due, in large part, to their dumb 'switch everything' defense .  Like it or not, rebounding matters.  It always has, and it always will.  Well, to me, anyway .

[tarheelsxxiii]

Rebounding has been a big problem for the better part of the last decade, imo, unfortunately, and while we did sign Horford (who isn't exactly the best rebounder, himself), none of that will matter if Stevens keeps 'switching everything' on defense , imo, because no matter how good your perimeter guys are at rebounding, there are simply too many size mismatches, and for those of you who think that rebounding doesn't matter, well, go look at how the Thunder were beating the Warriors in the western conference finals, and then how the Cavs ultimately beat them - on the boards; and it's not only because Golden State lacked size, in my view, but it's also due, in large part, to their dumb 'switch everything' defense .  Like it or not, rebounding matters.  It always has, and it always will.  Well, to me, anyway .

Agreed.

[SparzWizard]

Rebounds win games.

Just start Terry Rozier at PF. He'll be a solid rebounder.

[Beat LA]

Rebounds win games.

Just start Terry Rozier at PF. He'll be a solid rebounder.

Idk, man, isn't he too tall to play the 4 spot in the 'new NBA' (sarcasm), lol ?

[Csfan1984]

Just score more than the other team.

[The Oracle]

Rebounding has been a big problem for the better part of the last decade, imo, unfortunately, and while we did sign Horford (who isn't exactly the best rebounder, himself), none of that will matter if Stevens keeps 'switching everything' on defense , imo, because no matter how good your perimeter guys are at rebounding, there are simply too many size mismatches, and for those of you who think that rebounding doesn't matter, well, go look at how the Thunder were beating the Warriors in the western conference finals, and then how the Cavs ultimately beat them - on the boards; and it's not only because Golden State lacked size, in my view, but it's also due, in large part, to their dumb 'switch everything' defense .  Like it or not, rebounding matters.  It always has, and it always will.  Well, to me, anyway .

Agreed.

Those 2 switching defenses of Boston and G.S. finished tied for 4th best in the league this year.  You seem to think that is a choice they are making and a lot of the time you actually have no choice but to switch.  If you do not switch onto Curry he is going to obtain space and pop an open 3 every time.  Therefor you must have big men that are capable of defending on the perimeter or you are going to get torched.

G.S did have some trouble on the boards against O.K.C. no doubt.  Those same bigs that were giving them trouble on the boards were also being heavily exploited on the perimeter on the other end.  Adams worked his butt off trying to keep up only to watch a million 3 balls hit in his face.

Cleveland only had a small inconsequential rebounding advantage over the final 3 games of the finals.  The real problem was Cleveland shot the lights out and G.S. didn't.  Over those 3 games G.S. missed 31 more shots than Cleveland did.  As the old saying goes the NBA is a make or miss league and that eventually cost the Warriors the title. 

Rebounding in the foreseeable future is going to be harder to come by from your big men simply because they are being forced to defend away from the hoop.  Either they follow the screen setter out to the 3 point line or stand there and watch them free up a shooter and jack 40+% 3 balls in your face.  With that said it is far more important to have quicker more mobile bigs that are capable of defending out to the perimeter than it is to have monster rebounders in most instances.  If I had a choice I would still keep a monster or 2 around so you can play both ways and change play styles some but I fear teams are going to immediately target any slow less mobile big the second you stick them on the floor.

[straightouttabahstun]

We just added Brown, Horford, and Gerald Green, correct? No problem. Rebounding is for chumps. Let's just go all 2004 Phoenix Suns on everyone in the league and out run every opposing team. Everyone on the team except Horford and Green are all twenty somethings. Plenty of running to go around. No one will know what hit em. 2017 NBA champs.

[Celtics4ever]

Sullinger is great at rebounding, no debate. Our fear is that his leaving has left a gap in that area. However, Sully was holding us back in so many other ways. James Young can hit shots, but what else can he do? I think it's better to be mediocre in many areas than to be great at one thing but lousy in most of everything else. That is the difference between Hunter and Young and why the former still has a chance to remain a Celtic. If Young stays, I will be extremely shocked.

If Sully was so valuable, why did the rest of the league ignore him and he signed for chump change?  That alone ought to tell you the rest of the league didn't value him or his rebounding.   He was a solid rebounder and yet he was not paid, as highly as some thought.  I think they came to the logical conclusion that his strengths did not outweigh his weaknesses.  Otherwise, he would have got paid more.

The SKY IS NOT FALLING, do not panic.   We may have some difficulties in this area but some guys will step or up or Ainge will make a move that addresses it.

[PhoSita]

It's not not gonna be a problem.