POST GAME INDIANA

Wow, for a minute...better make that 3 quarters I thought the Celtics were entering their mid winter thaw. Even with a win, you can see the rust setting in without Rando. They are slowly losing their sync on both sides of the ball.

What has hurt the Celtics on Christmas and for the better part of tonight is Nat has lost his shooing touch. He does not penetrate as well as Rondo does so his outside shooting helps open up the paint for Shaq, KG or Paul to work the paint. However Orlando and Indiana were sagging in the middle and hindering our inside game down low with Nat's poor shooting. MD played great tonight and VW held his own with what minutes Doc gave him.

JON looked better tonight and should get his timing down in the next 3-4 games. His strengths and contributions as I see it will be shot blocking and challenging shots around the basket and rebounding. I hope Doc does not sit Semi too long that he gets rusty.

Detroit tomorrow night which we should win. Post game comments by Ray Ray ...we played bad and we have not improved since the Orlando game.

112288

112288 wrote:I hope Doc does not sit Semi too long that he gets rusty.

Is it possible that Doc is sitting Erden intentionally now that the O'Neals are back so that he can rest his shoulder? Plus, didn't Erden have the flu?

The Celtics outscored the Pacers in each of the last three quarters. That helped in the comeback win.

The Pacers points-per-quarter decreased each quarter. The defense got better as the game went on.

Outside wrote:

112288 wrote:I hope Doc does not sit Semi too long that he gets rusty.

Is it possible that Doc is sitting Erden intentionally now that the O'Neals are back so that he can rest his shoulder? Plus, didn't Erden have the flu?

I am in the last stages of the flu and Doc held me out for another game so I can get my legs under me.

My Avatar

That's good to hear. He is a comer and in a quite way showing that his presence makes a difference.

112288

Was fun to see some vintage Pierce take over the 2nd quarter,good to know he's still got all his moves as he scored in a variety of ways.He showed Danny Granger hes still got it,I think Pierce and KG enjoy these match ups with the younger generation,KG outscored Dwight Howard last game and controlled the game with his defense and rebounding.Thought our defense was great....man how much better can we be with a healthy Rondo,Perk and Delonte?we just routinely grinded it out.

Celtics had a great 8:44 span outscoring Indy 27-7 (from the 5:23 mark of the third quarter and the first 3:21 of the fourth) turning a 60-50 deficit into a 77-67 lead.

Other than that, for almost 40 minutes it was Indy's game. You don't win many games when you're better for 8 or so and they're better for 40. But they were that good mid-third quarter through the first few of the fourth.

I wasn't paying attention to Shaq and his fouls because I thought for a second that A) The refs wouldn't follow-up with back-to-back singled-out Shaq fouling barrages and B) Shaq would play maybe just slightly more cautious and not foul himself out. Which was it? Not to worry in that with JON back, maybe Shaq feels he can go for it a little more.

steve3344,

That run may explain the Celtics winning the 3rd and 4th quarter, but they also outscored (won) the second quarter. I don't buy into your "for almost 40 minutes it was Indy's game" theory.

As I stated above, the Pacers scored less and less each quarter. That sounds like the Celtics went from "not much defense" to "quite a lot of defense" as the game progressed. The Pacers scored only 16 points in the 4th, so the D was working in the end for sure and for the entire quarter.

On offense, the Celtics missed a lot of bunnies again and turned into a jump-shooting team, except during the run that you mentioned. Shaq gets called for offensive interference when he hung on the rim and that took away a couple of points. Shaq seems to be a big target for bad foul calls and just bad calls in general.

It doesn't help that Shaq gets fouls called on him just for being the biggest player in a collision. Donny Marshall commented on just that right after Shaq got called for a foul when the Celtics ran a pick and roll. The Pacer he ran into wasn't even in the circle and Shaq still got called for the foul.

When Shaq had to sit in the 1st half, JO came in and was pretty much ineffective. It was nice to see that JO looked better in the 2nd half, lets see if that effort carries over to the next game. I have great hopes that with JO, it is only rust. I was wishing for a little Semih whenever Shaq had to sit.

That says a lot (to me at least) about Semih. Maybe we will see him tonight if Doc deems him recovered enough.

Missed all but the final couple minutes.

But in looking over ther stats and play by play gotta agree that we seemed to hold fort quite well. No way we didn't control pace and tempo MOST of the game.

1st quarter, our biggest lead was 2 points 2 times early. Indy had a 9 point lead one time. Indy had 3 runs......... 5-0, 2times and a 7-0 one.
We had a 6-0 one in between. Only down 7 at the quarter.

In the second we only allowed them to score Back to Back hoops 1 time. And although we only had 1 run of 5-0 we outscored them by 5 in the quarter.

In the third they had the biggest lead of 10 points, while we never lead, we were only down 1 at the end and won the quarter 21-20. We had 2 runs of 4-0 and one of 8-0 they had 2 of 4-0 each.

In the final quarter we started with an 11-0 run. Indy only had consecutive scores on a free threw and then a 2 point hoop. We never allowed consecutive field goals in the final 12 minutes.

As the NBA is a game of runs and keeping the opposition from having to many of them or from having big ones. We prevailed quite well. We had the two biggest ones 8-0 and 11-0.

We appeared to match hoops when we had to and got stops when we needed to unlike the orlando game.

As for Shaq no idea as I missed the game but I do hope the fouls were all earned.
The C's were a plus 10 for the 7 minutes Wafer was on the floor, which has to be a high for him.

Could have done a better job on the glass but losing the board battle by a few does not seem to matter to this team, as it just seems to lower the opponets field goal percentage. (more chances for them to miss)

beat

One stat that might be interesting to look at is offensive rebounds (by a team) vs. fastbreak points (by the opposing team).

To a certain degree getting an offensive rebound is kind of an egoistic stat that gets boosted a lot. By getting an offensive rebound you are creating a "cool" stat, noone sees what the cost of trying to get them is though.

I am not saying offensive rebounds are bad or that if a person gets a lot of them he is really just boosting his stats. I am just saying that like everything else there is a cost benefit ratio involved. I would happily give up a few rebounds on defense if it leads to a lot more easy points on the fast break.

I feel this game was a real declarative statement. They had lost their previous game to Orlando, one that they should have won, but they weren't going to lose two in a row. They just weren't. Ganas played a big factor in this as Boston couldn't throw the ball in the ocean (again!) from the backcourt in the first half. Nevertheless, they willed themselves over the finish line. A team that refuses to lose two straight, despite missing a few key players and having a sputtering offense, is a team with the ganas of champions.

1. Nate didn't have a good shooting night and we already know he's not a classic point guard, but he made a few defensive hustle plays that fired the others up. Can someone explain this to me: if a 6'9" player butts heads with a 5'9" player (and that's being charitable) and the shorter player isn't jumping, how is that the shorter player's foul? Clearly, the taller player has to do something unnatural, like double over, to bring his head within range of the grounded, shorter player. Why Dunleavy didn't just shoot over Nate is another question.

2. Vintage Pierce. Danny Grainger is a very good player, but Pierce just schooled him last night. We also got 7 assists from our backup point guard. He's not supposed to be that, but that's how he's playing. He's making the offense go in Rondo's absence, not Nate. He was Captain Ganas, last night, and Nate and others fed off of his intensity.

3. Bradley is clearly not comfortable with the ball in his hands. He gets rid of it as fast as he can and doesn't even try to run an offensive set. He did ok last night, giving Nate a blow, but he's a looong way from being an NBA point guard. His two shots were an open 3, which I can't believe was a called play, and a mid-range jumper from the elbow. He missed both, but he got the rebound on the second miss and took it straight to the iron and got fouled. That showed good instincts by the youngster and a lack of intimidation by the opposition or his own misses. He did not grab the board and bring it out, he took it to the unready defense. There's a ray of hope there for him, but I still think that when West comes back he should be sent to D-league so he can get the minutes running an offense without the intense pressure of playing with 4 future HOFers.

4. Ray Allen's first half looked like his Orlando game, and then he started to get his rhythm and he started scoring. Nice to see, since we need him to remain a threat for our offense to click.

5. I'm afraid I must disagree with some of the previous posters regarding JON. Taking into account that I missed some games this season due to my trip to Nepal, I have to say I have not seen JON play a good game since last season. Last regular season, because his playoffs were abysmal. I understand he's coming off a knee injury, but NO shots and only 2 rebounds and 3 PFs in just 12 minutes? Erden does a lot better than that and he's an NBA rookie with a shoulder that needs surgery. Another couple of games, I'll give him, and then I'm going to start calling for his scalp. There's no reason why he should be #5 of 5 (I'm even putting Davis ahead of him on the depth chart at center right now, and so is Doc. That's why when Shaq is taken out towards the end because of his liabilities on the free throw line, Davis goes in for him, not JON).

6. Grainger, Posey and Dunleavy. That team is loaded with SFs, while we're thin. Is there anybody we have that they'd want and that we don't need? Doc let Lasme and Gaffney go because he wanted more shooting at that position. Dunleavy, anyone? Lord knows he's soft as a grape underneath, but he can shoot from anywhere, runs the fast break, can put the ball on the floor and has very good courtvision and IQ. He'd be good relieving Pierce at 3 in the games where Q has to play 1 or 2. Just a thought...

7. Of the two former Pacers returning home, one had a really good game and the other one didn't. The offense, when run by Daniels, was much more coherent and effective than the one run by Nate. He also played pretty sticky defense, as usual. His struggles, this year and last, have been well-documented but he's playing well now. I thought he was a BIG difference maker in his 31 minutes. I absolutely loved his little shovel pass to Von Wafer on the cut trough the lane even though Q had worked hard to get to where he could take a postup shot. Nice courtvision, keeping his head up and seeing the cutter with the angle for a layup by Q.

8. Three steals for KG. Man oh man, is it good to see him so mobile again! People were saying last year that "he'll never the the KG of old". Well, if he isn't, he's a reasonable facsimile. Watching him gallop downcourt, with Pacers trying to squeeze him on both sides, was terrifying though. His heart, his competitive heart, is bigger than Southie.

bob

.

swed

Interesting

So what happens after a shot goes up ( an outside shot 10 or more feet away) . Either it goes in or misses and if it misses how much effort is made to get the offensive board vs allowing an easy hoop if you don't get it.

I know our HS coach always wanted floor balance meaning that at least 1 player has defensive responsibility when a shot goes up sometimes even 2. Those players may not always be the same on every shot but they (the players) have to be aware. Better 2 or 3 back than none. Also by challenging for a rebound on the offensive end you can bog down a possible outlet for a fast break too.

Obviously giving up an offensive rebounds gives the opponent and extra oppourtunity to score. In football (not soccer) each team will have (within 1) the same number of opportunities to have the ball. In hoops offensive rebounds are a way to get extra chances to score without the other team touching the ball.

There is a stat called second chance points that is kept and I assume that is based on offensive rebounds. Don't know if there is any that would indicate any sort of rate of effectiveness vs not getting them and allowing an easy attempt at the other end.

beat

Shaq has had this foul issue for most of his career, certainly the latter two-thirds (he wasn't as massive when he first joined the league). If he's on your team, you think he's singled out, gets called for fouls unjustly, and gets fouls against him just because he's incredibly big and strong and the other guy isn't. If he's not on your team, you think he gets away with murder, pushing, shoving, backing down at will with his big caboose, and committing untold offensive fouls. I think the truth is somewhere in between.

I do remember a comment, I believe during Shaq's Laker days, that refs considered him the most difficult player to ref. I can see why.

Outside

Hi,
A few observations from the last game.
1. PP still got it: can shoot, can distribute, etc. But most of all he can carry the team in a time of need.
2. Doc should put more PG load on MD. I think in the last game he was clearly better than Nate. I'm not sure, though, how it'd affect the rotations.
3. Celtics should continue to open RA for 2pt not just 3pt.
4. There's no hope that the refs get off Shaq. I guess it's their perception that he can't be fouled unless 2 or 3 opponents hang on his arms/shoulders a la Nate.
5. JON will get better. Remember the first couple games at the beginning of the season: he looked totally lost and then he started to get into the groove.
6. Have to commend the defense by the 1st as well as the 2nd unit.
7. It was not KG's shooting night but his performance didn't suffer on the D-end.

I hope tonight Doc will make right tweaks and the team continues to play DEFENSE.

AK

It was great to watch Marquis play so well again tonight. I had really begun to
think he was going to be great for us last year until he got hurt and then ended up in Doc's dog house for some reason. He is now proving what he is
capable of and some of the worry about losing TA should be erased. It is also terrific to see KG play so well again and be so alive on the floor, it brings energy to everyone.

Swede's question about offensive rebounds vs. fast break opportunities is interesting, but I don't think it's an either/or situation. You can have three players whose primary responsibility is to fall back on defense while two players crash the offensive board. Like Beat said, it's floor balance, though in the NBA, teams tend heavily toward falling back on defense to prevent fast breaks.

The question is usually how effective players are when they have the responsibility of going for offensive rebounds. What I see for the most part is that, when a shot goes up, big men on offense are normally in a boxed-out position (their man is between them and the basket), they accept their position and, gee, the rebound doesn't usually fall into their hands.

If you can, watch what players do when the shot is in the air. Most stand there and watch the shot. There are a select few, like Glen Davis and Blake Griffin, who work when the shot is in the air to get to better offensive rebounding position. Rodman was the best I ever saw at it. When the shot was in the air, it's like nine guys were in suspended animation and only one guy was moving. (I suspect Bill Russell was also good at it, but I was too young to be aware of it at the time, and they didn't keep offensive rebounding stats then.) It takes effort. It takes desire. It takes energy. For whatever reason, only a few players have it. If you look at stats for Davis and Rodman, you'll see a 2/1 ratio between defensive and offensive rebounds. Most guys are like 3/1 or 4/1.

You don't want to give up fast break points, but offensive rebounds are incredibly valuable. They are the same as a turnover. They are an extra possession. They can also break the spirit of an opponent.

The Celtics are dead last in the league in offensive rebounding (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=5v7sC), and I believe that's been the trend in the "big three" era. A big part of the reason for that is probably philosophical -- Doc prefers to fall back on D, and he doesn't want his older lineup expending energy on offensive rebounding. Rebounding stats for KG (1.3 ORB, 8.5 DRB) and Pierce (0.3 ORB, 4.8 DRB) seem to indicate that. Shaq (1.8 ORB, 4.3 DRB) has a better ratio, but I think that's because he has such good position when he shoots and he's smart at using his bulk and strength effectively. Whatever the reason, the Celtics are obviously successful despite their lack of offensive rebounding (and rebounding in general).

Outside

Outside wrote:Swede's question about offensive rebounds vs. fast break opportunities is interesting, but I don't think it's an either/or situation. You can have three players whose primary responsibility is to fall back on defense while two players crash the offensive board. Like Beat said, it's floor balance, though in the NBA, teams tend heavily toward falling back on defense to prevent fast breaks.

The question is usually how effective players are when they have the responsibility of going for offensive rebounds. What I see for the most part is that, when a shot goes up, big men on offense are normally in a boxed-out position (their man is between them and the basket), they accept their position and, gee, the rebound doesn't usually fall into their hands.

If you can, watch what players do when the shot is in the air. Most stand there and watch the shot. There are a select few, like Glen Davis and Blake Griffin, who work when the shot is in the air to get to better offensive rebounding position. Rodman was the best I ever saw at it. When the shot was in the air, it's like nine guys were in suspended animation and only one guy was moving. (I suspect Bill Russell was also good at it, but I was too young to be aware of it at the time, and they didn't keep offensive rebounding stats then.) It takes effort. It takes desire. It takes energy. For whatever reason, only a few players have it. If you look at stats for Davis and Rodman, you'll see a 2/1 ratio between defensive and offensive rebounds. Most guys are like 3/1 or 4/1.

You don't want to give up fast break points, but offensive rebounds are incredibly valuable. They are the same as a turnover. They are an extra possession. They can also break the spirit of an opponent.

The Celtics are dead last in the league in offensive rebounding (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=5v7sC), and I believe that's been the trend in the "big three" era. A big part of the reason for that is probably philosophical -- Doc prefers to fall back on D, and he doesn't want his older lineup expending energy on offensive rebounding. Rebounding stats for KG (1.3 ORB, 8.5 DRB) and Pierce (0.3 ORB, 4.8 DRB) seem to indicate that. Shaq (1.8 ORB, 4.3 DRB) has a better ratio, but I think that's because he has such good position when he shoots and he's smart at using his bulk and strength effectively. Whatever the reason, the Celtics are obviously successful despite their lack of offensive rebounding (and rebounding in general).

Outside

outside,

Now you're going to my sweet spot. I've always had a weakness for offensive rebounding. Hell, you don't even have to get the ball, just contesting the rebound throws the other team's fast break tempo off. Getting the rebound creates another possession for your team, as you pointed out. It takes less energy than doing that than playing halfcourt defense and it sometimes generates a high percentage shot and/or free throws. It makes coaching staffs rethink how many players to release on the shot and that helps cut down on easy baskets against you too.

I've noticed the 1:3 or 1:4 ratio myself and that does appear to be about where the league is. You are also absolutely dead right about the Celtics being dead last in this category. I've stifled whatever bitching I might do about this because they are winning and that's all that matters, not so much how, but I am aware of this.

The current players you listed (Griffin, Davis) are players that are physical mismatches for their position. Griffin is incredibly athletic and Davis moves his weight around like nobody I've seen. Short for his weight, he still is able to move his 290# well. Rodman, on the other hand, had a gift. He, like Bird, was able to see where the ball was going to come off the boards as it left the shooter's hands. This allowed him to not just move, but move to where the ball was going to be when the shot missed. That's why it looked like one player moving and everyone else just standing around. The other players played position and waited for the ball to come off while Rodman already knew where it was going and went straight there.

Aside from those gifted few, a lot of it boils down to ganas. You have to want the ball, be willing to expend energy for it on top of the energy you're already expending and, if you don't get it, still have what it takes to fall back on defense before your guy gets upcourt even if you're trapped underneath and he's not. You also have to convince your coaching staff that you can do it.

There is one other player on the Celtics, other than Davis, who has "the nose for the ball" like those players do that I think I see and that's Luke Harangody (everybody can feel free to have a "group snicker"). This kid always seems to be around the ball, like the way Rodman was. Unfortunately for Luke, he doesn't have a physical mismatch working in his favor like Davis does and that does and will hamper his effectiveness. However, as I stated earlier, just getting a fingernail on the ball disrupts the other team's fast break and that's a different way of executing good transition defense.

The Celtics have the stingiest defense in the league (opp ppg allowed). Can't bitch about that, however they do it.

bob

.

bob and Outside

TWO BIG reasons we are last in offensive rebounds

1) we have the HIGHEST FG% in the league

2) We have the fourth lowest FG's Attempts per game

Add those up and we have a lot fewer opportunities to even get offensive boards.

Also re Bird

I remember reading that it wasn't so much watching the ball in flight BUT from where the shot originated from that gave Bird a heads up as to where the rebound would likely go. Plus moving there gives one an added ability to jump a little higher than when just standing there waiting, and if you jumped like Bird you needed a little added momentum.

beat

beat wrote:bob and Outside

TWO BIG reasons we are last in offensive rebounds

1) we have the HIGHEST FG% in the league

2) We have the fourth lowest FG's Attempts per game

Add those up and we have a lot fewer opportunities to even get offensive boards.

Those certainly sound like excellent points. I know we've discussed in the past that the best stat is percentage of available rebounds. Is there some site that has that?

In lieu of some site doing the work for me, I saved the data as a CSV file and opened it in Excel. I then calculated each team's offensive rebound rate as a percentage of available rebounds using this:

Offensive rebounds per game / (field goal attempts per game - field goals per game)

Is that the correct equation? I don't think it's perfect, because it doesn't account for missed free throws, but it at least compensates for the two factors Beat pointed out. With that calculation, Boston moved up one slot, to 29th. Cleveland is last at 19.7% of available offensive rebounds, and Boston is next at 20.1% of available offensive rebounds.

I'm not sure how critical it is to be good in this category, because the top five are Portland, Sacramento, Minnesota, the Clippers, and Golden State, ranging from 29.4% to 27.8%. That includes four of the worst teams in the league plus Portland, which is .500. (Not sure what it means that all five are Western Conference teams.)

The Celtics are successful despite their rebounding deficiencies. Like BobH, I put a lot of value on rebounding in general and offensive rebounding in particular. At first glance, it doesn't make sense that someone like Pierce gets 0.3 offensive rebounds a game (about one a week) and a solid rebounder like KG gets only 1.3 a game, but I continue to think that it's due to the team's defense-first philosophy combined with having older players. In Pierce's case, he doesn't have the requisite energy level. He's really smart about conserving energy and expending it intelligently in short bursts, and he's not capable of going hard after an offensive board and then hustling back if he doesn't get it. KG saves his energy for the defensive end and isn't nearly as aggressive at the offensive end anyway. That leaves Davis and Shaq, plus JON and Erden when they're in there, to go for offensive boards.

I still think Swede's original question is an interesting one, and I'd love to see stats to address his question.

Outside

I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the "context card" again.

I continue to be amazed at the concern over the Celtics' offensive rebounding "deficiencies." Try to look at it within the following context:

(a) The Celtics average 2.0 fewer offensive rebounds per game than opponents.

(b) But the Celtics also average 3.3 fewer missed two-point attempts and 1.9 fewer missed three-point attempts per game than opponents, for a total of 5.2 fewer missed shots per game than opponents.

(c) Simply put, the opponents have more offensive rebounding opportunities per game than the Celtics do. In particular, opponents' plurality of roughly two long-range misses per game offers more long offensive rebound opportunities to opponents than to the Celtics. How many times per game do you grind your teeth to watch opponents grab long offensive caroms over the heats of Celtics who are closer to the boards?

All-told, the Celtics capture 22.2% of their offensive rebounding opportunities. Opponents capture 23.9% of their offensive rebounding opportunities. I'm perfectly sanguine to trade off 1 or 2 offensive rebounds per game for a much higher shooting percentage, especially because the higher shooting percentage is indicative of an offense that is in better rhythm and is getting better shots.

It is true that the Celtics' big men (aside from Glen Davis and Shaq) are not as adept at garnering offensive rebounds as are opponents. For example, the Lakers capitalize on 29.7% of their offensive rebounding opportunities, and you know how important Pau and Odom are in that stat. But, without checking, I'd have to guess that the Celtics' not-so-big men (especially Rondo) come close to leading the league when it comes to offensive rebounding. In fact, Rondo is virtually tied with Glen Davis (1.4 to 1.5) in terms of offensive rebounds per 30 minutes of play.

Moreover, although JON hasn't exactly been a world-beater in his Celtics appearances, he is tied for second on the team (behind Shaq) for offensive rebounds per 30 minutes of play. So perhaps, if JON and Rondo can get into gear again, better times are coming in the offensive rebound category for the Celtics. In the meantime, I don't really think it's a big deal.

On the other hand, I do think defensive rebounding is a big deal, especially when playing a team like the Lakers. I'm far less worried about the good-shooting Celtics getting an extra couple of points per game via offensive rebounds than I am that they'll allow the Lakers and other contenders to gain a whole bunch of points via that route.

And, as far as Russell is concerned, few can appreciate the amount of time he put (as a collegian) studying the geometry of basketball and angles of caroms off the board. Despite being the best jumper in the league, and despite having sharply honed instincts under the boards, he had superb rebound positioning due to protracted periods of study.

Sam

beat wrote:Also re Bird

I remember reading that it wasn't so much watching the ball in flight BUT from where the shot originated from that gave Bird a heads up as to where the rebound would likely go. Plus moving there gives one an added ability to jump a little higher than when just standing there waiting, and if you jumped like Bird you needed a little added momentum.

beat

beat,

Every player on the floor sees the same shot. Every player on the floor has years of watching shots from there and have years of experience watching those missed shots coming off the board/iron. Why is it that we can count on our fingers how many of all those players have been able to translate that into a pattern, as you described?

You may be 100% right, but it can still be a gift. Don't like that word, fine, call it IQ, but it is relatively rare nevertheless.

bob

.

In particular, opponents' plurality of roughly two long-range misses per game offers more long offensive rebound opportunities to opponents than to the Celtics. How many times per game do you grind your teeth to watch opponents grab long offensive caroms over the heats of Celtics who are closer to the boards?

sam,

I always thought that one of the problems with long-range shooting, of which 3ptrs are the worst offenders, is that their misses produce long rebounds which spurs a fast break by your opponents. If our opponents are taking more long range shots but are shooting worse than us, then why aren't we getting those rebounds and starting fastbreaks with them? Why are we grinding our teeth because our opponents are grabbing long offensive rebounds, when we should be extolling our transition offense off of our opponent's long range misses?

Either I've been wrong a long time about this or our problem is our bigs are getting pushed underneath and/or our guards aren't going to the ball on the long carom. Either way, that isn't about our higher shooting percentage so much as it is about "team defensive rebounding" and that does concern both of us.

As far as trading higher shooting percentages for higher offensive rebounding percentages, I don't see these as mutually exclusive. You can run an efficient, fluid offense and, on the shots you do miss, still attack the boards. In fact, if the reason why your offense is so efficient is because of all the high percentage inside shots your sets are producing but you're not sinking all your inside shots, doesn't that suggest there might be an unguarded Celtic in the paint with an opportunity for an offensive rebound?

bob

.

Having played 10,000 hours of hoop I know that position will only take you so far then it's instinct, judgement and most of all desire...you gotta go get the ball.

Rodman was the best i ever saw bird a close second...i understand from yall that nobody was in russell szip code at this