Rebounding

Hey, guys. My "virgin" post...formerly JAllen3531.

What the hell is up with rebounding in the NBA? I know the Celts got pounded on the boards last night, but usually any NBA game I turn into,there is very little boxing out; the ball simply "finds" players. I know I'm generalizing, but I'll always remember Bill Russell saying that most rebounding should take place below the rim. Seems like most of the players think jumping ability first and foremost.

The Hawks (and other teams) are clearly more "athletic", i.e. can jump higher and quicker, but putting a body on the man closes to you can negate that advantage.

Seems like a lost art

Great question gues,

I think Russ was alluding to things such as:

• putting a body on an opponent before going after the ball;

• spreading out and maintaining contact to prevent the guy from going around you;

• visualizing the carom of the ball and beating the other guy to the spot; rather than pick a spot and just standing there, hoping;

• timing the jump so you'll reach the ball as soon as possible after it has started its downward flight;

• and persistently work, work, work.

Some teams have athleticism and/or height going for them if they fail to observe all of these practices. It's symptomatic of the increased tendency of the league to eschew fundamentals for athleticism. With the exception of Rondo (who DOES get more than his share of rebounds), the Celtics don't have nearly as much strong athleticism. So the Celts absolutely must out-disci

Last night, the Hawks had the athleticism AND the discipline. What the Celtics had was Perk waving one-handed at offensive boards, one or two Celtics (rather than a gamg) under the defensive boards, no boxing out and team rebounding, no anticipation, and no energy.

It's absolutely appalling that the Hawks got upwards of half the rebounds that came off their own offensive boards because the Celtics did a fairly good job of contesting the initial Atlanta shots. The question I have is how, on a veteran team, there could be such a universal disregard for the fundamentals. I was going to add "sudden" to that sentence, but their rebounding has been substandard all year long.

I try not to make too much of a deal about the so-called "old days." But sometimes I just can't help envisioning Red Auerbach's reaction to a display I've just seen. This was one of those times. He had different coaching styles for different situations. I hate to imagine which one he would have pulled out for this eventuality.

The good news is that IT WILL GET A LOT BETTER.

Take care,

Sam

Hey, guess, I didn't know I was responding to JAllen when I replied to your post. Great to have you on the board. Absolutely great!

Sam

JAllen welcome aboard sams ship

Ah rebounding the lost art.............

The year after Russ retired we were led in rebounding by a 6-5 swingman who didn't jump well wasn't fast nor quick but WORKED his tail off.
Havlicek averaged 7.8 boards that season.

2nd on the team was a slower less athletic but a bit bigger forward.
Don Nelson averaged 7.3 boards that year 1969-70.

You don't need to be particularly big, nor fast , nor have above average jumping ability

You gotta have a desire to want the ball and do your bit so if you don't get it neither will your man.

I watch are local girls HS team with delite in watching each and every one put aperson on their back when a shot goes up. almost to a fault for sometimes the fail to release to go get the ball. And many times I hav eseen a ball HIT bounce in the paint as a result of the boxing out being so efficent.

C's need to get back to basics, yeah we are old but we should be wise too.

beat

Beat,

Good post. Just one nitpicking question. Do you really think John Havlicek wasn't quick? I'm not talking about foot speed. I'm talking about quick reflexes, hands, and instincts. I always thought he was near the top of all the players I've ever seen in those respects. However, maybe I'm just biased.

I saw a tv show, during the early 70s, on which they staged a "superstars" race. I believe it was a dash—100, 200, who knows? Havlicek was an entrant, and I can't recall the others. I recall watching with the confidence that John would wipe out everyone. He came in not only last, but a distant last. Foot speed certainly wasn't his forte, which I believe is one reason why he ran so much...to try to exhaust opponents so that, at the end of the game, he wasn't at so much of a disadvantage speed-wise.

Sam

gyso/JAllen, I think the rebounding problem is a function of the game plan. Doc, I believe is a very dedicated coach, and a player's coach, however he is very much a technical based coach. Sheed calls him the "mad scientist". Doc attempts to establish a strategic game plan where he expects the players to implement a specific strategic approach for each game. Red, on the other hand, had about 4 plays and simply relied on motivation, the heart of the players, and, of course, the players' natural talent. Word has that when Hondo stole the ball, that was not a planned play!!! (just kidding)

In my opinion, the rebounding problem is a "programming problem". That is, Doc is focused on slowing down the game and keeping the scores in the 80's. As such, he appears to have the Celtics offensive players ready to retreat on defense as soon as the their shots are launched. I stopped, slowed down, and rewound the DVR last nigt to watch the body position of the team just as the shots were launched. Not for any other reason than to determine if there was any merit to my theory. When retreating so quickly, there is no offensive rebounding game what so ever.

On the other hand, Doc's game plan against Phoenix and Atlanta was not to get into a running game. Therefore, it appears the opponents are comfortable in not worrying about a quick "Wes Unseld/Cowens" type long outlet pass. They stay home and crowd their offensive lane. Hench, offensive rebounds without concern of a Celtics fast break lay-up!! This strategy also negates most of Rondo's quickess, speed, and value. Doc might as well put Quis in the starting line-up!!!

In my opinion is that the Celtics need to show a running threat to force the opponents to play honest defense of the fast break. In addition, Doc needs to employ a strategy where the non-shooters make a more concerted effort to stay at home and make a reasonable effort for offensive boards. Perhaps hire Paul Silas and Satch to teach a few tricks.

Caveat-----Danny and Wyc have rejected my application to coach the Team!!!!

David

Excellent post, David. A lot of very cogent points.

Sam wrote:Excellent post, David. A lot of very cogent points.

Thanks Sam. These losses are difficult on the "attitude".

By way, your observation about Sheed being a flat-footed rebounder is so true. I had not noticed that until I read your comments.

David

Wow, What a difference in quality of responses vis-a-vis other sites.

Thanks to all.....

I agree with many of the points made so far. Beat, I particularly liked your description of the girls' game where everyone boxed out and the ball sometimes hit the floor before someone got it. When I coached, that was a goal I gave my players -- at least once during the season to box out so completely that the rebound hits the floor.

Regarding the Celts' low rebounding percentage at the offensive end, a factor that can't be dismissed is the increased tendency to shoot threes. If you're out on the perimeter, you don't get as many rebounds. (You also don't get as many free throws, another point I wanted to make after watching last night's game.)

A downside of the complex defensive schemes run now in the NBA is that players switch and rotate a lot, and that can lead to players being out of position for rebounds. I don't know how much that really affects the numbers, considering once you've rotated you can still stick a fanny into a player, but I suppose it happens. Another trend in current NBA play is to fall back quickly on defense rather than crash the offensive boards, and maybe that leads to lazy habits regarding boxing out.

But mostly, poor rebounding is from lack of effort. I guy like Rodman was an extremely successful through knowledge of where rebounds would go and the effort to get to that spot. If you watch exceptional rebounders, you see that they're moving while the shot is in the air while it looks like everyone else is standing still. That's hard work.

One thing that drives me nuts is a player going for rebounds with one hand, like you noticed Perk doing last night. You can sometimes get lucky doing that on the offensive end by getting tip-ins, but it generally turns into a bad habit that you see on both ends of the court.

When I saw the Suns play the other day, they did a great job of "gang-rebounding," which is essentially just effort. They are an undersized team, yet their rebounding numbers are good.

Just a bunch of thoughts.

Outside

David, I think someone else gets credit for that "flat-footed" comment. It's true, but I don't recall noting it on this board. Of course, I don't recall zipping my fly either this morning.....oops.

Sam

Outside,

All great thoughts. It's true that a team can't do everything. To some extent, it can't excel in getting back to slow the opponent's transition game AND gang rebound on the defensive boards. Although I don't see why at least three guys can't hit the boards, leaving two "free safeties" out there.

One of the many fascinating things about backetball is how much a game of balance it is. The previous example is one instance. Achieving the right mix of threes, mid-range jumpers, and attempts in the paint is another. Tight perimeter defense while minimizing susceptibility to the high pick is another. There are loads of them. Figuring out how to address those matters of balance, as well as making timely adjustments, are major and underappreciated elements of a coach's duties.

Sam

Outside

I concur rebounding is desire and position. Period. Rodman had his faults but he was a lock down defender and tremendous rebounder because of his footwork.

It is also true that we cant be both old and stupid or we will lose. It is clear as the season progresses that Kg is diminished somewhat. I remain convinced that some of it is game shape.

Still the Hawks are going to be very good. I have seen them play a few times and they will win 50 or more. As bad as I hate to get outhustled ever I think losses get the team' s attention. The Hawks hit a bunch of open shots but they also hit some highly contested ones deep in the shotclock. It happens with players that are so good.

I saw some areas to be concerned about. But I aint that concerned after one bad game.

Very very good thread and a joy to read.

Sam

I always considered Hondo non quick. About like Bird.

A big HOWEVER was his instinct and knowing where to be a couple of beats ahead of everyone else. Anticipation and smarts made up for some other athletic needs.

No hurricane warnig flags are out yet but we do have a lot of work to do to be the team we all want us to be.

If they take care of the detail (the little things) the big things usually take care of themselves.

beat

Sam wrote:Beat,

Good post. Just one nitpicking question. Do you really think John Havlicek wasn't quick? I'm not talking about foot speed. I'm talking about quick reflexes, hands, and instincts. I always thought he was near the top of all the players I've ever seen in those respects. However, maybe I'm just biased.

I saw a tv show, during the early 70s, on which they staged a "superstars" race. I believe it was a dash—100, 200, who knows? Havlicek was an entrant, and I can't recall the others. I recall watching with the confidence that John would wipe out everyone. He came in not only last, but a distant last. Foot speed certainly wasn't his forte, which I believe is one reason why he ran so much...to try to exhaust opponents so that, at the end of the game, he wasn't at so much of a disadvantage speed-wise.

Sam

Sam, I think that part of Hondo's speed/quickness was like Bird's, he seemed to instinctively know where to go to get the ball...as if he was playing the game a couple of seconds ahead of everyone else.

Sam, you have a great understanding of the game and obviously pay attention to detail. After the Houston pre-game you made two observations on your original Blog on October 8, 2009 that caused me to pay attention to Sheed's rebounding;

First Comment - [u]"2. The second unit is going to have to learn gang rebounding. Sheed, alone, gets swarmed by jumping jacks. Baby or Scal will need to block out. There will be a lot of loose balls arising from defensive rebounding scrums, and Daniels should hold back and scoop up some of those."

and (on your "continuation" comments you stated-----

Second Follow up Comment-"I was more concerned about Sheed's lack of defensive rebounding prowess when he was one of the bench leaders. He tended to rebound with one hand rather than elevating and grabbing the ball with two."

I've been watching Sheed's rebounding style ever since. They were accurate observations.

David

You guys would know better than me, but I always thought of Havlicek as a hybrid between a middle distance runner and a marathoner. He wasn't lightning-quick, but he was reasonably fast and he never stopped moving, so eventually everyone trying to guard him would wind up lagging behind him, which made him appear quicker than he actually was. If that makes sense.

Sam wrote:Outside,

All great thoughts. It's true that a team can't do everything. To some extent, it can't excel in getting back to slow the opponent's transition game AND gang rebound on the defensive boards. Although I don't see why at least three guys can't hit the boards, leaving two "free safeties" out there.

One of the many fascinating things about backetball is how much a game of balance it is. The previous example is one instance. Achieving the right mix of threes, mid-range jumpers, and attempts in the paint is another. Tight perimeter defense while minimizing susceptibility to the high pick is another. There are loads of them. Figuring out how to address those matters of balance, as well as making timely adjustments, are major and underappreciated elements of a coach's duties.

Sam

Sam, I agree -- balance. You should, for example, be able to both crash the offensive boards and get back on D. The problem I see isn't just that the C's shooting so many threes leads to fewer offensive boards, it's that their big men (Rasheed and KG) are shooting perimeter shots, leaving only swing men and Perk (with his one-handed tips) to crash the boards. The most effective offensive rebounding big I've seen so far is Sheldon Williams.

We'll see how the season plays out, but I still need to be convinced that Sheed is the pot of gold he initially appears to be. I still think come playoff time, he'll help you win one game but do nothing or hurt you in two others.

Outside,

It's no shock that Wallace is a major key to the Celtics' fortunes this season. I'm hoping he'll find his own sense of balance. When should he be sliding inside vs. outside? When should he be shooting the quick three as opposed to using his considerable passing ability? The 33% "contribution ratio" you imply suggests he'll either be a hero or a nothing. That would obviously be unacceptable. I'd prefer a balance under which he's simply a predictable contributor in consistent offensive and defensive roles. I'm counting on his veteran sense, plus some encouragement from Doc, to help him identify those roles, which isn't happening yet.

In fact, the entire bench is in much the same situation. They (with a little help from the designated starter of the day) are each contributing in individual spurts. But they need to find a way to blend those spurts more smoothly and consistently. It seems to me that Quis and Williams are filling their pieces of the puzzle but the puzzle will not be completed (and the contributions of those two won't mean as much as they could) until Sheed and Eddie find out how to complement them (or perhaps vice versa).

Sam

Sam wrote:Outside,

It's no shock that Wallace is a major key to the Celtics' fortunes this season. I'm hoping he'll find his own sense of balance. When should he be sliding inside vs. outside? When should he be shooting the quick three as opposed to using his considerable passing ability? The 33% "contribution ratio" you imply suggests he'll either be a hero or a nothing. That would obviously be unacceptable. I'd prefer a balance under which he's simply a predictable contributor in consistent offensive and defensive roles. I'm counting on his veteran sense, plus some encouragement from Doc, to help him identify those roles, which isn't happening yet.

In fact, the entire bench is in much the same situation. They (with a little help from the designated starter of the day) are each contributing in individual spurts. But they need to find a way to blend those spurts more smoothly and consistently. It seems to me that Quis and Williams are filling their pieces of the puzzle but the puzzle will not be completed (and the contributions of those two won't mean as much as they could) until Sheed and Eddie find out how to complement them (or perhaps vice versa).

Sam

Sam,
My post about beating Golden State was a little bit of black humor in a not too funny moment. I am not all that worried really. I think that if I understand the thrust of what you've been saying...it's that this is a team with a lot of native talent (deep) that has simply not found itself... The team will find it's groove and the ship will be righted... There is way too much talent on and off the court for that not to happen. I don't think we know yet exactly what it's groove will be and where it will rank but, somewhere up around the top, no doubt.

LACeltFan,

I wish I could have presented it that succinctly, but you've definitely captured my meaning. It's great to have a lot of veteran talent. The upside is that they know the game so well. The downside is that they've usually become habituated to approaching the game in certain ways. Therefore, it takes time to integrate so many people into unfamiliar systems, perhaps involving role adjustments.

The Three Amigos and Company proved, two years ago, that experience can beat youth and athleticism. But it was not something that happened automatically. They now have an even greater dispersion of experience on the team, and the learning process could take an undetermined amount of time.

I believe the element of surprise helped them overcome several teams early on. Now, teams have scouted them and are attacking vulnerabilities and taking advantage of a certain lack of cohesiveness on the part of the Celtics. The Celtics must now counterattack, and that's not likely to take place overnight. It can't all happen in practice either. The Celtics are now destined to go through a period of acclimation, and there's no cause for dismay at every bump in the road. Learning is never a straight line process.

Sam

I agree.

We need some sleep.

It's interesting how so many people associate rebounding with height. There's no question that height's an advantage, but there are other paths to rebounding greatness.

Look at the two most prolific rebounders of all-time. Wilt was a giant; Russ was several inches shorter. Look at our Rondo...certainly no giant. Last year, he averaged 5.2 RPG game last season. (Of course, he's down to 3.9 this season. Maybe he's more prone to "cheating" down the floor to prevent breakaways on those three-point clangers I love so much.

My point is that other factors can outweigh sheer height in the rebounding process—positioning, agility, anticipation, brute force, timing, jumping ability, collaboration, whatever.

The Celtics have decent height, but it gains them no advantage in the offensive rebounding process, in which "one-hand" Perk is often the only big down low. On the defensive boards, it seems as though the bigger they are, the more they're being beaten out by some of those other factors (particularly agility, anticipation and timing).

Other teams seem to realize something the Celtics don't. When a shot is missed from the outside, the rebound is likely to wind up 10 feet from the basket than immediately underneath. Why the Celtics guards don't more consistently infiltrate that zone competing for defensive boards, I'll never know.

For my money, at least 80% of what ails the Celtics in the rebounding department exists above the shoulders. They don't even need a practice gym to correct it. An airplane video capability would do the trick. With the exception of Williams, they're simply not rebounding smartly on a consistent basis. Fatigue...schmatique. Age...phlage. Height...blight.

Use your brains, guys. If you think physical dominance is going to bring another championship to Boston, it won't be this season. You're touted far and wide for your collective, veteran basketball IQ. Prove it!

Sam