Shareef should be the first!

[SacTownKid]

See my above post -- then ponder the post games and inside skills of Shawn Marion, Ron Artest, Tayshaun Prince, Andrei Kirilenko, Tracy McGrady, Paul Pierce, LeBron James, Corey Maggette, Rashard Lewis, Carmelo Anthony etc. etc. and get back to me. Some of those guys can shoot, some cannot. But all do a SIGNIFICANT amount of their work down inside whetehr it be off the post or the drive.

Yes but you won't set plays to post up those players. They can all score inside but Reef is the kind of player you put inside and then give him the ball. More like the way you would set up Shaq.

And for the arguement of Reef being a 3, he can play that position, but I wouldn't want him to. Brick is right though, you set up Shareef in the post no matter if he is playing 1,2,3,4, or 5. The fact is that he is just not going to be able to gaurd most NBA 3's where as he can gaurd most NBA 4's and some 5's.

Reef also started the league as a SF, but he had to be at least 15-20 pounds lighter then.

Should he be the number one option? Obviously he and Bonzi have both had that placed into that position in the past. May be the best option.

 

[SacTownKid]

And for the rebounding issue. I don't care if Reef grabs 2 rebounds as long as another King is getting them!

 

[kiparking]

Shareef is NOT a weak rebounder.

First of all, his career MPG is 37 minutes, and his career rebound average is 8.1. Looks rather small, doesn't it? Well, maybe it's because he played 3 when he first started in Vancouver! Even then, he got around 7 rebounds per game.

Shareef started to play more of an inside position(thanks to no inside presence other than him in his team, he had to do EVERYTHING.) in '99, and he got 10.1 rebounds that year. Even when he was traded to Atlanta, where he played 3 and 4 back and forth, he got over 9 rebounds everyday. Again, I have to emphasize he played both positions. I don't know about you guys, but I think that is damn impressive considering all that.

Now, his stat took such a blow when he ended up in Portland. I still curse the damn Blazers! They ruined a perfectly fine career! He had to play less minutes, and had to stay out of the way for the less talented players(Yes, I seriously don't think any of his ex-teammates in Blazers could match his talent.), forcing him out of the rebounding position. Still, he got over 7 rebounds.

I admit, SAR is no Rodman. But then again, who else is? I believe given a chance, SAR can easily be a +9~+10 rebounder. They should just give him more minutes. I just hope Sacramento doesn't end up being another Blazers for Shareef.

 

[Kings113]

First of all, his career MPG is 37 minutes, and his career rebound average is 8.1. Looks rather small, doesn't it? Well, maybe it's because he played 3 when he first started in Vancouver! Even then, he got around 7 rebounds per game.

Shareef started to play more of an inside position(thanks to no inside presence other than him in his team, he had to do EVERYTHING.) in '99, and he got 10.1 rebounds that year. Even when he was traded to Atlanta, where he played 3 and 4 back and forth, he got over 9 rebounds everyday. Again, I have to emphasize he played both positions. I don't know about you guys, but I think that is damn impressive considering all that.

Now, his stat took such a blow when he ended up in Portland. I still curse the damn Blazers! They ruined a perfectly fine career! He had to play less minutes, and had to stay out of the way for the less talented players(Yes, I seriously don't think any of his ex-teammates in Blazers could match his talent.), forcing him out of the rebounding position. Still, except in year '03 when he was injured, he got over 7 rebounds.

I admit, SAR is no Rodman. But then again, who else is? I believe given a chance, SAR can easily be a +9~+10 rebounder. They should just give him more minutes. I just hope Sacramento doesn't end up being another Blazers for Shareef.

Yup. Similar to what I've said a couple times when people were going wild over SAR's pre-season rebounding in reference to the season.

 

[VF21]

I just hope Sacramento doesn't end up being another Blazers for Shareef.

I don't think that will be a problem.

It's two games into the season. Why not show just a little patience and let things develop? It's apparent you've been a fan of SAR's for a while. Well, he's on a new team. The other teammates, the coaches AND the fans have to get to know him in his role as a King.

This whole first option thing is pretty silly anyway. The Kings don't rely on just one option, nor should they. One of the greatest things about the Kings offense when it works well is that the opposing team is never really sure which player will be the first option.

 

[SacTownKid]

I don't think that will be a problem.

It's two games into the season. Why not show just a little patience and let things develop? It's apparent you've been a fan of SAR's for a while. Well, he's on a new team. The other teammates, the coaches AND the fans have to get to know him in his role as a King.

This whole first option thing is pretty silly anyway. The Kings don't rely on just one option, nor should they. One of the greatest things about the Kings offense when it works well is that the opposing team is never really sure which player will be the first option.

Plus he will get a lot of minutes on this team and not play out of position too much.

 

[Bricklayer]

First of all, his career MPG is 37 minutes, and his career rebound average is 8.1. Looks rather small, doesn't it? Well, maybe it's because he played 3 when he first started in Vancouver! Even then, he got around 7 rebounds per game.

Shareef started to play more of an inside position(thanks to no inside presence other than him in his team, he had to do EVERYTHING.) in '99, and he got 10.1 rebounds that year. Even when he was traded to Atlanta, where he played 3 and 4 back and forth, he got over 9 rebounds everyday. Again, I have to emphasize he played both positions. I don't know about you guys, but I think that is damn impressive considering all that.

Now, his stat took such a blow when he ended up in Portland. I still curse the damn Blazers! They ruined a perfectly fine career! He had to play less minutes, and had to stay out of the way for the less talented players(Yes, I seriously don't think any of his ex-teammates in Blazers could match his talent.), forcing him out of the rebounding position. Still, he got over 7 rebounds.

I admit, SAR is no Rodman. But then again, who else is? I believe given a chance, SAR can easily be a +9~+10 rebounder. They should just give him more minutes. I just hope Sacramento doesn't end up being another Blazers for Shareef.

Ah...the great mythological "golden age of Shareef" in Atlanta. Let's look at that:

1) we have already established, during the debates over this this summer, that Reef primarily played SF right through the end of his career in Vancouver in 2001.
2) Which is interesting because that means that Reef's two best rebounding years (10.0, 9.1) both occurred in Vancouver playing SF.
3) During his "golden" 2+ combined year stay in Atlanta he played in 211gms and averaged 8.8rebs as their starting PF in 38.0min, which is a per48 minute rate of 11.1, which would have ranked him 116th in the league last year, tied with Malik Rose, and which is only marginally better than his 10.5/per48 rate over his entire career.

I am NOT making this stuff up. Nor do I have ANY interest in Reef continuing his wussy ways on the boards. Be a wonderful thing for the Kings if all of a sudden he morphed into a 10reb/gm PF. But he has NOT gotten it done over his career there, and he's been in the league for 10 years now. There is a REASON we could sign him for the midlevel, a reason he has never led his teams anywhere, a reason Portland thought maybe they would get him and put him at SF, and a reason he is universally decried as soft despite having a very pretty post game. And the reason isn't me.

P.S. Which is, BTW, why I continue to loook upon our most unstable player (Bonzi) as our most critical -- he has to make up for the rebounding deficincies of our frontcourt. Off to a great start in that regard, but he's not going to average 12 rebs/gm over the season so the tall guys hve to do their share here at some point.

 

[kingsfan916]

Sar is great. He did awesome in both games. Great player

 

[deviflux]

1) we have already established, during the debates over this this summer, that Reef primarily played SF right through the end of his career in Vancouver in 2001.

Actually, in his final years in Vancouver he played a mixture of SF/PF. Mostly PF, as his replacement was T-Mass.

3) During his "golden" 2+ combined year stay in Atlanta he played in 211gms and averaged 8.8rebs as their starting PF in 38.0min, which is a per48 minute rate of 11.1, which would have ranked him 116th in the league last year, tied with Malik Rose, and which is only marginally better than his 10.5/per48 rate over his entire career.

Per 48s are EXTREMELY misleading, which must be why you continually use them.

Also, you failed to mention that for 1 entire year Reef was playing with a bad back. The second year he underwent surgery. Which is why his rebounding numbers went lower each year.

Nor do I have ANY interest in Reef continuing his wussy ways on the boards.

You don't show an obvious bias, right?

There is a REASON we could sign him for the midlevel, a reason he has never led his teams anywhere

Yes, it's called surrounding talent. You could have put MJ on that lineup and they wouldn't make it out of the lottery. Bad coaching, terrible players playing outside of the system ... what did you expect? A miracle.?

Kevin Garnett is a stud ... and he couldn't lead his team, much more talented, to the playoffs.

a reason Portland thought maybe they would get him and put him at SF

Actually, from knowing Shareef, I can say Portland said they got him to move him. He was never supposed to play in the next season.

 

[nbrans]

Well, except for this guy. And this guy. And these two are awfully darn close. And I didn't even waste time doing the research for non-starters...

No, not really. Odom plays mostly on the perimeter when he's at the 3 spot -- he can also play 4, which is when he spends more time in the post -- but even then he's still more of a perimeter player. And wow, you must be the first person I've ever heard say that Antoine Walker spends more time in the post than the perimeter. You can't jack up 7 ill-advised 3's a game when you're spending all your time down low. Ariza and Wallace? They really spend more time in the post than the perimeter? No.

P.S. I think you might be basing your statements on the fact that those players shoot more than 50% of their shots inside. But in the case of Odom, Ariza and Wallace, many of those "inside" shots are the result of drives to the hoop and/or putbacks, since those guys are good rebounders. In the case of Walker, who knew. However, he's really a 4.

Second of all, look at per 48s. A guy who grabs 8 rebs in 38 min is NOT a better rebounder than a guy who grabs 7rebs in 25min.

A word on per 48 minute stats. They have their place and they're somewhat (but not entirely) useful for the what-if-we-gave-this-guy-more-minutes question, but I really think they're overused on this board. When you're talking about a comparison between a 38 minute guy and a 25 minute guy, I think the first question you have to ask yourself is: Why is the 25 minute guy only playing 25 minutes a night? Probably because he sucks at other aspects of the game.

The reason per-game averages are so important is that they are geared toward the players who are actually good enough to stay on the floor for 38 minutes a game. So what if a player grabs 7 boards in 10 minutes, if he's so great why isn't he in the game for 40 minutes? So among players who are, well, actually good, Shareef is a good rebounder. Per-48 stats aren't really going to change that.

 

[Kev.in]

This is one of the problems the Kings have. Bibby shouldn't have to be the #1 option, Peja can't create his own shot often enough to be relied on as the #1 option and Shareef isn't good enough to be a #1 option. Give Shareef the ball too much and he becomes easier to defend, turns the ball over a little more and doesn't get as many good shots. A team with this problem is going to struggle unless 4 or 5 of the starters are playing well at once. This is what we've got to work with and it might be another week or two before the team adjusts.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No, not really. Odom plays mostly on the perimeter when he's at the 3 spot -- he can also play 4...

But he doesn't play the 4; Kwame Brown does.

... which is when he spends more time in the post -- but even then he's still more of a perimeter player...

Say what now? So, he's a 3 unless he's scoring inside... and then he's a 4? So what happens to Kwame Brown then?

And wow, you must be the first person I've ever heard say that Antoine Walker spends more time in the post than the perimeter. You can't jack up 7 ill-advised 3's a game when you're spending all your time down low...

Walker shoots 39% from three-point range, and 47% overall; he ain't balancing out that lower number with his brilliant jump-shooting, that's for darn sure.

Ariza and Wallace? They really spend more time in the post than the perimeter?

Why yes, as a matter of fact, they do. Or if not, then it's about even. And those stats seem to make it pretty clear.

P.S. I think you might be basing your statements on the fact that those players shoot more than 50% of their shots inside.

And what else should they be based on? Word of mouth? Your "gut" feeling? "Your own two eyes?" So because, in your opinion, all Walker does is jack up three-pointers, the stats must be wrong? If more than half a guy's shots are coming from inside, then he is, in fact, scoring more in the post than he is from the perimeter, our eyes be damned.

But in the case of Odom, Ariza and Wallace, many of those "inside" shots are the result of drives to the hoop and/or putbacks, since those guys are good rebounders.

Barely two-fourths of Ariza's inside shots are the result of drives to the hoop and/or putbacks. For Wallace, it's rather less than a third. For Odom, it's a little over a tenth. Clearly, you and I have different uses for the word "many."

In the case of Walker, who knew. However, he's really a 4.

Then what is Udonis Haslem? 4 and a half? If he starts at the 3, then he's a 3.

In all actuality, Walker is a combo forward, much like Donyell Marshall, much like Shareef Abdur-Rahim, much like Antawn Jamison and Shawn Marion; he isn't a "pure" anything.

 

[nbrans]

But he doesn't play the 4; Kwame Brown does.
Say what now? So, he's a 3 unless he's scoring inside... and then he's a 4? So what happens to Kwame Brown then?

Check out last night's Lakers/Suns box score. Not only did Odom start at the 4 (Brown started at Center), of Odom's 15 shots, 8 were threes. Not exactly the mark of an inside player. Sure, he can play inside, but more than half of his shots were from way outside.

Walker shoots 39% from three-point range, and 47% overall; he ain't balancing out that lower number with his brilliant jump-shooting, that's for darn sure.

Why yes, as a matter of fact, they do. Or if not, then it's about even. And those stats seem to make it pretty clear.

This is a great argument for keeping Walker in the post instead of hanging out on the perimeter jacking up threes. And I agree with you. However, Antoine has not quite gotten the memo, which is why he's shot 41% for his career. In his first two games he's already hoisted 6.5 threes a game.

Barely two-fourths of Ariza's inside shots are the result of drives to the hoop and/or putbacks. For Wallace, it's rather less than a third. For Odom, it's a little over a tenth. Clearly, you and I have different uses for the word "many."

I'll plead ignorance on this one. All I know is that I've never seen Ariza and Wallace spend any time posting up down low, let alone spending MOST of their time posting up down low. But maybe they only do it in the games I'm not watching. By the way, I'm not very good at math, but doesn't that mean that half of Ariza's shots are coming on drives? Then when you factor in outside shots, when is the guy posting up at all?

Then what is Udonis Haslem? 4 and a half? If he starts at the 3, then he's a 3.
In all actuality, Walker is a combo forward, much like Donyell Marshall, much like Shareef Abdur-Rahim, much like Antawn Jamison and Shawn Marion; he isn't a "pure" anything.

Who knows what Antoine Walker is -- in my opinion he sucks whatever position he's playing.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Check out last night's Lakers/Suns box score. Not only did Odom start at the 4 (Brown started at Center), of Odom's 15 shots, 8 were threes. Not exactly the mark of an inside player. Sure, he can play inside, but more than half of his shots were from way outside.

Last night; it's also true that the Lakers trailed from way behind for most of that game, and most teams will start launching threes with reckless abandon when they're behind like that. It'll balance out as the season goes along, mark my words.

I'll plead ignorance on this one. All I know is that I've never seen Ariza and Wallace spend any time posting up down low, let alone spending MOST of their time posting up down low. But maybe they only do it in the games I'm not watching.

Could be; I don't watch many Knicks games (although I may start, now that they have Barnes), but I watch all the Bobcats games that I can, and I'll testify that Wallace has become quite effective at playing inside.

Who knows what Antoine Walker is -- in my opinion he sucks whatever position he's playing.

No argument from me, although he does put up gaudy numbers.

 

[deviflux]

Shareef isn't good enough to be a #1 option. Give Shareef the ball too much and he becomes easier to defend, turns the ball over a little more and doesn't get as many good shots.

The same goes for anyone. But, Shareef IS good enough to be a first option and is one of the only players on the team that can create his own shot.

He had no supporting cast in the past when he played. Now, the team has a decent player at every position. Reef will kick out and have open players all day.

Reef, as a first option, would take 16-17 shots. That's not too many.

 

[Bricklayer]

LOL @ the feverish attempts to deny all statistics, make all excuses, and somehow make Reef out to be a good, or even respectable, boarder because his poster is hanging on the wall.

But the beauty of the situation, for everyone but the Kings, is that this is such a clear cut situation, so far beyond even beiing arguable by rational people who actually know the game, that I can post the stats using any and every restriction and rule that a SAR jocker has ever come up with, and the results are still going to come up "weak on the boards". I can restrict it to 6'9" Muslims going through Ramadan with a bad back and terrible teammates stealing the rebounds from them all the time and Reef would still be second tier.

So playing by all of YOUR rules: 1) taking only the core Atlanta years when he was clearly a PF; 2) getting rid of all of those nasty strong rebounding benchers and sticking strictly to the Top 30 rebounding PFs last year in AVERAGE (not per48 -- hence all major minute starters), here's what we get:

(Reef in Atlanta: 38.0min 8.8reb 11.1reb/48)

Compared to Top 30 PFs last year:

1) the 8.8rebs would rank 22nd of 30, and only because he played more minutes than almost all of the guys behind him.

2) better yet, of those 30 guys, only THREE (3) had lower per 48min numbers than SARs 11.1. THREE. Jamison (tweener). Gasol (uber-weenie). And SAR himself last year (10.1).

Now you can twist and turn all you want, but escaping the per48 numbers of SARs starting peers, at PF, will be a heck of a task. Those are SARs numbers from his susposed strong era of rebounding as a PF. Not only the two full years in Atlanta, but giving him the final half year which was actually his best. And he is NOT a "good", NOT an "average" NOT any anything but weak rebounder no matter how you spin the tale.

Fact is that ANY player given huge minutes will grab a number of rebounds. That does NOT make them a "good" rebounder. It makes them a bad rebounder left on the floor so long they can't avoid grabbing a few. This has been such a notorious shortcoming of Reef's over the years that I am frankly shocked to still find people willing to argue it. Next up we'll be off to prove Peja is a strong boarder too. And Mike a helluva defender when so motivated. And surrounded by the right teammates. And 100% healthy. And playing his preferred position. And in a good mood. And...

Reef is a professional scorer. That's what he does. What he's always done. Unfortunately pretty much all he's ever done. Everything else has always been 2nd tier, at best. It would be fortuitous indeed for the Kings if he reinvented himself into a complete player this late in his career (and another credit to Adelman that would probably go unnoted).

 

[deviflux]

Again, Brick, it's obvious that you have a bias ... and that's cool. But, 8.5 rebounds is NOT a bad or weak number. It's average or just above.

Also - just because someone disagrees with your assertation, it doesn't mean they aren't knowledgable about the game.

I said this before, during the preseason - Reef is a fundamental rebounder. He isn't going to sky for every board, but he puts a body on his man and if the ball comes his way he'll get it, if not it's there for a teammate. WHICH, if you play basketball, is the correct thing to do.

For instance, Zach Randolph had uber-boards but is a terrible rebounder. HOW SO?! His numbers are so good ... because he makes himself skinny on every shot and never bodies up a guy. He gives up more offensive boards this way.

PS - You ignored the fact that through two seasons Reef was playing with a bad back.

 

[nbrans]

LOL @ the feverish attempts to deny all statistics, make all excuses, and somehow make Reef out to be a good, or even respectable, boarder because his poster is hanging on the wall.

But the beauty of the situation, for everyone but the Kings, is that this is such a clear cut situation, so far beyond even beiing arguable by rational people who actually know the game, that I can post the stats using any and every restriction and rule that a SAR jocker has ever come up with, and the results are still going to come up "weak on the boards". I can restrict it to 6'9" Muslims going through Ramadan with a bad back and terrible teammates stealing the rebounds from them all the time and Reef would still be second tier.

Seriously, Bricklayer, simmer down. In 2001-2002 Abdur-Rahim's 9.0 boards were the 13th best in the league among ALL players in the league. In 2002-2003 his 8.8 boards were 15th best among ALL the players in the league. That's pretty good.

I acknowledge we have a difference of opinion on the importance of per-48 stats. But your certainty that Reef can't rebound is way off base.

Among the good players in the league, i.e. the ones that actually play, he's a good rebounder. And the fact is that minutes played is extremely important. Anytime you're pulling out per-48 rebounds you're talking about hypothetical rebounds. Not actual rebounds -- a rebounding specialist who sucks at everything else can't rebound from the bench.

So among players pulling down ACTUAL rebounds, Reef is doing pretty well.

 

[Bricklayer]

Again, Brick, it's obvious that you have a bias ... and that's cool. But, 8.5 rebounds is NOT a bad or weak number. It's average or just above.

Instead of repeating that as a statement, refer to the numbers above and try to make even a feeble argument how that can be so. 22nd of 30 is above average? 27th of 30 per 48? And of course that's 8.8, nto 8.5.

Just saying 8.5 is above average does not make it true no matter how often repeated, let alone if somebody takes a half moment to think about it.

 

[nbrans]

Instead of repeating that as a statement, refer to the numbers above and try to make even a feeble argument how that can be so. 22nd of 30 is above average? 27th of 30 per 48? And of course that's 8.8, nto 8.5.

Just saying 8.5 is above average does not make it true no matter how often repeated, let alone if somebody takes a half moment to think about it.

Um, 8.5 rebounds a game would have made Reef the 19th best rebounder in the league last year or the 16th best PF. Since there are 30 teams in the league and thus 30 starting power forwards I'd say that's average.

P.S. Actually, for clarity, here were the top 20 rebounders in the league last year:

Kevin Garnett, MIN 13.5
2 Ben Wallace, DET 12.2
3 Shawn Marion, PHO 11.3
4 Emeka Okafor, CHA 10.9
5 Troy Murphy, GSW 10.8
6 S. O'Neal, MIA 10.4
7 Kurt Thomas, NYK 10.4
8 Dwight Howard, ORL 10.0
9 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL 9.7
10 T. Chandler, CHI 9.7
11 Elton Brand, LAC 9.5
12 Reggie Evans, SEA 9.3
13 Drew Gooden, CLE 9.2
14 Udonis Haslem, MIA 9.1
15 A. Walker, ATL/BOS 9.0
16 P.J. Brown, NOR 9.0
17 A. Stoudemire, PHO 8.9
18 Chris Bosh, TOR 8.9
19 Z. Ilgauskas, CLE 8.6
20 Yao Ming, HOU 8.4

So the power forwards (2005 positions) ahead of Reef are: Garnett, Okafor, Murphy, Howard, Dirk, Brand, Evans, Gooden, Haslem, Brown, Stoudemire and Bosh. If Reef boards 8.5 a game it would have put him 13th last year among PFs. Not too shabby.

 

[Bricklayer]

Among the good players in the league, i.e. the ones that actually play, he's a good rebounder. And the fact is that minutes played is extremely important. Anytime you're pulling out per-48 rebounds you're talking about hypothetical rebounds. Not actual rebounds -- a rebounding specialist who sucks at everything else can't rebound from the bench.

You remain vastly confused on this issue, perhaps intentionally -- let's just say for instance that I had Reggie Evans and Dan Gadzuric as my two PFs in a game (chosen simply because they are two excellent per 48 rebounders who's total minutes last year roughly equal 48 (actually 46). Furthermore let's assume that on the other team you had SAR. I will even let SAR play the full 48, while my twin rebounders will play only 46 min.

End result:

SAR -- 11.1rebs for the GAME
Evans (9.3) + Gadzuric (8.3) -- 17.6rebs for the GAME.

You've just lost the reboudning battle at that position for that game by 6.5rebs, and you would like to argue its irrelevant because neither guy got as many minutes as SAR. Its EXTREMELY relevant. In fact its not just relevant, its determinative. All important NBA stats are per 48, because that's the length of the game. If I employ more efficient rebounders than you do, no matter their individual minutes, I WILL outrebound you for the game.

 

[deviflux]

Instead of repeating that as a statement, refer to the numbers above and try to make even a feeble argument how that can be so. 22nd of 30 is above average? 27th of 30 per 48? And of course that's 8.8, nto 8.5.

Look, you aren't going to give the guy credit. Period.

You won't look at how his rebounding numbers went up each year until he hurt his back and was playing hurt for 2 years and then traded to Portland.

This is a guy who is averaging 37 MPG. If we give him those minutes this year, basing it on averages per minute of game:

NO - 10 REBOUNDS
HOUSTON - 10 REBOUNDS

He'd be at 10 rebounds. Period.

It's obvious you have a vendetta. I guess you're anti-Reef or anti-Muslim or pro-Webber ... whatever it is ... wow.

I know you think Kenny Thomas is a GREAT rebounder ... and in 32 MPG (Same as Reef's MPG) he averaged 8.7 RPG. He at least had some games to average it out ... while Reef has had two. So, Reef is on pace with KT.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Interestingly enough although the thread originally made thte claim that Reef should be the first option in the offense it has evolved into a discussion aobut his rebounding. What makes this interesting to me is that the argument that he is a poor to average rebounder only adds creedance to the original argument for him to be the first option on offense. Here is the rational: A team that rebounds poorly can BEST adjust to the defecincy by shooting very high percentages. High percentage shooting is BEST acopmlished by shooting closer to the hoop. Since Reef is the best (if not only) big low post player the Kings have the logical way to adjust to his poor reboundaing and the over all poor rebounding of the team is for Reef to take more shots.

 

[deviflux]

All important NBA stats are per 48, because that's the length of the game. If I employ more efficient rebounders than you do, no matter their individual minutes, I WILL outrebound you for the game.

PER 48 stats are completely misleading. Especially when you compare guys off the bench to starters.

Per 48s are good when comparing guys that play SIMILAR number of minutes. 32 minutes compared to 37 minutes. Not 12 minutes compared to 37.

12 minutes doesn't give the proper anything. He's fresh the entire 12 minutes. He's probably playing against scrubs and he's in there to do one thing.

It's a misnomer to use that statistic.

For instance, we can play your game on PPG:
I'll give you Kevin Garnett, while I'll take Kendrick Perkins and Kaniel Dickens.

Also, it doesn't take into account the other variables. You may win the rebounding battle ... but will get owned at the end of the game pointwise.

 

[nbrans]

You remain vastly confused on this issue, perhaps intentionally -- let's just say for instance that I had Reggie Evans and Dan Gadzuric as my two PFs in a game (chosen simply because they are two excellent per 48 rebounders who's total minutes last year roughly equal 48 (actually 46). Furthermore let's assume that on the other team you had SAR. I will even let SAR play the full 48, while my twin rebounders will play only 46 min.

End result:

SAR -- 11.1rebs for the GAME
Evans (9.3) + Gadzuric (8.3) -- 17.6rebs for the GAME.

You've just lost the reboudning battle at that position for that game by 6.5rebs, and you would like to argue its irrelevant because neither guy got as many minutes as SAR. Its EXTREMELY relevant. In fact its not just relevant, its determinative. All important NBA stats are per 48, because that's the length of the game. If I employ more efficient rebounders than you do, no matter their individual minutes, I WILL outrebound you for the game.

This is a fallacy. Of course if you take the two best per-minute rebounders in the league and add their numbers together they're going to exceed SAR's or Garnett's or anyone else. But you don't know that simply smacking them together is going to add up to those boards -- they would have to play against both first and second units, you don't know how they'd mesh... it's a hypothetical situation. You're still dealing in hypotheticals instead of actual numbers.

The fact is, there's a reason Evans and Gadzuric played less than half the game last year: THEY SUCK. SAR is good enough to stay on the floor. And he's a decent good rebounder.

 

[Bricklayer]

Um, 8.5 rebounds a game would have made Reef the 19th best rebounder in the league last year or the 16th best PF. Since there are 30 teams in the league and thus 30 starting power forwards I'd say that's average.

P.S. Actually, for clarity, here were the top 20 rebounders in the league last year:

Kevin Garnett, MIN 13.5
2 Ben Wallace, DET 12.2
3 Shawn Marion, PHO 11.3
4 Emeka Okafor, CHA 10.9
5 Troy Murphy, GSW 10.8
6 S. O'Neal, MIA 10.4
7 Kurt Thomas, NYK 10.4
8 Dwight Howard, ORL 10.0
9 Dirk Nowitzki, DAL 9.7
10 T. Chandler, CHI 9.7
11 Elton Brand, LAC 9.5
12 Reggie Evans, SEA 9.3
13 Drew Gooden, CLE 9.2
14 Udonis Haslem, MIA 9.1
15 A. Walker, ATL/BOS 9.0
16 P.J. Brown, NOR 9.0
17 A. Stoudemire, PHO 8.9
18 Chris Bosh, TOR 8.9
19 Z. Ilgauskas, CLE 8.6
20 Yao Ming, HOU 8.4

So the power forwards (2005 positions) ahead of Reef are: Garnett, Okafor, Murphy, Howard, Dirk, Brand, Evans, Gooden, Haslem, Brown, Stoudemire and Bosh. If Reef boards 8.5 a game it would have put him 13th last year among PFs. Not too shabby.

Ah, and now the non-I'm-desperately-trying-to-distort-this-debate-by-pretending-to-have-all-the-basketball-acumen-of-a-6-yr-old-girl-who-just-watched-her-first-game-version:

8.5rebs would have ranked him 30th in the league, unless you would like to make a coherent (unlikely apparently in this debate) argument as to how/why/when Tim Duncan, Lamar Odom, Marcus Camby, Zach Randolph, Brad Miller, Chris Webber, Jeff Foster, Carlos Boozer, Jamal Magliore, Jermaine O'Neal, and Erick Dampier retired from the league.

 

[nbrans]

Ah, and now the non-I'm-desperately-trying-to-distort-this-debate-by-pretending-to-have-all-the-basketball-acumen-of-a-6-yr-old-girl-who-just-watched-her-first-game-version:

8.5rebs would have ranked him 30th in the league, unless you would like to make a coherent (unlikely apparently in this debate) argument as to how/why/when Tim Duncan, Lamar Odom, Marcus Camby, Zach Randolph, Brad Miller, Chris Webber, Jeff Foster, Carlos Boozer, Jamal Magliore, Jermaine O'Neal, and Erick Dampier retired from the league.

Alright, mea culpa, mea culpa, forgot to push the "overall" button. Even still, 30th ain't that bad.

Lovely first paragraph, especially coming from a mod. What decency you have. What class!

 

[Bricklayer]

This is a fallacy. Of course if you take the two best per-minute rebounders in the league and add their numbers together they're going to exceed SAR's or Garnett's or anyone else. But you don't know that simply smacking them together is going to add up to those boards -- they would have to play against both first and second units, you don't know how they'd mesh... it's a hypothetical situation. You're still dealing in hypotheticals instead of actual numbers.

The fact is, there's a reason Evans and Gadzuric played less than half the game last year: THEY SUCK. SAR is good enough to stay on the floor. And he's a decent good rebounder.

And the pretend density just goes on and on.

HERE is the fallacy:

There are 48 minutes to be played at every position. (For a moment we'll just say that SAR is going to spend all of his minutes at PF.) And accordingly if broken down every TEAM in the NBA has a "per 48" rebounding number for all of its PFs combined. If PF A plays 38min and grabs 8.8rebs, and PF B plays the remaining 10 (48-38 = 10) and grabs 2.5rebs, then the TEAM'S per 48 min at PF is 8.8+2.5=11.3rebs.

Now ALL another team has to do to outrebound your team is to get better than 11.3rebs in a game, and it DOES NOT MATTER how many minutes the PFs on its teams get while doing it. They can outrebound you by havin 1 PF pay all 48min a game and average 12.0rebs/gm. Or they can outrebound you by having 2 PFs play 24.0min each and COMBINE for 12.0rebs a game. It does not matter. All that matters is the per 48, the full game stats. And if you have a guy pulling down 8.8rebs in his 38 min, while Evans and Gadzuric (or WHOEVER you want) pull down 13rebs in those same 38min, then you have nto only lost the rebounding battle for those minutes, but unless you have Dennis Rodman to play those remaining 10 minutes the TEAM is not going to win the per 48 minute rebounding battle (i.e. the game) at PF either.

Without looking at per minute numbers, NBA stats, or any stats, mean very little. If you put ME into an NBA game and let me play long enough (15 overtimes should do it) I would eventually grab 10rebounds in my 110minutes. The next day I could appear on the rebounding lists at 10.0 per game. Top 10 rebounder. That would NOT make me a good rebounder.

 

[Kings113]

Rebounding is overrated

 

[nbrans]

And the pretend density just goes on and on.

HERE is the fallacy:

There are 48 minutes to be played at every position. (For a moment we'll just say that SAR is going to spend all of his minutes at PF.) And accordingly if broken down every TEAM in the NBA has a "per 48" rebounding number for all of its PFs combined. If PF A plays 38min and grabs 8.8rebs, and PF B plays the remaining 10 (48-38 = 10) and grabs 2.5rebs, then the TEAM'S per 48 min at PF is 8.8+2.5=11.3rebs.

Bricklayer, I'd appreciate being spoken to with a little more respect. I don't think you set a very good tone for the forum, and just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean you need to resort to insults and pettiness.

In my opinion you put too much stock in per 48 minute stats. Context is extremely important. Otherwise Torraye Braggs, with his 12 rebounds in 7 games, would be the best per 48 minute rebounder in the league. You have to keep in mind that any time you're using per-48 minute stats you're speaking in hypotheticals. Any time you say "if player X were on team Y then Z would happen" you're getting into hypothetical territory.

But whatever, in the interest of moving beyond a neener neener discussion, I'll let you have the last word, I've said enough on this subject.