And yes Entity, it took you a while but eventually you made it to the obvious conclusion: last year the Kings had exactly TWO acceptable rebounders on the team: Bonzi Wells, and Kenny Thomas. Kenny was a good but not great PF rebounder at about 12.9/48. Up above the 70th percentile. That 12.0 mark is roughly the cutoff for power players BTW. That's 9.0 in 36min. Above that and you are above average heading toward strong. Top 1/3 regardless if you filter for "qualifiied" or not.
That is a good PF rebounder. A guy struggling to get 10 if you play him the whole 48 is not. A guy getting you 10 per 48 is bottom 1/3. Garbage on the glass. And a guy getting you 8.0 in 36 min (10.67/48) is only half a step ahead. Below average (about 40th percentile) and heading for the basement. If you were going to letter grade him, it would be right on the border of a C-/D+.
As an aside, the "Qualified" list is more or less a random and bogus distinction. A line drawn in the sand. Taking it off lets in a few garbage players at the front of the line, but simultaneously adds in a few at the back to balance it out. What changes is that you actually get to include extremely legit NBA players ala a Reggie Evans, Ike Diogu or Kenyon Martin, rather than randomly toss them overboard. The filter does not change relative position at all, just provides a less complete picture.
I normally do not quote myself, but wanted to reintroduce the above just to set up these numbers:
Here's what I'm going to do -- hopefully simple, straightforward, east to follow, and no tricks. I'm going to take the list of all PFs as tallied by espn.com (not just qualified ones*) and then break them down into percentiles by their rebounding per 48.
* Note that the switch from qualified to non-qualified makes little difference to balance -- 10.67rebs/48 for instance places 83rd of 145 total PFs (43rd%) or 30th of 50 qualified PFs (40th%). In fact as you can see there its slightly lower amongst the shorter qualified list.
There are 145 PFs listed at espn.com, so (100% being best, 0% worst):
80% to 100% = 1st to 28th
60% to 80% = 29th to 57th
40% to 60% = 58th to 86th
20% to 40% = 87th to 115th
0% to 20% = 116th to 145th
These are what the per48 rebounding #s look like at each percentile (with who put them up):
29th (80%) = 13.1/48 (S. Randolph)
58th (60%) = 11.5/48 (K.Brown)
87th (40%) = 10.5/48 (D. Granger)
116th (20%) = 9.2/48 (A. Walker)
So, let's give 'em letter grades:
13.1 or higher = A
11.5 to 13.1 = B
10.5 to 11.5 = C
9.2 to 10.5 = D
9.2 or lower = F
Now our mythological 8.0rebs in 36min PF grabs 10.67/48. That puts him in the C- category.
As an aside, our own PFs last year ranked:
Thomas 12.9/48 (30th) = B+
Reef 8.8/48 (124th) = F+
Is 10.67 better than 8.8? Certainly. Is it good? Nope. Can it replace 12.9 per 48? Nope. Which is again why as much as everybody would like to see Kenny traded, we have to be careful. If he goes, and with Bonzi already gone, we absolutely need to pick up at least one major minute "B" or better rebounding type to pick up their slack.