I don't follow the logic here. You're saying that Hayes isn't as good a rebounder because of various limitations that prevent him from staying on the court? But those limitations don't have anything to do with his rebounding. So, why should that reflect on how we evaluate his rebounding? Chuck Hayes is close to Kevin Garnett as a rebounder (though the way they get their rebounds are very different). But he's not nearly the same player in many other areas, and as a result he doesn't stay on the court as long. That's the proper way to look at it. I think we can agree that this argument is mostly semantics. It comes down to the whether we evaluate a player based on what he does while he's on the court, or based on what he provides the team over the course of a season. Both are important, for different reasons. In the case of Yao vs. Shaq, Yao played more minutes this season, so the total value he provided for the Rockets via his rebounding over the course of the season might surpass what Shaq provided for the Heat. But I think when most people are comparing the rebounding ability of two players, they generally want to know who's doing the best job on the boards while on the court. Why penalize a player as a rebounder for not collecting rebounds while sitting on the bench? Or playing a style that yields less rebounding opportunities (slower pace with not as many missed shots)?
Rebound-Rate would make more sense. Whatever, like you say, it just depends on what you care about - total contribution to team, or on-court effectiveness.
i'd like to know how many of the rebounds hayes collected were from missing his own shot. it seemed like getting 2 or 3 rebounds in a row was a common thing for him.
My logic is that if the player is on the bench due to those limitations the player is unable to have the impact the statistical numbers suggest. Being able to stay on the floor is a factor to consider in my opinion. You are right we don't agree on the semantics. Maybe I'm nitpicking ... I just wanted to provide a different view to the predominant definition of determining a better rebounder. Most people probably wouldn't penalize a player for not collecting rebounds while sitting on the bench but since we are talking about Chuck Hayes who's predominant role was to provide hustle and rebound I feel that statistics alone is not the only way to evaluating him as a rebounder.
Why not? Like you said, that was his role. Because he expected to concentrate on rebounds much more than, say, Juwan Howard -- we should expect him to be a better rebounder. BTW, I think you're underestimating how good Chuck Hayes was last year. He wasn't just a stat-w**** who collected rebounds but didn't really help the team win. His +/- impact (particularly on defense) was off the charts.
OK, got it. According to your stat, Chuck is the best rebounder and best shooter (56%) in the team and top among the league.
I did not pick on what you said. I was just trying to make a point that you can always bring in other factors to discredit the result of a statistical analysis. And I used your on court/off court rebounding numbers as an example. That's why I quoted it. If someone (I am not saying you) can discredit the use of total rebs/game or rebs/48 mins to evaluate which player is a better rebounder, I can also discredit any other statistical analysis by bringing in the other factors that the analysis did not consider (believe me, there are a lot of 'other factors'). So the arguement will sooner and later become pointless. And I guess that's the reason why I yawned.
LOL...I remember I saw a player (whose name I forgot) grab 3 offensive rebounds within 30 secs because he missed two point-blank layups in a row. But I guess the 3 offensive rebounds would give him a high rating in the statistical analysis of his rebounding performance in that game.
I am serious. I don't think you're being fair here. You're making a blanket statement that every offensive rebound will get you points. You also left something out, the fact that a defensive rebound DENYS the other team extra chances as well. If you want to talk about teammates getting the defensive rebound, I could use that argument against you as well. Or, maybe I should say, I would rather have 0 offensive team rebounds than 0 defensive team rebounds. Like I stated earlier, and offensive rebound is rarer, more difficult to get, but it is not neccessarily MORE valuable than a defensive rebound. Especially in the case of the Rockets, with the limited firepower they have, its better to limit the opposition to a manageable score, rather than go for a shootout. As for those graphs and whatnot, I think they put too much emphasis on the fact that offensive rebounds are rarer to get, and they equate that to it being worth more. I'm not saying they are wrong, but in my opinion, I find that grabbing defensive rebounds are more important than grabbing offensive rebounds.
In all likelyhood if your not getting the defensive rebound your teammate is and because of the fact that they are much easier to get offensive rebounds come at a premium and are more valuable. Then why does ESPN value an offensive rebound as .7 to a defensive rebound .3? Im just askin to see what you have to say about it. Because they are harder to get the emphasis is on them not the other way around. Defensive rebounds come easier whereas offensive rebounds require a more conscious effort and hustle. Because they are harder to get and require more work they are worth more.
I hope Yao can play much better in next season and lead Houston Rocket into PlayOff, then he will join first team without any doubt!
I don't want to argue with you forever, we aren't gonna agree anyway, but yeah, as for ESPN, do you believe everything people tell you? Offensive rebounds are harder to get, no doubt about it, but whether they have more value than a defensive rebound can be argued. I don't want to keep going, but just answer me this. As a coach, would you rather have your team grab 0 offensive rebounds in a game or 0 defensive rebounds in a game? The way I see it is, defensive rebounds are more important, therefore they have more value, NOT they are easier to get, so they have less value. Know what I mean?
Logic? You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass: 1. Only a moron as yourself would think I proved your point for you. When Miller was out with injury, being the "catalyst" that he is, did the Kings' offence fall apart? Gee, let me remember, hmmmmm, it appears not. Furthermore, Miller stopped being the catalyst (being suplemented by Bibby and Artest) since Artest came to town? You are joking right? Even if we assume that this idiotic claim is true, what does it say about Brad Miller's "catalyst/playmaking" abilities that when replaced by Ron freakin' Arest as the playmaker, the Kings suddenly started playing the best ball of the season to sneak into the playoffs? Like I said, you are too stupid to even think I helped your point. 2. What the f*ck are you talking about? CWebb wasn't out when Brad Miller first got here. In case you forgot, CWebb played 2 dozen games that season, not all of it was from when he came back. Sure it was a few games, but you saw right away Miller's APG go up. Now why is that? 3. Like I (and everybody else said) for about 50 million times already, CAREER STATS are worthless. But go ahead, keep ignoring this point and maybe it will just go away. And your PER stat, I DID ACKNOWLEDGE IT STUPID. Also like I said, the onus is on YOU to prove that: "IF WE ASSUME THAT SHAQ IS THE BETTER DEFENDER, HIS DEFENCE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO OVERCOME YAO'S BETTER OFFENSIVE NUMBERS TO DESERVE THE 1ST TEAM, WHEREAS YAO DOES NOT. And I showed you nothing? That's hilarious. Let's see what I've shown you: a. You were stupid enough to show claim that Yao is a lousy defender. I've not proven that Yao is the better defender (which wasn't my intention to start), but I've certainly proven that one can make a case that Yao is at least, close enough to Shaq (if we asume that he is worse) to toss out your moronic claim that he is a lousy defender. b. You were stupid enough to claim that Yao can't stay on the court with Miller and Z whereas Shaq fouls them out. I've demonstrated clearly that you are talking out of your ass and that Shaq actually gets in the foul trouble against these two more than Yao does. c. You were stupid enough to use a 4 game sample size, skewed against Yao in terms of minutes played vs. Miller and Z and tried to "show" how Shaq is the better defender against these two when I showed that their scoring rate against both Yao and Shaq are similar, with the only difference being that they played fewer minutes. d. And I think I've shown clearly to anybody that you are too stupid to know jack about statistics. All of the points are ones that you, um, conveniently ignored in your replies and all of a sudden, dropped from your arguments. I wonder why? Is it because that all of a sudden you found that you are getting owned? 4. You showed JACK. You cherry picked 4 games based on skewed minutes to prove that you know jack about stats. As I've already mentioned (and that you ignored yet again), Miller and Z's offensive RATE against both players WERE THE SAME. Yet somehow the idiot such as yourself can draw conclusively that one (shaq) is the better defender. Actually that's not exactly true now is it? You actually acknowledged that the scoring rate was the same now haven't you, except that you made the moronic claim that Shaq puts Miller and Z in foul trouble whereas it's the other way around with Yao. When that was proven false you came back to the season average part, ignoring the minutes played and scoring rate. Also nice to know that you can use always use circular idiocy (surely we can't call this logic) when it suits you. 5. Not very hard to click the qoute button, but it is pretty pointless and a waste of time to separate your pointless drivel when none of them deserve any response. 6. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Sorry hold on a second. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. This part is funny. Man, you can't pay to get laughs like this. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'll tell you what, tell me who do you think is the worst big man in the league. I'll apply the exact same tactic that you applied to the Yao and Deke to prove that a random cherry picked game can prove that Shaq is a lousy defender. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hell, this is even a good deal for you. Whereas Deke is actually a decent big man and former defensive player of the year, I'm letting you pick from among the worst scrubs of the league. This part is hilarious. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Let's see, based on randomly cherry picked 1 game stats: a) Eddy Curry held Miller to 11/4 with 6 TO's on Nov 13 AND the Kings lost to the freakin' Knicks b) Greg Ostertag held Miller to 14/6 on Nov 15, too bad the j*zz lost c) Rasho Nesterovic held Miller to 2/5 with 5 TO's on Nov 21 and the Spurs won. Wow, Rasho's got my vote so far. d) Kandiman held Miller to 0/8 on Dec 4 and the T-pups blew the Queens out. Man that's just sick. Then, he held Miller to 10/6 on Dec 13. e) Erick Dampier held Miller to 11/7 on Dec 22 and the Mavs won. Want me to keep going? All of the above are stats for which the defender kept Miller low on BOTH scoring and rebounding. If we use one or the other, there'd be a lot more examples. All of this demonstrates one thing: if we use your moronic logic, Michael Olowokandi is CLEARLY the best defender in the league, ahead of both Yao and Shaq. Man that's hilarious. Of course, the thing that remains is that, even if I have a hole in my head like you do and assume that Shaq is the better defender against Yao when defending Miller and Z, it still does not change the fact that Shaq sucks defending the entire rest of the league. Interesting ain't it? 7. Wait a second, are you actually suggesting that Miller has a low post game? There's another joke of the century. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'm alro sure you noticed that virtually every basket Miller scored against Yao in the first game of the season was an outside shot right? 8. Now this is funny. When you are a moron, are stupid enough use inappropriate data and others pointing it out to you is called b1tchin'. That's just funny. Then I'm sure it is equally appropriate to use September 2001 poll data to measure American support for the War in Iraq, prior to everybody finding out that they've been lied to. And yet you wonder why I (and couple others) call you a moron. 9. Of course, nothing like playing 1 on 2 to show how that player playing alone is a lousy defender. Now if we take out Haslem and Zo to make this comparison fair, I wonder what you would say when Shaq gets torched just the same. 10. Like I said, you are too stupid to make the ineptitude of the entire defense on Yao. What I do find funny is how when Yao stuck on Miller and held him to 6 points in the 2nd half, you felt the need to blame us for when Bonzi Wells lit us up. 11. This part is funny too. You started off with a moronic 4 game sample size. Now you've reduced it to a completely demented 1 game sample size. And when this was pointed out to you, you completely ignored it. Furthermore, I find it interesting to question why you didn't bother to mention that only 2 of the fouls were on Brad Miller. I also wonder why you didn't bother to use an one game stat for Shaq when he was in foul trouble to show he can't stay on the court. Furthermore (and most interestingly), I wonder why you didn't bother to mention the only reason that Yao got 5 fouls in his lone game against Z was because the game went into OT and he played 43 minutes. I'm guessing that's why you suddenly dropped Z from your argument. Lastly, I do find it interesting that you find 3 games against Miller vs 1 game against Miller and 1 game against Z and 3 games against Z is comparable. Now the question is: DO YOU EVER GET TIRED OF GETTING OWNED. 12. Are you so stupid as to acknowledge that Yao gets tired? If he played less than Z and Miller because of foul trouble, then WHY is his season average lower than 35 minutes? No really moron, please enlighten me with your stupidity. 13. Of course it ain't a debate, that would actually involve you having an argument. Of course, a moron such as yourself is incapable of such. 14. Dodging the bullet doesn't work with me. Prove the following: "IF WE ASSUME THAT SHAQ IS THE BETTER DEFENDER, HIS BETTER DEFENSE MAKES UP FOR YAO'S BETTER OFFENSIVE STATS TO DESERVE THE FIRST TEAM WHEREAS YAO DOES NOT." Now, with your "solid case" for Shaq being 1st team and Yao not being 1st team, why do you have the need to ignore such a simple question? Or can't you answer it and are full of ****?
I dunno. A defensive rebound STOPS the opposing team from having a chance at scoring again. Anyway, that was just my opinion
Dude I already explained it to you earlier. rebounding rate is not the end all and be all of rebounding stats, but rebounds per game is even shallower. I'll say it again: Faster paced team = more shots = more chances for a rebound Slower paced teams = less shots = less chances for a rebound A team like the Rockets would have much less possessions per game than a team like the Suns. So a player doing 8 rpg on the Rockets might do 10 rpg on the Suns. A player who grabs 10 out of a possible 20 rebounds is better than a player who grabs 12 out of a possible 30 rebounds.
Correct but it would also mean that that players' team sucks at putting the ball in the hoop. However, it would also mean that the opposing team was DENIED a second chance 15 times.
