So whomever averages the most rebounds is the best rebounder? That's it? Whomever blocks the most shots is the best shot blocker? It doesn't depend on who you are asked to guard, or is guarding you?
Rebounding is less of an individual battle than virtually anything that happens on a basketball court. Also, I don't know why you keep going into reasons (Durant is tall! And athletic!) to discredit the result. (Durant is a good rebounder) That doesn't make logical sense. You keep repeating this, but it's wrong. Statistics are vitally important in basketball and tell us a lot about the game. Any sport where the outcome is decided by statistics is going to have this. After all points are a stat, and the team with the greater number of points wins. The only sports where stats matter little (boxing, MMA) are ones where the outcome isn't determined by stats. Pretty sure Perkins being a capable interior defender will have an effect on Wade and LeBron waltzing into the paint.
That is not true. Rebounding is very much about individual effort and matchups. And again, my point was not to discredit Durant's ability, but to show that because somebody averages 8.0 rebounds a game does not make them a great rebounder. It's a stat. Thats all. Since when is basketball determined by stats? Basketball is determined by score, and that's it. You can be outshot, outrebounded, out blocked, out worked, out everything and still win. You dont get any credit in basketball because your stats were better at the end of the game. Youre thinking fantasy sports, not actual competition. Yes, if Perkins is in the paint. And I was speaking more towards low post defense that just standing in the lane. And if Haslem or Bosh drift out, and Perkins or Ibaka stay in the lane then 1 of 2 things happen: illegal defense or they give up open short to mid range jumpers that Bosh & Haslem are more then capable of making.
The scoreboard doesn't care about who you're asked to guard or who is guarding you or any of this other crap. The game is directly affected by the amount of rebounds you grab. Therefore, when we're measuring Durant's impact on the game as a rebounder, it's a no-brainer to use his rebounds-per-game. (And if you've got some other measure of how good a rebounder you are, other than how it affects the game, I'd like to hear it.) Your team is more likely to win the game if you get more rebounds.
How you rebnound has no effect on the outcome of a game. Yes, the team that gets more rebounds usually wins the game, but there is no secret scoring system that awards you any bonus as an individual or a team by the number of rebounds that you get. It's all part of a larger picture. Just like turnovers in football. The team that forces more turnovers usually wins, but not always. And because you force a lot of turnovers does not mean you play great defense. It means you cause a lot of turnovers. To me, great rebounding is about focus and effort. If a shot goes up and I bust my ass to find a man, box him out, stick with him without fouling and the ball bounces the other direction and happens to wind up in your hands, after you've done absolutely nothing short of be in the path of the ball coming off the rim, does that make you a better rebounder than me? Not at all. It means, in the stats in the paper the next day, you have 1 rebound and I have none. Stats do not tell the entire story.
No one claimed Durant was a "great" rebounder. But yes, if you are a perimeter player in the modern NBA and still average 8.0 rpg, you are definitely a good rebounder. That's all. In case you missed it, the score is composed of points, which are the most basic stat there is. No, actually, you can't. If you're "outshot" in the sense that the opposing team makes more baskets, then unless you have made way more 3-pointers or gotten to the line a lot more, then you will lose. I'm seriously questioning if you know anything about modern basketball after this statement. Teams invest tremendous resources into documenting even the most basic of stats. They have advanced algorithms and programs to measure stats of how players do in 2, 3, 4, and 5-person units. They have guys keep track of stats like "deflections" that don't even appear on any box score, and general managers base serious decisions off of these. Every scout uses high-level stats like what percentage of shots a prospect hits off of what kind of play, and from what perimeter distance. The notion that stats are not a vitally important part of basketball in terms of its understanding and prediction is ludicrous.
You're exactly right. How you rebound has nothing to do with the outcome of the game. How much you rebound, however... See above. And I seriously hope you're not making the argument that, averaged over the course of a season, the ball just happens to bounce Durant's way more often than it does for other players.
Points are points, they are not statistics. Points per game or per player may be, but the end result of the game is the score. it's an amalgamation of various factors within the game - Fg, 3pt field goals and FT. Thats it. No other stat is used to determine the winner. It may help predict a trend, but you dont get any "points" for rebounds or assists or turnovers or anything. Ball through hoop. Thats it. What is the qualification for "good rebounder" then if it's about stats? Is 8 the minimum? or is it 7? If its all about stats, whats the requirement? Number of FG is just one statistic. You can shoot a lower % and still win. You can make less FG and still win. None of that matters if you didnt score more points than the other team at the end of the 4th Quarter. Who said stats were not important? I said theres more to any game than statistics. That things like "good" and "bad" cannot be qualified by numbers alone. Stats are useful to attempt to predict an outcome or a trend. That is it! They are a way to quantify comparisons between people or teams or whatever you choose to compare. Because 1 team or 1 player averages more points or rebounds or whatever, does not make them better or worse or good or bad. Stats are a small part in the bigger picture of anything, not just sports.
Gator: Durant can't do anything but score. Others: Actually, he's good at other things in a measurable way. Gator: You can't decide if someone is good at something by measuring it. Others: ... Gator: But it doesn't fit my narrative!
Points are statistics. They are an observed quantity that we keep track of to determine the outcome of a game. There are other observed quantities we keep track that are related to points like assists and rebounds that are also helpful. Thus, these other stats are also linked to the outcome of the game. Hence, why actual NBA teams and their personnel take this information 1,000 times more seriously than Gator does. I don't know that there is a "minimum requirement", but there are certain stats that definitively tell us certain things. Someone averaging 20 ppg on 51% FG is a hell of a scorer, a player averaging 8.0 apg against 3.0 tpg is a fine passer and distributor, and a perimeter player averaging 8.0 rpg is a very good rebounder. Stats, including high-level ones not found in a box score, do a thorough job of describing virtually any player or team. I don't know if it encompasses everything, but it sure as hell covers a lot. There are statistics keeping track of how clutch a player is, how often he makes jumpers coming off a screen in a pick-and-roll, and how well he plays with certain other teammates. Okay, I guess stats don't directly cover something like "athleticism", although they encompass all the benefits of high athleticism. Yes, and the trend and comparison here is that Kevin Durant tends to grab rebounds at a much higher rate than most other SGs and SFs in the league! So LeBron averaging 27.2 ppg on 53.1% FG does NOT mean he is a better scorer than Mike Miller, who has 6.1 ppg on 43.5% shooting? And we also can't call him a "good" scorer?! Stat deniers always give me a laugh. Look, in a sport like boxing or MMA, stats are mostly irrelevant. That's because knocking someone out or submitting them is not a stat in any meaningful way. But in football, basketball, and baseball, where the victory condition is nothing more than a comparison of stats, anyone who denies stats simply doesn't understand the sport. Even in baseball, which is now 100% stats and absolutely nothing else, you have some hardcore statistics deniers. I think these are probably the same people who deny the role of math in the rest our world.
Wow...thats not eve really close. Gator: Durant is a 1trick pony. Others: No hes not. Hes a great defender and a good rebounder. Gator: Why is he a good rebounder? Others: Because he averages 8 rebounds a game. Gator: Any other proof outside of a statistic? Others: Nope, but 8 rebounds a game is "good", therefore Durant is a "good" rebounder.
Still missing the entire point. You say Durant is a "good" rebounder based solely on a statistic. Therefore, "good rebounder" has to have a quantitative definition. What is the minimum requirement, based solely on statisitcs, for a good rebounder? Is it 6pg? 7? 8? Is it per game or per miute played? Nobody said Durant was a good rebounder because he was athletic or because he had a good nose for the ball or because he boxed out hard when the ball was in the air, just the fact that his RPG average was "good", so therefore he was a "good" rebounder. You are trying to use stats to support a subjective statement without defining the requirements. Ok...points are a measurable statistic. No other stat but score determines the outcome of a basketball game. Just like no other measurable in a boxing match counts except the judges final scorecard. No credit is given towards determining the final outcome but that final score. No other statistic matters when it comes to determining the winner. Not rebounds, assists, steals, punches thrown or landed. Nothing. There is no partial credit. You either have more points at the end or you don't. The rest of the statistics can be used to try and predict what might happen in the future, but if you score 1 less point than your opponent, you lose. The difference between basketball and boxing is that the scoring in boxing is subjective. Nobody sits down after the buzzer sounds in the 4th quarter and votes on a winner based on statistics. That is why they have a scoreboard in basketball and not in boxing. Speaking of which, what other stats, besides fouls, do they show on the scoreboard? They show the only one that matters - points. There is no requirement for subjective determinations because they do not matter. There is no good or bad, there is more or less. I am no denying the importance of stats, but they are just stats. If you want to directly compare 2 things based solely on numbers, then thats fine. But there is more to sports and everything than numbers or trends. You've never heard the phrase: "That is why they play the games on the court and not on paper". or "he does the little things that don't necessarily show up in the box score the next morning". There is more to a game than the sum of measurable statistics. Your example is a direct comparison of 2 individual players. That is easy to do based on statistics. Do Miller's numbers mean he is not a "good player"? If you play in the game and don't record a single measurable statistic, did you even play? Did you have any influence on the outcome of the game? Math is useful, but it does not guarantee anything. You cannot define something based solely on statistics. And if you want to try, then at the very least you have to define what you are trying to measure. Things like "good" are not the same as "more". Without that definition, you can manipulate statistics to prove any point you want. If Miller scores 2 points per minute played and Durant scores 1.7, then Miller is the better scorer, right? Or would Miller's average per minute played go down if he played more? You will never know until you play the game! "There are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics". - Mark Twain
Look, if you do something noticeably better than comparable players, you are good at it. If it's a lot better, you are really good at it. Durant grabs rebounds at a rate that is much higher than comparable players. Therefore, he is a really good rebounder. Why is this a difficult concept? No. The fact that he's not a good player mean that he is not a good player. The stats, however, do reflect this fact better than any other means of talking about him. If he did it as efficiently and with a large enough sample size for it to be a reliable indicator? Yes. But since this isn't even close to being true, no. Because those are all meaningless statements in terms of providing proof for something. Durant is all of those things, but those are reasons why he is a good rebounder, not proof thereof. I literally defined what makes him a good rebounder several posts ago. He does it at a level that is significantly better than the replacement player at his position. This could be proven, but it'd be onerous and is so patently obvious that I can't believe that it's being debated. This discussion is completely and utterly inane. 'sack, I played but not exceptionally well until about five years ago. Nom still plays. But that is beside the point. No one would have disagreed with Gator if he merely said that there were nuanced not captured by stats. He'd be obviously correct. Instead he's suggesting that this is so markedly true that stats aren't even good indicators of this.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, can we not just enjoy what will(regardless of who wins) be an epic series, cementing certain legacies while possibly forever altering others?
I've played basketball competitively. There have been a quite a few charity basketball games I'm played in with full teams, officiating and coaches. For the record. I also play pick-up games on Wednesdays. Thunder Miami Thunder Thunder Thunder Fun fact, I work with Jeff Hornacek's son.
Obviously the requirements depend on the case, but you compare his numbers to players in his position, put in the same situations, etc, etc. Saying "You don't have a hard number!" is childish. You're not really making an argument here. I don't understand how you can say something like this, and then argue that we should determine Durant's rebounding abilities with reference to his technique and not his numbers. Again, you are not making an argument about why Durant isn't a good rebounder. You're just saying, "That's not the whole story!" Well, tell us the whole story then.
I think the problem Gator and I are having with Kevin Durant is that he really isn't that good compared to the rest of the league. He rebounds worse than Kevin Love, can't pass as well as Rajon Rondo, doesn't have the handles of Derrick Rose, and isn't nearly as athletic as Blake Griffin. In fact, he's not even the tallest person on his own team, let alone the entire league, and that's something numbers can't capture.
I was thinking about LeBron not being "clutch." Generally, I think, what people mean when they say that is that he rarely seems to take last possession shots in late half-court sets. I don't think there's any dispute about his defense and rebounding being top-notch in these circumstances, but he certainly doesn't appear to hit many of those exciting buzzer beaters that players like Kobe do. I haven't ran all the numbers to decide whether that is in fact the case, but it may be immaterial. Lebron James is the best basketball player in the world for a few reasons, but ultimately it comes down to his versatility and breathtaking breadth of talent. What's lost in all of that, though, is that he isn't particularly special as a pull-up shooter, and that's really what a lot of these late game situations come down to. People seem to see "best player in the NBA, wing player" and demand that he take off-balance jumpers, but his greatness really doesn't stem from his jump shooting in the same way that Kobe's or Durant's does. James's passing/rebounding/defensive abilities are seemingly working against him when it comes to public perception of his clutchness -- critics correctly intuit that these things make him amazing at basketball, while ignoring the fact that they have absolutely no bearing on whether he's going to hit a fall-away jump shot. It baffles me a bit why some fans even want him to take such shots so much. From where I'm sitting, the Miami Heat are at their worst offensively when they run isolation plays for long jumpers.
That was an excellent evaluation. Patrice O'Neal discussed LeBron last year, right after Dallas won the Finals, clarifying how talented of a player he truly is. The relevant part runs through the first 4:05 or so. He starts up about LeBron again from 16:30 to 17:45. It's awesome. Off-topic: If anyone has an hour with nothing to do, that entire hour-long segment is worth listening to. Smart and funny things alike constantly spilled out of that man's mouth.
Yeah, I agree. I have also always found it weird that people crucified James for not being a ball hog, a la Kobe Bryant. Except this overlooks that Bryant is a very average clutch time player who who shoots his team out of over twice as many games as he wins for them. LeBron went the Magic Johnson (in my opinion, the greatest player ever) route instead of the Michael Jordan one, which is something a lot of experts claimed they wanted when he first entered the league. And instead of celebrating this and recognizing the Heat lost to a monster team with a monster defense (current Defensive Player of the Year Tyson Chandler plus Shawn Marion), an amazing coach, and one of the 15-20 greatest players ever killing himself to win, they somehow blame it on him alone. It's an easy media storyline, like virtually all their worthless writings are, but it's also fucking stupid and incorrect. That being written, I think you're blind if you don't recognize that Kevin Durant is practically as great as LeBron James right now, Nom.