Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Kevin Love's Rebounding Numbers are Inflated.


There's a well known article by a former stat keeper who admits that he was encouraged by NBA management to inflate the numbers of certain players for marketing purposes.


Alex was admittedly "very liberal," especially with his assists...  Certain players, Alex says, "got a lot of help."

 

"The way to get a guy extra rebounds," Alex says, "is if a shot goes up and someone tips it and someone else recovers it, you can give it to either one. 

This type of thing especially appeals to revenue strapped, small market teams.

" A team like ours was getting zero national media coverage. There's some value in that, even if someone is lighting us up, for marketing and longterm growth."

It's important, especially for bad teams, to have a player they can promote around the league to drive marketing, and that's much easier to do if they're putting up eye-catching numbers. According to Alex, that's why Shareef Abdur-Rahim put up significantly better numbers at home for the Grizzlies. The blocks and steals especially stand out, but he was also getting about 11% more rebounds at home.

500x_shareef9697_medium

This really hit home last week when a Celtic's scorekeeper was caught giving Rajon Rondo, the league assist leader, a bogus assist. This is fairly significant since Rondo was very publicly chasing the single season assist record. It also got me thinking about Kevin Love and how hard the TImberwolves (and the rest of the league) seem to be pushing him as some sort of dominant rebounding force. Looking over his game logs I was struck that 8 of his top 10 best rebounding games took place at home, while 4 of his 5 worst took place on the road. A few of those games were especially unusually including a much talked about 20-20 game that happened on national TV, at home. I decided to take a look, watch the entire game, and record and review every single rebound he was credited for.

Star-divide

Simply put this was the least impressive "20 rebound" performance I've ever witnessed. For starters, I only counted 16 legitimate rebounds, although some of those are borderline enough that I think most teams would probably give them to their star player. You only have to go back and look at Steve Blake's "17 assist" game to know that the Blazers are also guilty of a little home-cooking.

There were some pretty dubious rebounds awarded however, including Love's 19th with 1:47 left in the game. Wes Johnson comes over and gets a nice block on Jefferson before the ball can leave his hands. Johnson then corrals the ball with both hands before trying to dump it off to Darko, who predictably fumbles the pass. The ball ends up at Love's feet and he's awarded with his 19th rebound. 

Kevinloverebound19copy-1_medium

I don't believe that should have been recorded as a rebound, but it's far less egregious than some of the blatant stat padding we've seen in the past and T-Wolves fans could be justifiably annoyed with me for even bringing it up. What was much worse than the illegitimate rebounds was how Love was getting his legitimate rebounds. He blatantly stole a number from his own teammates and even tried to go over Darko's back for what would have been an uncontested rebound. Darko seemed annoyed, probably expecting a foul call, until he realized it was his own teammate. 

Loverebound-1_medium

In case you haven't noticed, Kevin Love is really into getting rebounds. In the end the Spurs seemed more concerned about transition defense and were content to let Love rack up empty numbers in his 41 minutes on the floor. At a certain point his teammates stop trying and conceded virtually every defense rebound to him. This happens with Camby sometimes too and I've complained about it in the past. I don't believe, however, that it happens to this degree and Camby rarely sacrifices defense to go after meaningless numbers.

 

When it comes down to it, Love would rather let Bonner shoot an open three than risk letting one of his teammates snag his birthright. In the picture below Tolliver was guarding McDyess, the other big on the floor, but Love refused to leave the paint, even though four of his teammates would have been in fine rebounding position. Instead Tolliver has to leave McDyess, which is counter productive since someone has to box McDyess out anyway.  Love watched the whole thing unfolds in slow motion and seemed more concerned about being in position to keep his teammates away from his rebound. This rebound, while it might be his 16th, isn't helping anyone.

Kevinloverebound16_medium

Love is an interesting player with a unique skill set. I like his game. He's a great rebounder and a good roll player. He is not however, a historically good rebounder. His numbers this year are incredibly inflated, not just from home-cooking (although I believe there's some of that as well), but also from pace, and a lack of other rebounders on the floor.

 

Just compare Love's teammates with LMA's.

 

Wolves Total Rebound % Blazers Total Rebound %
Pekovic 12.7 Camby 23.6
Tolliver 12.3 Przybilla 18.2
Darko 12.3 Cunningham 9.6
Beasley 9.4 Batum 9.2
Webster 7.6 Johnson 8.2
Brewer 6.4 Miller 6.8
Ellington 6 Rudy 6.3
Johnson 5.8 Matthews 5.7
Ridnour 5 Roy 5
Telfair 3.1 Mills 3.7

 

The difference between Camby and Darko cannot by overstated. In terms of rebound rate, Camby is 2nd in the entire league (ahead of Love BTW), while Darko is a stager 104th. Love simply doesn't play with any really decent rebounders and not one of his teammates cracks the top 90 in rebound rate. On top of that the Wolves play at the league's fastest pace, giving Love roughly 9% more oportunitys to rebound compared to Aldridge. 

You simply can't take his rebounding numbers seriously. The home-cooking probably doesn't have a huge effect (plus the Blazers probably get it as well), but it is something to take into account once you realize that the Timberwolves entire marketability rests on Love's gaudy rebounding numbers. A team in their position has a pretty obvious motive to skew some of the numbers. 

Beyond that, I just don't believe Love's rebounding is helping his team win games, especially when it comes at the expense of other things like defense, and common sense. 

Comment 158 comments  |  27 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I think the same thing happens with Camby a lot.

I see him get credit for rebounds when he just tips it and someone else recovers it, and I’ve seen him get credit when someone else tips the ball and h recovers it.

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 23, 2011 8:35 AM PST reply actions  

Yea,

a tip-out is considered a rebound, where simply tipping the ball up isn’t. More room for subjectivity on the part of the home stats crew, but presumably the bias evens out over 41 games home and away.

by cpw on Jan 23, 2011 2:21 PM PST up reply actions  

I believe

the stat crew has the option to give it to the player who tipped it out, or the player who picked it up after the tip.

by usmcr3049 on Jan 23, 2011 9:51 PM PST up reply actions  

That assumes road crews are biased AGAINST certain guys

I doubt the Blazers score keepers, for instance, affirmatively work to take rebounds away from Love. If anything, they’re probably neutral. A positive bias at home won’t be negated by neutral treatment on the road.

"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave

by DC Blazer on Feb 10, 2011 10:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Deja vu

I had this apparent hallucination yesterday where I read a very similar post by Nick Van Excellent and then I went on a hike and when I came back apparently Commisioner Stern had stepped in.

What happened?

by NeverSummer on Jan 23, 2011 8:41 AM PST reply actions  

It was only up for a couple hours.

I wanted to check some stuff and make sure I was being fair.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2011 8:45 AM PST up reply actions  

I like Love

I’’m sure there’s something to what you are saying, but I also don’t think a 20 pt 15 rb per game average happens by accident, or it would be happening a lot more often.

by NeverSummer on Jan 23, 2011 8:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, Minnesota's record bears this out

…it’d be interesting to see what he could do on a good team.

by NeverSummer on Jan 23, 2011 9:04 AM PST up reply actions  

He still clearly has a large rebounding impact on the team.

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2010-2011&team=MIN

When he’s on the court, the Wolves get 2.5% more offensive rebounds and 3.7% more defensive rebounds. They go from a team that would theoretically get a little over 49% of all rebounds to a team that would get a little over 52% of all rebounds. Of course, this data doesn’t team into account strength of teammates/opponents when he’s on and off the court.

http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2010-2011&team=POR

Camby’s rebounding impact, at first glance, looks better with 5.5% more offensive rebounds and 3.6% more defensive rebounds. Overall, his rebounding plus/minus leads the team. However, it’s also clear from the data that all Portland starters have a positive rebounding impact. Camby likely lifts the rest of the starters up, but it’s hard to give him all of the credit when it appears the full unit rebounds better than the reserves.

by poster on Jan 23, 2011 9:19 AM PST up reply actions  

Defensively Camby >>>>>> Love too

Camby can box out and still manage to play some defense. Love’s crappy defense may account for why he can put up so many points and boards but his team can’t win.

If he played defense his rebounding stats would take a hit but they’d likely win more games.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 12:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Love’s defense is a good ways down the list of reasons why they don’t win imo. He is by far the best player on that god awful team.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 23, 2011 12:44 PM PST up reply actions  

If Love played some defense

I bet they’d have a few more wins. They’ve only won 10 games and have enough young energy to burn on defense. Love is the star and needs to set an example.

I was wondering why they wouldn’t give him play time in the FIBA world championships. With good teams you have to be able to play defense to get on the court and Team USA played some really good defense.

Darko might turn himself into a pretty good center.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 1:12 PM PST up reply actions  

true

having any sort of bench, starting sg, pg that could beat out ridenhaur, or cohgesive vision between front office and coach would help more than Love closing out once in a while.

dinasour type of guys choir boys

by mittsabishy on Jan 23, 2011 2:10 PM PST up reply actions  

your right, he padds the heck out of his number though.

he had 7 rebounds when it counted against us, then grabbed ten in the 4th when the game was out of hand. He tips the ball 4 times in one possesion before he scores. I think he is a great natural rebounder, but he is consciously inflating those numbers cause he knows its the only thing he has to play for this season.

by skott75 on Jan 24, 2011 2:08 PM PST up reply actions  

I really doubt that he is purposely inflating his rebounding stats

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 24, 2011 2:30 PM PST up reply actions  

see image 2

love fouling a teammate to steel the rebound….nuff said.

by skott75 on Jan 24, 2011 3:52 PM PST up reply actions  

The over-the-back gave me a good laugh

One of these days he’ll start a fight on his own team lol

by poorwebguy on Jan 24, 2011 5:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Fighting for a rebound is a bad thing?

If that was Camby going over Cunningham we wouldn’t be saying anything.

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 25, 2011 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

there is a difference between fighting for a rebound and

stealing one from your teamate when your the only two around. I’m fine with it, but those are the things he is doing to INFLATE his rebound numbers.

by skott75 on Jan 25, 2011 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

It's not inflating!

He’s the best rebounder on the team. I’m sure he is told to go for EVERY loose ball. This is ridiculous…would we even be questioning this if Aldridge wasn’t competing with him for an All-Star spot?

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 25, 2011 4:36 PM PST up reply actions  

no we would not

but that doesn’t mean we can’t :)

by vullkem116 on Jan 25, 2011 6:41 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm not sure it's conscious

It’s probably based on quite a few variables actually.

One possibility is the other players in the game expend a ton of energy actually playing defense. Later in the game Love may have more energy and be in better position to rebound because other guys are running out of steam and still trying to defend.

Another possibility…other teams just don’t care as much when they get up by double digits over the wolves in the 4th. Most teams don’t believe the wolves can actually beat them if they’re trying. We play down to our competition all the time.

by poorwebguy on Jan 24, 2011 3:28 PM PST up reply actions  

I like this post.

The still shots are kind of funny and enjoyable.

The one part I don’t get is the pace argument. More power to Love for getting more rebounds if his team takes more shots. This is what he’s supposed to do, so I wouldn’t knock him for it. But it does make sense that LMA would have a little harder time breaking 10rpg b/c we play such a slow pace.

"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez

by bfan on Jan 23, 2011 9:29 AM PST reply actions  

pace accounts for a 9% difference.

There is a substantially greater than 9% difference between the two players in rebound stats.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions  

I don't think that was NVE's point in making that argument

There’s no denying that Love has better rebounding stats, by any metric, even if you account for pace. The argument about pace (and teammate rebound rate) shows that the difference between Love and LMA’s rebound numbers does not accurately measure the difference between their skill levels as rebounders.

I imagine that the reason we, as fans, should care about this is because it is Love’s rebounding numbers and alleged rebounding skill that would supposedly justify giving Love an All-Star appearance before LMA. In response to bfan, I don’t care that Love gets more rebounds in a faster system either, but I do care that he may receive recognition from the league for being a better player than LMA based on a statistical difference that overstates Love’s skill.

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Jan 23, 2011 10:41 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

this

LMA unfortunately will not take a rebound from a teammate if he can help it. Sometimes I wish he would as some boards probably get loose.

Also, score keepers aren’t counting those back-taps all the time. Many of them are under control and should be counted. LMA had a point in last nights game where he pulled a Kevin Love…putting up like 3 tips in the paint trying to score.

I don’t believe he got credit for that either…though Love always does.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 12:47 PM PST up reply actions  

haha

I like that you were worried about making Wolves fan’s mad before. I think this will still do the trick. :)

by hoodieNation on Jan 23, 2011 9:30 AM PST reply actions  

Maybe i'm oversensitive because i'm secretly a Wolves fan...

Camby is 2nd in the entire league (ahead of Love BTW)

but this little jab will irritate them. lol

by hoodieNation on Jan 23, 2011 9:50 AM PST up reply actions  

I kind of enjoyed the bold-face, all caps

“NOT A REBOUND” assignations.

It was kind of like going up to an oversensitive blazers fan and yelling “BILL SIMMONS!”

by NeverSummer on Jan 23, 2011 10:02 AM PST up reply actions  

there’s no cursing on this site. Flagged.

"right now, I’ve got to worry about myself and get myself healthy and put myself in the best possible position to dominate."- Greg Oden.

by musicdaniel on Jan 24, 2011 9:24 AM PST up reply actions  

every elite rebounder in the history of the game

grabbed rebounds away from teammates and depressed their teammates’ rebounding stats. you could rewrite this entire post and substitute the name “rodman” or “moses” or “ben wallace”, and it would have been equally accurate.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 10:13 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

and I do think it's extremely amusing the amount of effort

folks employ here to try to run down players that they perceive as somehow competing with our guys, for allstar games (this whole Kevin Love and Blake Griffin obsession) or draft history (Portland having the only fanbase who doesn’t like Kevin Durant). I didn’t see you rewatching an orlando game with a scorekeeper card for examples of Dwight Howard puffing up his blocking stats or unnecessarily hunting for blocks in blowout games.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 10:23 AM PST up reply actions  

Well I think it’s extremely amusing that we had a discussion about Aldridge 5 months ago in which you said :

“This is his peak. Deal with it.”

I have complained about Howard looking for blocks instead of playing more effective defense, but even if I hadn’t, do I really have to criticize every single player in the league before I can touch Kevin Love?

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2011 10:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Oh, I totally retract almost 100% on Aldridge.

Obviously. I have been talking allstar and even MVP if he continues at this pace.

Although to be fair, my explanation why I thought it was unlikely for Aldridge to make a leap was the following:

If a player is flat during those first few years, it’s pretty near a guarantee that he’ll never get significantly better, absent a coaching change, team change, change in contract situation or what have you

And I think being given a new role after Roy goes out indefinitely qualifies.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

There are still questions about LMA's efficiency, as his uptick in production has seem ...

to have had more to do with an increase in usage than anything else. Even LMA’s increase in free-throw attempts per 36 minutes is due heavily to his increased usage, for his rate of fouls drawn per field-goal attempt has only gone up 1% from last season. For a guy who’s playing more with his back to the basket, you’d think he could get shoot more efficiently (i.e., eFG%) and get to the line at a higher clip to boost his scoring efficiency (i.e., TS%). Neither of those are the case, however, while according to www.82games.com he’s only gone from 36% of his field-goal attempts being classified as inside shots last season to 39% of his field-goal attempts being classified as inside shots this season.

"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."

by AK1984 on Jan 23, 2011 10:55 AM PST up reply actions  

NVE and I are mostly talking about the set of games

after Roy went out, not his total season numbers. I’ll agree that his total season numbers are only somewhat better, but in the 19 games since Roy went out, his numbers are colossally better. 57.7% TS (as opposed to the 52-53% he’s put up in his prior seasons), which is largely from the 53% he’s shooting from the field.

Here’s his per 36 stats in those 19 games:

23.19 ppg, 53% fg%, 4.7 ftm, 6 fta, 3.5 oreb, 5.6 dreb, 9.2 reb, 1.9 ast, 1 stl, 1.2 blk

Outstanding. He still needs to do this for a whole season before I’m a true believer, but it’s been too long to be a statistical blip.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 11:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, let's see if he can keep it up through the season.

"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."

by AK1984 on Jan 23, 2011 12:02 PM PST up reply actions  

I have calculated his stats over the course of this run and have 26.3 PPG and 10.1 rebounds per game

Did you include the first Dallas game? I can’t account for the differences in our results

by MadBlaze on Jan 23, 2011 1:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Hoopdata shows unequivocally that LA has taken a far higher percentage of shots closer to the basket

You also fail to address the fact that LA’s efficiency has skyrocketed since seeing an uptick in usage, certainly not what you would expect in that situation.

by MadBlaze on Jan 23, 2011 1:24 PM PST up reply actions  

I made a long comment on LMA last June, when some people were clamoring to trade him.

Here’s just a part of that comment:

… I think he will develop better post moves over the next few years too. He already has a superb midrange game. I think he will have an amazingly versatile range of weapons. His numbers have remained very consistent over the last 3 years, but I don’t think that means his skills are static at all. He scores proportional to his touches (his shooting percentages have been between 48% and 50% all four years) and his shot attempts have been incredibly consistent (15.3, 15.3, 15.0 the last three years), but the types of shots he uses have become more varied as he adds to his skills. Give him a couple more shots per game, particularly in the 4th quarter, make him just a bit more of a go-to guy, and I think he averages 22 points a game (4 more than now).

His rebounding is a little disappointing (although very consistent 7.6, 7.5, 8.0 the last 3 years), but he can definitely improve that if he becomes more aggressive. Again, I think Camby is going to have a positive effect on LMA’s rebounding. I see no reason that LMA can’t become a consistent 20-10 guy in just a couple of years, rather than the 18-8 guy that he is now. At 24 years old, he is still quite young for a big man.

Bottom line, I’m probably a lot higher on LMA than many people here.

There’s a lot more in that comment about him needing “to become more aggressive in his style of play”:

I think he could become considerably tougher with the right example to follow. It takes longer for bigs to develop, and for some that aren’t born with it, acquiring the aggressiveness and toughness to knock a few people out of the way is part of their development.

Of course we learned later that LMA really did work this summer on getting stronger with a new trainer and becoming more aggressive in the low block working with Bill Bayno. He struggled with his new style of play early this year, as could be expected, but it has really paid off now. He’s now the guy we will rebuild this team around in the future.

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jan 23, 2011 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

I was on LMAs side also. The fact that he had no bigs coach for 2 yrs...

and now DOES….probably has something to do with LMA’s development..oh and the fact that the players on the team who are passing to him are doing so while he is closer to the basket…
I think Roy didn’t really do the pick and roll thing with LMA.

by Natsthecat on Jan 23, 2011 11:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Roy doesn't know how to throw entry passes

He couldn’t get it to Oden when he had position either. I used to think it was a matter of inclination, but there was a period last year where he appeared to make a concerted effort to feed Oden in the post and just did a horrible job of it. He never put the ball in the right spot to let Oden utilize the low position he had fought for, and his entry passes were always very deliberate and slow, often missing any opportunity Oden had for a quick score, which is LMA’s bread and butter down low.

Roy likes to methodically dribble and assess the defense and only pass as an alternative. I don’t think he thinks of or sees the opportunities for quick hits like Miller, Camby, Rudy, and Batum.

"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave

by DC Blazer on Feb 10, 2011 10:59 AM PST up reply actions  

I think i speak for all of seattle

when i say, we’d rather pretend he doesn’t exist.

Nothing against the dude….just….ugh….

by moflow on Jan 23, 2011 10:17 PM PST up reply actions  

:(

Times is rough

Trade John Canzano

by richardb on Jan 24, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions  

Do you really think Love's name belongs with the likes of Rodman or Moses Malone?

Both of those players, BTW, played next to far better rebounders during their peak rebounding years. I dare say that Bill Laimbeer was a slightly better rebounder than Darko Milicic or Anthony Toliver.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2011 10:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Laimbeer was a very good rebounder.

But note how his rebounding plummeted once Rodman came along and started stealing rebounds from him?

Way too early to see where Love ends up for his career. Love is only 22; Rodman didn’t even enter the league until he was 25, and he didn’t really become an elite rebounder until he’d been in the league for a few years.

Rodman was also a superb defender (although he also sacrificed his brilliant individual defense once he started focusing more on rebounding); on the other hand, he was a non-factor offensively where Love is putting up 22 ppg on 58 true shooting percentage.

I do know that I focus on rebounding and defense more than most when I watch the games, and I’ve been just as impressed with Love’s rebounding as I was when I watched Rodman on the Bulls and Spurs in the 90s. And I started watching the Wolves regularly last season, when he wasn’t even putting up these rebounding totals or getting the press attention he’s getting this season now that he’s getting starter minutes.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 10:36 AM PST up reply actions  

thot that there was a several year stretch where rodman was the elite defender in the game

he could guard anyone from the point guard to a center, and his defense was the length of the court.

by utahcoyote on Jan 23, 2011 5:50 PM PST up reply actions  

it's also worth noting that rebounding is a very stable stat.

players that get traded often find their points per game change or their assists or whatever. but their rebounding per minute? very very consistent over time and despite changing teams.

I imagine that on a different (and hopefully better) team, Love would still get very high rebound totals, but might get a few fewer, because a smarter coach would spot him up at the 3 point line a lot more and use him on offense more, thus reducing his offensive rebound opportunities. A defense-first coach would also try to change his timing on when he switches from defending to going to the glass.

But he’s going to be a top rebounder no matter who he plays with—if he went to Orlando, he’d get more rebounds than Dwight. He’s legitimately the best rebounder in the league— he ranges and gets rebounds out of his area, his anticipation is astonishing, and he uses his body and his arms to create rebounding opportunities he shouldn’t be able to get.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 10:51 AM PST up reply actions  

Generally speaking,

conceding open long 2 point shots to opposing power forwards is usually not a bad plan.

I am critical of Love’s defense, but it mostly has to do with questioning whether he’s doing the right things on help defensive rotations. Unfortunately, that team’s defensive coaching is such a mess, it’s difficult to determine who’s missing their assignments. Who’s supposed to help and when, and when does the helper recover back to their man, and when does the other big help the helper, etc. is all a mystery to that entire team.

He’s not athletic enough to be a good shotblocker, but he’s got the instincts, speed, and willingness to sacrifice his body to be a great charge taker. He needs coaching, badly.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 11:39 AM PST up reply actions  

Technically he's not the best rebounder in the league.

It depends on how you measure it, but Camby and Reggie Evans both have a better rebound rate.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2011 11:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Love and Camby are almost identical in reb rate.

Evans is 3 percent higher, but in only 15 games. Camby and Evans also played C when they’ve played this season, and Cs are supposed to get more rebs than a PF, which is exclusively what Love plays. And Camby and Evans are both rebounding specialists, where Love also actually plays a significant role in the offense.

Which isn’t to say that Camby and Evans aren’t also very impressive. They’ve been phenomenal this season when they’ve played. Also Kevin doesn’t grab opponents by their man parts when he plays, so he’s got that going for him, which is nice.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 11:45 AM PST up reply actions  

In your opinion...

would Love be able to pull down 20 or 30 boards playing beside Camby, Nico and Dre?

Keep in mind this would give the team 40 or 50 boards a game between 4 guys…

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 12:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Probably not.

I mean, it’s entirely speculative, but I’d imagine if we traded Love for LMA and he replaced LMA’s minutes exactly, he’d probably get around 13 rpg, and Camby would probably get like 1 fewer rpg, and dre and nic would lose like 1/2 a rpg each.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah about what I'm thinking

Though having Love instead of LMA would most certainly cost us at least 6 to 8 games.

On a contender the difference in Love’s numbers would likely be more pronounced. It is all speculative of course.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 2:43 PM PST up reply actions  

So really, how do you reconcile this post and the previous one?

Do players miss out on defensive boards when playing with better rebounders like you’re claiming happened to Laimbeer with Rodman, or is it a stable stat regardless of who you’re playing with like you claim in this post?

As to plummeting, you have a pretty strict definition of plummet. Bill Laimbeer’s DRB% hovered around 26% for the first 9 years of his Pistons career. including 5 years with Dennis Rodman. It only dropped in the 91-92 season when he was 34 although that was also the year he stopped being a permanent starter for the Pistons, so I think it’s safe to say his aging was more of a factor than the guy he’d been playing with for the previous 5 years. And on the flip side, it wasn’t until Laimbeer’s skills deteriorated that Rodman’s rebounding numbers really took off, and after that, Dennis Rodman never really played with a dominant defensive rebounding big (The Admiral’s career DRB% is 6 points below Dwight’s), although they were certainly more impressive than Darko. Given that Rodman was still leading the league in offensive rebounding during those years with Laimbeer, it’s not like he was a poor rebounder then.

That being said, you’re right that Kevin Love would be among the league leaders and a deserving all star no matter who he played with, but I don’t see how you can state that he’s not helped significantly by playing on a team with such awful rebounders. I think it’s ridiculous that people think Aldridge would put up similar stats without Camby here, but I really cannot believe that Love would be anywhere near his current numbers if you swapped Darko and Camby back in August.

by Royster on Jan 23, 2011 2:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Of course teammates matter

and you do get a boost or drops in rebounding depending on how aggressively your teammates rebound. Look at Camby— he’s putting up career highs in rebound rate because he’s playing with a relatively poor rebounder in LaMarcus compared to playing with Kenyon Martin or Chris Kamen or Kurt Thomas. But it’s not a gigantic swing, we’re talking a couple of percentage point difference in rebound rate.

I do still find this whole argument a bit silly. You could say Dwight is #2 in rebounding in the league partly because he plays on a team with poor rebounders too. Or you could state it differently: because Dwight and Love are such outstanding rebounders, their teams don’t suffer as much as they would because their teammates are such poor rebounders. Or even better, you could say Dwight and Love’s outstanding rebounding benefits their teams by freeing their teammates to do other things, like leak out on the break or spot up on the perimeter and space the floor in a way unique to teams that have one outstanding rebounder.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 2:26 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Your second paragraph

describes this conversation perfectly. Being a good rebounder on a bad rebounding team isn’t a bad thing, and neither is putting up good scoring numbers on a bad team (as some people try to say).

Rumor has it that Dos Equis first approached Aldridge, but Aldridge turned thrm down because the real 'most interesting man in the world' would not have to prove it in a commercial. - Canis Hoopus 1/7/11

by jamon51 on Jan 23, 2011 3:54 PM PST up reply actions  

except they grabbed big rebounds

love is padding his stats and not effecting the game. I have never seen someone with his numbers have less effect on the outcome of a game.

by skott75 on Jan 25, 2011 4:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Good post

On the Simmons podcast a few weeks back Love repeatedly stated that there’s no such thing as a selfish rebound. He’s completely wrong though. If you watch him play defense he spends more time worrying about getting in rebounding position than playing fundamentally sound man defense. There’s no stat for that though.

by AndrewD on Jan 23, 2011 10:26 AM PST reply actions  

If the Blazers cook up stats to their advantage (as I'm sure they like all others do)...

either LaMarcus or Mr. Allen needs to give the Blazers statistician a kickback or set him/her straight or something. LMA’s averages are awfully low if they’re cooked.

Wherever you may be; good night, eeeeeeverybody!

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 23, 2011 10:37 AM PST reply actions  

nice read, though...

even if you’re argument seems a bit of a stretch without significant data to back it up, it was enjoyable. Rec for effort.

Wherever you may be; good night, eeeeeeverybody!

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 23, 2011 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Rec

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Jan 23, 2011 10:45 AM PST reply actions  

Love on the road

People play better at home typically, yet, he is still getting 15.0 rebounds a game on the road…

He also averages 2 minutes less played on the road, probably because they get blown out on the road more often then at home where he stays in the game.

On the road he gets .417 rebounds per minute (36 minutes x .417 = 15 RPG)
At home he gets .429 rebounds per minute (38 minutes x .429 = 16.3 RPG)

Not much of a difference for me.

I love three 3 things in life: Family, Money, and Baseball. Come March the order of those three get changed up a bit.

by mastermike on Jan 23, 2011 11:17 AM PST reply actions  

Would be interesting to see a breakdown by quarter

In the few games we’ve played them his rebounds were pretty normal versus our bigs until the second half.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 12:57 PM PST up reply actions  

I think this is relevant

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/miamiheat/post/_/id/3809/chris-boshs-bargnani-effect

After averaging a career-high 10.8 rebounds for the Toronto Raptors in 2009-10, the five-time All-Star has collected just 8.2 rebounds per game in his new digs in Miami.
Bosh’s former frontcourt companion in Toronto is one of the worst rebounding 7-footers in NBA history. In fact, only two 7-footers have posted a lower rebounding rate over their career than Bargnani (min. 100 games). Fewer collected rebounds by the former No. 1 overall pick means more available rebounds for his teammates. And as the next tallest starter alongside Bargnani, Bosh would, in theory, have been the biggest beneficiary of Bargnani’s lack of rebounding knack.
Here we see that Bosh collected collected 12.6 rebounds every 40 minutes when he played with Bargnani last season. And when Bargnani went to the bench, Bosh saw his rebounding numbers tumble down to 10.7 rebounds per 40 minutes. Since Bargnani and Bosh shared the court often, Bosh’s overall numbers looked pretty stellar at 12.0 rebounds every 40 minutes.
So with this information in mind, it’s possible Bosh’s rebounding prowess may have been a little overstated in Toronto. No, the finding doesn’t suddenly mean Bosh is chopped liver as a rebounding force. But it does mean that we probably should have tempered our expectations a bit.

"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith

by blzrfan on Jan 23, 2011 12:08 PM PST reply actions   3 recs

The scorekeeping part of your argument holds zero water. Love plays 5% more minutes at home and gets 9% more rebounds. By comparison, Dwight Howard gets 9% more rebounds at home despite playing 3% more minutes on the road. Meanwhile, LMA is averaging fully 23.8% more rebounds at home despite playing 1.3% more minutes on the road. There just isn’t evidence Love is getting more homecooking than is typical. Interestingly, both Camby and Zach Randolph have “negative home cooking factors” on a per minute basis.

The rest of your post has some validity.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 23, 2011 12:30 PM PST reply actions  

There just isn’t evidence Love is getting more homecooking than is typical.

Typical for who? The average player, or the average star? Also, wouldn’t you have to look at rebounding %? Love would be getting a larger percentage of rebounds because they would be assigned to him instead of his teammates, but that might not necessarily have a direct correlation with total rebounds.

I don’t believe that rebounding can systematically be faked for an entire season. I do believe however that rebounding numbers can be nudged up to give a player a 20-20 game instead of a 20-19 game, or a 31-31 game instead of a 31-28 game or whatever.

There was a ton of publicity over both those games and it wouldn’t have been the same had he not had those specific numbers. That matter in trivial things like all-star consideration.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2011 12:48 PM PST up reply actions  

My guess is that a 3% higher per minute rebounding rate at home wouldn’t pass a statistical significance test. Maybe when you look at rebound % it would, but I doubt it— does a typical TWolves home game have significantly less available rebounds than a road game? I doubt it. If you want to do that analysis, go for it, but at this point I see zero validity in charging the Wolves scorekeepers with atypical stat padding.

In fact, I’d recommended deleting that part of your post and focusing on what does appear to have validity— poor rebounding teammates and rebound stealing. That part of the post is very nice work, imo.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 23, 2011 12:54 PM PST up reply actions  

He did list some blatant score keeper "mistakes"

so it’s probably still relevant…though maybe not as much as other points. Once your known as an elite rebounder I’m sure your numbers can creep up a little do to the effect it has on a score keeper’s perception of the game.

The flip side of course is that other teams will usually make sure to box out an elite rebounder. That Love gets his numbers despite that tells me that he is, in fact, an elite rebounder. He’s also a defensive liability and his rebounding numbers might be amped a bit.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 1:06 PM PST up reply actions  

They slipped their star player at least a couple extra rebounds during a nationally televised game so he could get a 20-20

That’s obviously for publicities sake, during an otherwise meaningless loss. That sort of stuff has a pretty big effect on public perception and led to Love’s name being put into the all-star discussion.

If you take away even a few rebounds during his more flashy games and I’m not sure we would even be having this discussion. A 20-20 game is big news. A 20-16 rebound game is not. It’s only a few rebounds, but I do believe it has a place in the Love vs. Aldridge all-star discussion.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2011 1:27 PM PST up reply actions  

A basic analysis of home vs. road TRB% would be more indicative

Can get that from basketball-reference’s advanced game logs.

by MadBlaze on Jan 23, 2011 1:28 PM PST up reply actions  

If someone wants to do that, they should feel free to do so. If anything I would think a typical TWolves home game would have more missed shots— further explaining away the small difference in Love’s rebounding numbers (fast paced teams tend to play even faster at home) but I could certainly be wrong. Until someone does that analysis, that part of the post is a baseless accusation.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 23, 2011 1:37 PM PST up reply actions  

not so sure what you are so hot about.

in reading the post it seems to me that this is the conclusion

The home-cooking probably doesn’t have a huge effect (plus the Blazers probably get it as well), but it is something to take into account once you realize that the Timberwolves entire marketability rests on Love’s gaudy rebounding numbers. A team in their position has a pretty obvious motive to skew some of the numbers.

is this really so unbelievable?

I for one applaud the post’s attempt at objectivity.

by vullkem116 on Jan 23, 2011 9:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Its believable, until you go a bit further and see that there is no evidence of it.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 24, 2011 12:47 AM PST up reply actions  

well then share with the rest of us this proof that you have that it doesn't happen.

I find the post believable but far from proving anything. However the poster isn’t claiming to have proof. He has found motive. and he has found evidence of some (though not greater than any other team’s inflations IMO) tampering. I don’t find it insulting to suggest that his numbers are inflated without proof. I guess that is where we differ.

by vullkem116 on Jan 24, 2011 6:25 PM PST up reply actions  

both “Poster” and I, in this thread, looked into the numbers are found that they just don’t support NVE’s theory at all. There are definitely some more thorough analyses that could be done, but on first look, the numbers appear to counter NVE’s argument.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 24, 2011 7:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I never made any argument that his inflated rebounding numbers were based on scorekeepers cheating.

Certainly the Blazers (and probably every team in the NBA) has some of that as well. As I mentioned, Steve Blake’s “17 assist” game was clearly inflated. Although that stat padding probably doesn’t show up in his game splits either.

I’ve seen it happen to some degree with Love (rebounds after the buzzer, team rebounds awarded to Love, etc), but overall it probably doesn’t effect his rebounding numbers all that much. That’s why I said Minnesota fans could be legitimately annoyed with me for even bringing it up. It’s trivial, but I still find that aspect interesting, so sue me.

What’s far worse (and I said this already) is how he’s getting his legitimate rebounds.

Love is playing about 10 more minutes per game this season while averaging about 5 more rebounds. Only one of those extra rebounds is on the offensive end. The other 4 are coming on defense.

Clearly he’s not really creating rebounds for himself, otherwise his offensive rebounding would increase and he wouldn’t look like an idiot trying to go over his own teammates backs for uncontested balls.

He’s basically stat padding and since the Wolves have the 3rd worst point differential in the league, K-Love has a ton of garbage time to do it.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 24, 2011 8:27 PM PST up reply actions  

That’s fine. I’ve said that I think parts of your post are good, legit and well written. In the little side thread with vullkem116, I’m just debating the part I think is flawed and baseless, which happened to be the part you led the post with.

The post clearly has some merit to it, and it led to some good discussion, so you deserve props for that. Still think you should delete the part about scorekeeping, but that’s just me.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 24, 2011 8:35 PM PST up reply actions  

I just think the scorekeeping aspect is interesting.

Aldridge just made a controlled tip to Rudy (I think) and he wasn’t credited with a rebound. I’m almost positive Camby would have been.

How much that really matters is up for debate. Maybe guys who have a certain reputation get the benefit from the scorekeepers. Who knows.

You’re right though, I probably shouldn’t have led with that.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 24, 2011 9:19 PM PST up reply actions  

the "stealing rebs from teammates" thing is pretty bogus too.

Every elite rebounder does the same. Dwight’s elbowed teammates in the head when he’s cleared boards before. Rodman used to tell the other Bulls to get the hell away from his boards.

But it’s not just stat padding—great rebounders focus on getting the ball and moving to the position to get the ball, and don’t get distracted by details like whether that guy between them and the ball is a teammate or opponent.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 12:20 AM PST up reply actions  

First, Love doesn't play a ton of garbage time.

As I pointed out below, if you look at his playing time in blowouts (margin of victory 15 points or more), he’s averaging around 32 mpg; in closer games, he plays 38 to 44.

Second, Minnesota actually has the second worst margin in the league, at -5.93. Interestingly though, if you just take the games after Rambis finally started giving him starter type minutes, that improves to around -4.09 per game, which would be around 24th in the league. If you just take the first 9 or so games before he got starting minutes, their margin was -12.89, which would be enough to make the Cavs, at -10.93, look good in comparison. And the Cavs at -10.93 is putting up an all-time historically bad season.

Which is pretty much my contention. The Wolves without Love are a historically bad team, and would struggle mightily to win 10 games, and would be getting savagely blown out almost nightly. With Love, well, they’ll probably win 25, maybe 30 if they get lucky in some close games, and they’ll be competitive in most games, as they have been since Love started getting starter minutes.

It’s just not true that “he doesn’t help his team” or “hes just padding stats”— he’s adding hugely to the win total of his team. It’s just a very very very bad team, with the worst backcourt in the league and vying with Cleveland for the worst wings. The second best player on the team is Tolliver, and he’s a d-leaguer who primarily backs up Love. Just a disaster of a team.

by howlingfantods on Jan 24, 2011 11:54 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Excellent post! rec

But don’t you think that Beasley is better than Tolliver?

by zbrum on Jan 27, 2011 5:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe.

Tolliver’s a solid role player. Beasley’s got more star potential, but has a tendency to mentally check out of games and get frustrated when he doesn’t get touches. Tolliver brings less to the table but he doesn’t have the same negatives as Beasley does.

Kind of a hard call when you try to compare these high positives/high negatives type guys with low positive/low negative types.

by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2011 11:56 AM PST up reply actions  

Looked at the game logs...

Calculating the exact percentages would be too much effort. Looking the medians and the upper/lower ends should be enough IMO for something like this.

The difference between his home and road games looks minimal even though his home rebounding stats are a little better. The fact that the difference comes from his defensive rebounding rate makes it maybe a tad suspicious, but even that difference was only a few percent at the median. The one game where he supposedly grabbed 93.6% of defensive rebounding opportunities at home was odd, but that’s likely just an outlier.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some home bias, but I doubt it makes much of a difference.

by poster on Jan 23, 2011 10:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Aldridge appears to get even more home bias.

From the game logs, he has a median rebound rate around 4% better at home. This is due to a median defensive rebound rate around 5% better at home. Whether it’s cooking the books or Aldridge actually grabbing more rebounds at home, Love’s rebounding rate looks legit just looking at stats.

One could still argue about exactly how much impact those extra rebounds add since he could mainly be uniformly stealing rebounds from teammates. From basketballvalue.com, it’s clear that he is making a clear positive contribution to rebounding for the team. This is expected though since his rebounding numbers are elite.

I’d still argue that Love’s overall impact might not be as good as his box score stats say because I think he’s one of the worst defensive starting power forwards in the league. His rebounding is IMO very real though.

by poster on Jan 23, 2011 11:12 PM PST up reply actions  

the problem with the rebound stealing argument

is that that’s true of every elite rebounder ever, so it’s pretty much a non-argument.

the only part that has any real validity is the poor rebounding teammates. And actually a better argument than anything raised in the original post is that Minnesota is #1 in pace this season, which inflates Love’s stats more than anything that poor rebounding teammates or any other factor would produce.

by howlingfantods on Jan 23, 2011 2:41 PM PST up reply actions  

my reply button isn’t working for some reason— so in reply to poorwebguy, NVE does not list any blatant scorekeeper mistakes— he says there were 4 more rebounds given to Love than he would have awarded, but then he only gives one example (presumably the most dubious one) and really, its a rebound for Love, albeit an unimpressive one. A blocked shot has to result in a rebound, and if the scorer felt Johnson never controlled the ball, its a rebound for Love. Would another scorer have given the rebound to Johnson? Quite possibly, but if that’s NVE’s best example, its not exactly a smoking gun.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 23, 2011 1:30 PM PST reply actions  

Nothing is a smoking gun

and I’m sure there are more examples. As I said, I think of Kevin Love as an elite rebounder. That doesn’t mean his number aren’t pumped up a little though.

I’ll ask you you the same question I asked someone else above…

In your opinion, would Love be able to pull down 20 or 30 boards playing beside Camby, Nico and Dre?

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 1:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Not sure why you include Nico and Dre since Dre rebounds well for a PG but not super well and Beasley rebounds more than Nic.

Do I think Love would get 20 or 30 rebounds playing besides Camby rather than Darko? I think he would have the occasional 20 rebound game (not 30, and less often for 20) but his rebounding average would certainly go down.

long live the jd.

by jksnake99 on Jan 23, 2011 1:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Nic and Dre were just added perspective

I would guess Camby and Love would both bounce back and forth between 9 and 12 most of the time.

Thanks for the answer BTW. It’s only logical that Love’s numbers go down on a better team. If Love went to a contender and assuming he could play enough defense to be a starter, I’m pretty sure his numbers would take a very substantial hit.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions  

believe it was 4 rebounds on one possession late there,

its hard for me to fault someone hitting offensive boards hard no matter what, and its hard to believe that someone is going to use controlled tips to pad rebounding stats. with those big bodies pounding each other on the boards lot of the stuff we might talk about here, likely never enters into the players minds.

love is a hard working rebounder, with decent offensive skills. it does seem to me that he should play better team defense, but that could somewhat be the fault of the defensive scheme that they run. in the blazers game last week he seemed to be more concerned with boxing out for the board, than challenging the possession.

griffin and love are undeniable talents, and really don’t think anyone is disputing that. i would argue that in terms of importance to the team, aldridge outshines them cause of the different things he does, some of which won’t show up in the boxscore. it seems undeniable that he does make more effort on defense as well, and his length is likely more disruptive that that of griffin or love.

by utahcoyote on Jan 23, 2011 6:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Reminds me of a game we call "crunch"

It’s basically basketball but everyone versus everyone else so that one person is on offense and everyone else is on defense. Played best with 3 players.

A good lazy man’s strategy is to make the other guy take the lions share of the defensive work, playing off of him as a kind of help defender but with good position to box him out when the miss comes off the rim.

Never thought I’d see that strategy employed so well at the NBA level.

by poorwebguy on Jan 23, 2011 11:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah I've called it that before too

Depends on how much jungle ball goes on really. If there are elbows and bloody noses it becomes crunch lol

by poorwebguy on Jan 25, 2011 9:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Cool info

OSU '06
Trade for Gerald Wallace!!

by TyboOSU on Jan 23, 2011 5:25 PM PST via mobile reply actions  

Interesting post

It makes me almost as depressed for Minnesota fans as I am for Blazer fans.

Whether Love’s boards are the product of home cooking, pace of play, sheer ability and know-how, or a stat-minded obsession that harms other aspects of his game (I remember Rodman being a little like that) is interesting stuff for debate. (My best guess is that Love is a little All Of The Above.)

Still . . . he might be the first Lake Oswego resident, ever, to clean his own glass.

by twinsbrewer on Jan 23, 2011 10:03 PM PST reply actions  

Your recollection of Rodman is correct

Early in his career, he was known as a defensive stopper. But once he discovered the greater marketability of big rebounding stats, he abandoned defense for a single-minded focus on rebounding.

In fact, other “historic” rebounders have feet of clay, so to speak. Moses Malone was famous for throwing the ball against the glass, grabbing it, then doing so again before actually trying to make the shot. Chamberlain & Russell played in an era in which there were more foul shots, due to “back court fouls,” etc. And, then as now, defending centers were practically conceded the bulk of those foul shot rebounds—like picking low-hanging fruit. So that padded their rebounding numbers relative to contemporary players. Etc, etc.

This isn’t to justify Love’s inflated stats. Just to put them in context.

I still believe in Greg Oden. The Blazers' medical staff? Not so much.

I'd change my handle to "bringback'09," but I'm too lazy.

by hurryup09 on Jan 24, 2011 8:03 AM PST up reply actions  

well, I'll say one thing either way...

his double doubles definitely aren’t translating to wins…..

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

by jenstcy on Jan 24, 2011 8:11 AM PST reply actions  

For the play in question

Did Johnson have clear possession of the ball? I could see how that play could be subjective, and isn’t entirely dubious.

I’d like to know how many of Camby’s tip passes are credited to him as rebounds.

by ODEN on a stick on Jan 24, 2011 10:18 AM PST reply actions  

Camby does get credit for a ton of tips, which is interesting since LMA and Joel both didn't get credit for tipping a ball out to a teammate against the Pacers.

I thought Johnson had possession of the ball and was clearly making a pass, not even a tip since he had both hands around the ball.

The problem would be if Love is getting credit for both tipping the ball out and having the ball tipped to him.

Love was also credited for a rebound after Jefferson knocked it out of bounds before he could get to it. That should have been recorded as a team rebound, but they just gave it to Love anyway.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 24, 2011 10:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah I can see Camby getting a lot of the same elite rebounder treatment

that Kevin Love gets. “Elite rebounder” seems like a nice label to have.

by poorwebguy on Jan 24, 2011 12:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Can we agree that Love is a great rebounder?

He gets excellent position, works hard, and has a wide, strong body. He’s one of the best rebounders in the NBA. People here are arguing about 3-9% of his rebounds, but we could do that with any NBA player. This whole thread is pretty ridiculous to me and an slightly veiled attempt show that Love should be below Aldridge for the All-Star game.

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 24, 2011 11:12 AM PST reply actions  

It's more than 3-9%.

His offensive rebounding rate has gone down every year since he was a rookie. His defensive rebounding rate on the other hand, made a tremendous leap this year after Al Jefferson left.

He’s not creating any more rebounds for himself this year (less actually). He’s just taking them from his teammates on the defensive end, which of course has a huge diminishing return on value.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 24, 2011 11:22 AM PST up reply actions  

What is your thesis here then?

That Love is overrated as a rebounder? Do you not think he is one of the top rebounders in the game? Why are you knocking him for stepping up his rebounding now that Al Jefferson left? And what does it matter if he takes rebounds from his teammates? The team gets a rebound either way.

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 24, 2011 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I think he's overrated as a rebounder.

I don’t think he’s any better than Reggie Evans, Kris Humphries, DeJuan Blair, etc, but he get’s sooooo much more attention for it. He’s obviously good, but not really 16 rebounds a game good.

It matters that he’s taking rebounds from his teammates, because it’s not helping the team. Getting an offensive rebound is huge, because you’re creating another possession. Getting a defensive rebound is fine, but there’s a diminishing return. The more you get the less they matter. They don’t matter at all if you’re just stealing them from another player who already had it.

Offensive Rebounding Rate
08-09: 15.1
09-10: 14.5
10-11: 14.1

Defensive Rebounding Rate
08-09: 27.3
09-10: 28.6
10-11: 33.1

He’s getting progressively worse at the type of rebounding that really matters. It’s basically empty numbers. He’s chasing rebounds at the expense of everything else and it’s almost certainly hurting the team.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 24, 2011 1:06 PM PST up reply actions  

So his .4% drop in offensive rebounding rate makes him overrated

while his 4.5% in defensive rebounding rate is meaningless. Not buying it. Someone has to get those rebounds for his team or else the other team gets offensive rebounds. It’s not his fault he is by far the best rebounder on his team and thus “takes” them from his teammates.

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 24, 2011 2:04 PM PST up reply actions  

His oreb rate is dropping

because he’s more involved in the offense. It’s hard to rebound your own three point shot attempts. It’s really not that mysterious.

by howlingfantods on Jan 24, 2011 6:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Love should be below LMA in the All-Star game

but Love is still a better rebounder than Aldridge. This doesn’t have to be a completely polar discussion.

Love has better rebounding instincts than LMA while LMA is the more dominant player by far. Love is the better shooter while LMA is a fair shooter for his size and can abuse double and triple coverage in the paint.

Love mostly feeds off plays that don’t make a difference in the game’s outcome. LMA meshes well with everyone on the team and has them winning and even gaining in the playoff race despite all odds.

by poorwebguy on Jan 24, 2011 12:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Mostly agree

Love is a better rebounder than Aldridge and a little bit better outside shooter. Aldridge is better inside of 15’, can get his own shot much easier from the post, and is far superior on defense. I dunno who should be the All-Star…if Aldridge (our current conference player of the week) keeps this level up he will be the coach’s selection barring Love getting 20 boards a game.

People across the NBA are starting to recognize Aldridge now. If he can keep his 25 points, 10 boards, 3 assists and 1 block routine up he should be in the game. If he regresses some Love deserves the spot.

I dispense B.S. and facts. It is up to you to figure out which is which.

by GMan83201 on Jan 24, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah that

By saying Love is a better shooter I mostly meant his ability to can 3pt shots. He’s hitting with ridiculous efficiency from 3pt…though he has to be set up.

Your breakdown is more detailed and I can agree with everything you said.

by poorwebguy on Jan 24, 2011 3:23 PM PST up reply actions  

oh what basis is LMA a more dominant player?

Player 1: 21.4 ppg, on 17.4 fga, on 53.7% true shooting.
Player 2: 21.3 ppg, on 15.4 fga, on 58.6% true shooting.

Which one is more dominant? The guy who scores the same number of points on fewer field goal attempts, maybe?

Aldridge has been very very good for 5 weeks now, but if you look at the whole season to date, Love has put up much better numbers.

by howlingfantods on Jan 24, 2011 6:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Simply false.

Love plays around 32 minutes per game in their blowout losses, and around 38 to 40 mpg in tightly contested games. Same as every other key starter on every other team.

Although Minnesota doesn’t have a great record, they’re generally pretty competitive in their games—they’re not the Cavs, getting blown out by 20 every game. Since Rambis started playing Love starter type minutes in mid-November, they’ve only absorbed four losses over 15 points in those 30 or so games. As opposed to their first 10 games, where they were getting savagely beaten by gigantic point margins while Rambis was stupidly not playing Love more minutes.

by howlingfantods on Jan 24, 2011 11:27 PM PST up reply actions  

second worst.

but as I pointed out in my reply to you above, they would actually be 24th in the league (behind the bobcats, ahead of the pistons) if you just looked at the MOV of the games where Love started playing starter minutes.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 12:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Isn't he still playing more garbage minutes than LMA even if his minutes are reduced in blowouts?

"If I had a dime for every basket I made today, you'd still suck!" - from the book 'John Dies @ the End'

by sammymohawk on Jan 25, 2011 11:28 AM PST up reply actions  

no.

LMA averages around 38 mpg in our five blowout losses (i.e. games lost by more than 15 points). Love averages around 32 mpg in their 4 blowout losses, only counting those games after game 10 or so when he started getting starter minutes.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 2:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Assuming (incorrectly) that garbage minutes only happen if a team wins by 15.

Also, why would you only count after game 10 “or so”? He can’t play garbage minutes unless he’s getting starters minutes.

I think your passion for this subject might be clouding your judgement.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 25, 2011 2:33 PM PST up reply actions  

My point is strengthened if I include

the games before he got starter’s minutes. Because he played fewer mpg in those, savvy?

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 3:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Not at all.

MPG doesn’t have any impact on amount of garbage minutes played.

Garbage time varies greatly depending on the game. Someone could play 40 minutes and then sit out the last 8 or someone could play zero minutes and then play the last 10 of garbage time.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 25, 2011 4:17 PM PST up reply actions  

yep...

someones buried his head pretty deep if they are trying to say that ANYONE on the wolves hasn’t played more garbage time.

I would qualify their whole season as garbage at this point

by vullkem116 on Jan 25, 2011 6:49 PM PST up reply actions  

well, "garbage time" is actually a term

that has a pretty specific meaning. It’s cool if you use it in a different way, but realize that I’m using it in the way it’s normally used:

Garbage time, also known as “junk time”, is a term used in American sports (most commonly, basketball and football) parlance to refer to the period at the end of a timed sporting event that has become a blowout when the outcome of the game has already been decided, and the coaches of one or both teams will decide to replace their best players with substitutes. This serves to give those substitutes playing time experience in an actual game situation, as well as to protect the best players from the possibility of injury.

The contention you guys are trying to make is that Love is somehow unique in playing a lot of garbage time even though he’s one of the best players on his team. I’m telling you that that’s not true, and I’ve given lots of evidence that’s the case— his minutes in blowouts compared to Aldridge’s minutes in blowouts. You guys haven’t really provided anything to contradict me besides weak attempts to redefine the term.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

in reality, most Wolves games lately

have been very closely for most of the games. The wolves often have leads in the first half or even into the fourth quarter. Like a lot of bad teams, they have trouble with fourth quarter execution, and they can’t match good teams when good teams engages another gear.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 7:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Better teams only have to turn it up near the end of the game

With really bad teams, like the wolves, garbage time can even be the first three quarters. It depends on the game. Could be the first 40 minutes.

For that reason it will be hard to tell how much Love’s stats are really worth until he plays on a better team.

by poorwebguy on Jan 25, 2011 10:19 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

and btw, I don't really have passion for this subject

outside of being one of the more rebound-appreciating guys around. Seems to me like you’re the one who has a predetermined thesis (“love bad!”) and are coming up with specious reasonings for supporting that thesis.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 3:19 PM PST up reply actions  

I would have trade LMA for Love straight up a couple weeks ago.

It was only after reading comment over at Canis Hoopus that I became curious about the actual strength of his numbers.

Kevin Love has a somewhat unique circumstance. In that he went from being underplayed and underutilized, even as the best player on the team, to getting the minutes he deserves. He then got basically a new team (rebounding with Darko instead of Big Al, would be my biggest suggestion for rebounding …and on top of that he started stealing rebounds from teammates to boost the numbers a bit.-by Mplax on Jan 2, 2011 5:32 PM PST

That last part really rings true doesn’t it?

rebounding with Darko instead of Big Al, would be my biggest suggestion for rebounding …and on top of that he started stealing rebounds from teammates to boost the numbers a bit

I still think he’s a good role player, but that doesn’t mean the strength of his rebounding numbers aren’t exaggerated.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 25, 2011 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

again, every top rebounder steals rebounds

from teammates. It’s what elite rebounders do—they focus on the shot and trajectory and lose focus on who’s between them and the ball. Rodman wouldn’t just go over the back of his teammates, he’d elbow Longley in his fat face if he tried to grab the board away from him.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 6:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Not to get too involved in this debate

but you can’t just look at the minutes in these “blowout” losses to determine garbage time…looking at the Blazers and T’Wolves respective records, I find it very hard to believe that Love hasn’t played in more garbage time than LMA. But that’s not the crux of this debate, just a piece of it.

"If I had a dime for every basket I made today, you'd still suck!" - from the book 'John Dies @ the End'

by sammymohawk on Jan 25, 2011 4:41 PM PST up reply actions  

look at the game results for the wolves in the last two months.

really not that many blowouts. I don’t consider any time you’re trailing in single digits to be garbage time.

The big difference in playing time for Love in blowouts versus closely contested games is pretty indicative of how Rambis deploys him. If the game is contested, Love is in the game. If the game is out of reach, Rambis sits him.

Not sure why that’s so hard to believe—even on bad teams, the coaches sit their star players during garbage time. Rambis might be a horrible coach in a lot of ways, but at least in terms of sitting his stars during garbage time, he’s very unexceptional.

by howlingfantods on Jan 25, 2011 6:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Have to shake my head at this question

Maybe you misunderstood my use of the word “dominant”. I was referring more to style of play.

Aside from that, Love’s numbers haven’t really been game changers. His stats are completely siiick but it’s hard to attach the word “dominant” to a player whose team almost never wins. It could be that the rest of his team is just that bad. Would love to see him play on a decent team.

by poorwebguy on Jan 25, 2011 10:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Old Lovey-Dovey really comes across as an unpleasant figure

Someone, playing on a team, who is so obsessed with jacking up his personal statistics… so obsessed that he makes completely selfish decisions on the court… decisions that he knows will hurt his team… I think this really reflects a mental illness. At the least it reflects a tendency toward self-absorbed anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior is the last thing you want on a team.

Could be this runs in the family. Lotta tales floating around out there about the senior Love’s self-absorbed anti-social behavior.

Goldman Sachs is the # 1 donor to $enator Evan Bayh, who serves on the $enate committee that overseas the Treasury Department. In a totally unrelated coincidence, after the Government enacted a bailout program that funnels huge amounts of taxpayer $$$$ to Goldman Sachs, this is what happened: Goldman Sachs earned $1.81 billion, or $3.39 a share, for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Goldman Sachs shares, which have surged more than 70% during the past month, continued rising late Monday, gaining about 4.7% for the day.

Nobody even tries to hide this any longer. The only way they could make it more blatant is if they hung a huge Goldman Sachs logo on the Capitol dome and then branded it onto the foreheads of leading members of Congress and executive branch officials.

by vavoom on Jan 24, 2011 11:58 AM PST reply actions  

national TV

When was the last time the Wolves were on national TV? KG was still wearing 21 when it happened. Those still pics you are showing are there local fox sports station.

by 1414 on Jan 24, 2011 12:50 PM PST reply actions  

I mean a real national game with TNT, ESPN, ABC announcers and not where someone picks up a feed. I can’t get NBATV with my cable company so I have never seen it.

by 1414 on Jan 25, 2011 9:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Interesting fact

Kobe’s true high in points is only 12, and the night he went for over 80 he only have 9.

OMG I just jizzed in my France
OMGrandpa

by sug on Jan 25, 2011 8:18 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The ultimate coverage and analysis of the Portland Trail Blazers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
A Junkless Proposition - Five-Two-Six-Two-Aught-onetwo.
Small
Consensus Mock Draft
Photo_3__small
JD 5/22
Bns_small
You're The GM. Whats your move?
Small
Hard to be a fan of a team that is so poorly managed.

Recent FanPosts

Small
My dream is the Blazers signing Jeremy Lin
Small
Would you do this trade? Lowry, Okafor, #4?
Small
Keep an Eye on Great Britain
Small
two options with $20 mill cap space, the #6 pick and some luck
Batum_small
Alternate 2012 Olympics Team
Small
Collective mock draft
Small
GM Poll: K Love or L Train
Small
Off season ideas

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Assistant Michael Malone interested in the Blazers
The LeBron James Conundrum: A Legacy In Question
Shooting percentages as they apply to certain areas of the court.  Note who one of the best shooters in the NBA from the wing is.  Check out the guy dominating under the hoop as well.  Pretty impressive for a 6'9'' guy.
Fernandez: Joel Freeland Faces July 10 Deadline For Contract Buyout
Church of Basketball: An Interview With Dave

Recent FanShots

Perry Jones III story
Jalen Rose on D'Antoni
Isiah Thomas hoping for return
Ferry in mix for vacant Portland GM job
Where's The GM?
Orlando Magic has decided to trade Dwight Howard
If the Sixers are eliminated by the Boston Celtics in Game 7, the general...
Interesting Quotation from Chad Ford RE: Morway and Rebuilding
Malone is a winner...
Lamarcus aldridge first nba game

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Headshotsmall_small Ben Golliver

Lead Moderators

Getfuzzy-satchel_small Timmay!

Bucky3_small Cablinasian

Authors

Plainlc_small Storyteller

Moderators

Lamb_small T Darkstar

Small douglast

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Lrg_magpie_small Corvid

Wallpaper_small geoffm