knickscity wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Firstly, I do want to commend you for being able to temper your expectations, it makes it easier to respond.

nixluva wrote:The important point is that AB is NOT a bad defender when it comes to guarding his man. There's statistical proof suggests that he's a very good man defender at the PF spot. What he doesn't do well is help defense, which is what Tyson and KMart are here for. If you start Bargnani with Tyson and Melo you can still let Melo get to post up cuz it won't really effect AB who can score form anywhere on the floor.

I dont think this should be Woody's approach, the guy that should be free to roam the floor if anyone should be Melo.

Bargnani doesnt hit the three ball as well as melo, even though I'm not a fan of him taking 6 a game either, but he hits them at a high rate.

Bargnani needs to have a defined role, and that role is low post, make the defense pay to free up the wing.

nixluva wrote:The question of rebounds is a legit concern, however, let's also put that into perspective. Spurs were #20, Knicks were #26 and Heat were #30 in rebounds. Being a top rebounding team doesn't guarantee you will win. It's one aspect of the game. Of course you don't want to be bad at rebounding but you don't win the title on that aspect alone. The point of bringing in AB is to get him back to scoring the ball and making the team harder to defend. This team can't go further in the playoffs without more scoring variety.

Being a poor rebounding team makes it harder to win, and the Spurs and Heat arent bad at all....they dont miss shots...thus less OFFENSIVE rebounds to get......

But in the regular season the Spurs were 4th in DEFENSIVE rebounds...the Knicks were 25....a major difference, and that 4th was fractions away from #1, and a hair above the Pacers.

Miami was middle of the pack on defensive boards, and thats expected with no center, but ironically ranked higher than Memphis.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/rebounds-per-game/sort/avgDefensiveRebounds

You dont find it odd that the worst shooting teams are the best rebounding ones by stats? Indy and Chi cant shoot to save their life.

But Miami and Spurs get the boards the need to because they have good rebounders on their teams.

The Spurs were tied with Indy for top 5 in defensive rebounding, so yes, once again, they get the boards they should.

Our defensive rebounding was awful in the regular and post season....that has to change.

nixluva wrote:Of course we'd love it if Bargnani was a 20/10 guy but then we'd have zero chance of getting him if he was. We're not getting optimal position players here. The Knicks have to figure out ways to win despite the flawed nature of their players. Last year they were pretty successful despite being a poor rebounding team. The same was true for the Spurs and Heat. Teams today have flaws. Fans here just don't like the flaws the Knicks have because traditionally rebounding is a core belief of what it takes to win. It's a tough sell. To make it work the Knicks have to be superior in other aspects of the game to make up for the weak rebounding. That's what the Spurs do and the Heat, who just happen to have played in the NBA Finals. To get to the Finals they had to beat the #1 and the #12 rebounding teams in the NBA, Indy and Memphis.

Yes, rebounding is a core element as I explained above, but elite defense is a paramount along with efficient scoring....something Miami and Spurs are very good at.

More defense if the offense is poor....see Bulls and Pacers.

I know folks look at the Mavs to show yes, an offensive minded team can do it...

But the year they won....

Top 10 in defensive rebounding....-1.7 margin total.....and also 6th best in opponents PPS....they did more than score.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/year/2011/seasontype/3

To get a true view of where we were....

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense-per-game/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/seasontype/3

Although, they ranked 25th in defensive rebounds per game they had the 4th best defensive rebounding percentage at .747. SO the kNicks were not a bad defensive rebounding team.

Doesnt rebounding % add up your total rebounds to equal 100%? if I understand that correctly it isnt a comparison to other teams, but merely the % of how you get the rebounds you did.

So yeah 75% of the Knicks boards were defensive, but that 25th is a relation to all of teams...they were bad, awful actually.

There is no excuse for a playoff team to be that low on defensive boards.

IT adds up the total available defensive rebounds. So of the total available defensive rebounds to get on the floor the Knicks as a team grabbed 74.7% of them. They do not avg a higher number of rebounds because there are not more to be had. That can go to being a bad defensive team and being a good team at forcing turnovers.

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Firstly, I do want to commend you for being able to temper your expectations, it makes it easier to respond.

nixluva wrote:The important point is that AB is NOT a bad defender when it comes to guarding his man. There's statistical proof suggests that he's a very good man defender at the PF spot. What he doesn't do well is help defense, which is what Tyson and KMart are here for. If you start Bargnani with Tyson and Melo you can still let Melo get to post up cuz it won't really effect AB who can score form anywhere on the floor.

I dont think this should be Woody's approach, the guy that should be free to roam the floor if anyone should be Melo.

Bargnani doesnt hit the three ball as well as melo, even though I'm not a fan of him taking 6 a game either, but he hits them at a high rate.

Bargnani needs to have a defined role, and that role is low post, make the defense pay to free up the wing.

nixluva wrote:The question of rebounds is a legit concern, however, let's also put that into perspective. Spurs were #20, Knicks were #26 and Heat were #30 in rebounds. Being a top rebounding team doesn't guarantee you will win. It's one aspect of the game. Of course you don't want to be bad at rebounding but you don't win the title on that aspect alone. The point of bringing in AB is to get him back to scoring the ball and making the team harder to defend. This team can't go further in the playoffs without more scoring variety.

Being a poor rebounding team makes it harder to win, and the Spurs and Heat arent bad at all....they dont miss shots...thus less OFFENSIVE rebounds to get......

But in the regular season the Spurs were 4th in DEFENSIVE rebounds...the Knicks were 25....a major difference, and that 4th was fractions away from #1, and a hair above the Pacers.

Miami was middle of the pack on defensive boards, and thats expected with no center, but ironically ranked higher than Memphis.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/rebounds-per-game/sort/avgDefensiveRebounds

You dont find it odd that the worst shooting teams are the best rebounding ones by stats? Indy and Chi cant shoot to save their life.

But Miami and Spurs get the boards the need to because they have good rebounders on their teams.

The Spurs were tied with Indy for top 5 in defensive rebounding, so yes, once again, they get the boards they should.

Our defensive rebounding was awful in the regular and post season....that has to change.

nixluva wrote:Of course we'd love it if Bargnani was a 20/10 guy but then we'd have zero chance of getting him if he was. We're not getting optimal position players here. The Knicks have to figure out ways to win despite the flawed nature of their players. Last year they were pretty successful despite being a poor rebounding team. The same was true for the Spurs and Heat. Teams today have flaws. Fans here just don't like the flaws the Knicks have because traditionally rebounding is a core belief of what it takes to win. It's a tough sell. To make it work the Knicks have to be superior in other aspects of the game to make up for the weak rebounding. That's what the Spurs do and the Heat, who just happen to have played in the NBA Finals. To get to the Finals they had to beat the #1 and the #12 rebounding teams in the NBA, Indy and Memphis.

Yes, rebounding is a core element as I explained above, but elite defense is a paramount along with efficient scoring....something Miami and Spurs are very good at.

More defense if the offense is poor....see Bulls and Pacers.

I know folks look at the Mavs to show yes, an offensive minded team can do it...

But the year they won....

Top 10 in defensive rebounding....-1.7 margin total.....and also 6th best in opponents PPS....they did more than score.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/year/2011/seasontype/3

To get a true view of where we were....

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense-per-game/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/seasontype/3

Although, they ranked 25th in defensive rebounds per game they had the 4th best defensive rebounding percentage at .747. SO the kNicks were not a bad defensive rebounding team.

Doesnt rebounding % add up your total rebounds to equal 100%? if I understand that correctly it isnt a comparison to other teams, but merely the % of how you get the rebounds you did.

So yeah 75% of the Knicks boards were defensive, but that 25th is a relation to all of teams...they were bad, awful actually.

There is no excuse for a playoff team to be that low on defensive boards.

IT adds up the total available defensive rebounds. So of the total available defensive rebounds to get on the floor the Knicks as a team grabbed 74.7% of them. They do not avg a higher number of rebounds because there are not more to be had. That can go to being a bad defensive team and being a good team at forcing turnovers.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Firstly, I do want to commend you for being able to temper your expectations, it makes it easier to respond.

nixluva wrote:The important point is that AB is NOT a bad defender when it comes to guarding his man. There's statistical proof suggests that he's a very good man defender at the PF spot. What he doesn't do well is help defense, which is what Tyson and KMart are here for. If you start Bargnani with Tyson and Melo you can still let Melo get to post up cuz it won't really effect AB who can score form anywhere on the floor.

I dont think this should be Woody's approach, the guy that should be free to roam the floor if anyone should be Melo.

Bargnani doesnt hit the three ball as well as melo, even though I'm not a fan of him taking 6 a game either, but he hits them at a high rate.

Bargnani needs to have a defined role, and that role is low post, make the defense pay to free up the wing.

nixluva wrote:The question of rebounds is a legit concern, however, let's also put that into perspective. Spurs were #20, Knicks were #26 and Heat were #30 in rebounds. Being a top rebounding team doesn't guarantee you will win. It's one aspect of the game. Of course you don't want to be bad at rebounding but you don't win the title on that aspect alone. The point of bringing in AB is to get him back to scoring the ball and making the team harder to defend. This team can't go further in the playoffs without more scoring variety.

Being a poor rebounding team makes it harder to win, and the Spurs and Heat arent bad at all....they dont miss shots...thus less OFFENSIVE rebounds to get......

But in the regular season the Spurs were 4th in DEFENSIVE rebounds...the Knicks were 25....a major difference, and that 4th was fractions away from #1, and a hair above the Pacers.

Miami was middle of the pack on defensive boards, and thats expected with no center, but ironically ranked higher than Memphis.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/rebounds-per-game/sort/avgDefensiveRebounds

You dont find it odd that the worst shooting teams are the best rebounding ones by stats? Indy and Chi cant shoot to save their life.

But Miami and Spurs get the boards the need to because they have good rebounders on their teams.

The Spurs were tied with Indy for top 5 in defensive rebounding, so yes, once again, they get the boards they should.

Our defensive rebounding was awful in the regular and post season....that has to change.

nixluva wrote:Of course we'd love it if Bargnani was a 20/10 guy but then we'd have zero chance of getting him if he was. We're not getting optimal position players here. The Knicks have to figure out ways to win despite the flawed nature of their players. Last year they were pretty successful despite being a poor rebounding team. The same was true for the Spurs and Heat. Teams today have flaws. Fans here just don't like the flaws the Knicks have because traditionally rebounding is a core belief of what it takes to win. It's a tough sell. To make it work the Knicks have to be superior in other aspects of the game to make up for the weak rebounding. That's what the Spurs do and the Heat, who just happen to have played in the NBA Finals. To get to the Finals they had to beat the #1 and the #12 rebounding teams in the NBA, Indy and Memphis.

Yes, rebounding is a core element as I explained above, but elite defense is a paramount along with efficient scoring....something Miami and Spurs are very good at.

More defense if the offense is poor....see Bulls and Pacers.

I know folks look at the Mavs to show yes, an offensive minded team can do it...

But the year they won....

Top 10 in defensive rebounding....-1.7 margin total.....and also 6th best in opponents PPS....they did more than score.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/year/2011/seasontype/3

To get a true view of where we were....

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense-per-game/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/seasontype/3

Although, they ranked 25th in defensive rebounds per game they had the 4th best defensive rebounding percentage at .747. SO the kNicks were not a bad defensive rebounding team.

Yeah the team was much worse at offensive rebounding

Is that what the discussion was about? I thought it was about defensive rebouning. Yes, they were a bad offensive rebounding team (19th OREB%) which can be attributed to the players but it can also be attributed to team scheme.

knickscity wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Firstly, I do want to commend you for being able to temper your expectations, it makes it easier to respond.

nixluva wrote:The important point is that AB is NOT a bad defender when it comes to guarding his man. There's statistical proof suggests that he's a very good man defender at the PF spot. What he doesn't do well is help defense, which is what Tyson and KMart are here for. If you start Bargnani with Tyson and Melo you can still let Melo get to post up cuz it won't really effect AB who can score form anywhere on the floor.

I dont think this should be Woody's approach, the guy that should be free to roam the floor if anyone should be Melo.

Bargnani doesnt hit the three ball as well as melo, even though I'm not a fan of him taking 6 a game either, but he hits them at a high rate.

Bargnani needs to have a defined role, and that role is low post, make the defense pay to free up the wing.

nixluva wrote:The question of rebounds is a legit concern, however, let's also put that into perspective. Spurs were #20, Knicks were #26 and Heat were #30 in rebounds. Being a top rebounding team doesn't guarantee you will win. It's one aspect of the game. Of course you don't want to be bad at rebounding but you don't win the title on that aspect alone. The point of bringing in AB is to get him back to scoring the ball and making the team harder to defend. This team can't go further in the playoffs without more scoring variety.

Being a poor rebounding team makes it harder to win, and the Spurs and Heat arent bad at all....they dont miss shots...thus less OFFENSIVE rebounds to get......

But in the regular season the Spurs were 4th in DEFENSIVE rebounds...the Knicks were 25....a major difference, and that 4th was fractions away from #1, and a hair above the Pacers.

Miami was middle of the pack on defensive boards, and thats expected with no center, but ironically ranked higher than Memphis.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/rebounds-per-game/sort/avgDefensiveRebounds

You dont find it odd that the worst shooting teams are the best rebounding ones by stats? Indy and Chi cant shoot to save their life.

But Miami and Spurs get the boards the need to because they have good rebounders on their teams.

The Spurs were tied with Indy for top 5 in defensive rebounding, so yes, once again, they get the boards they should.

Our defensive rebounding was awful in the regular and post season....that has to change.

nixluva wrote:Of course we'd love it if Bargnani was a 20/10 guy but then we'd have zero chance of getting him if he was. We're not getting optimal position players here. The Knicks have to figure out ways to win despite the flawed nature of their players. Last year they were pretty successful despite being a poor rebounding team. The same was true for the Spurs and Heat. Teams today have flaws. Fans here just don't like the flaws the Knicks have because traditionally rebounding is a core belief of what it takes to win. It's a tough sell. To make it work the Knicks have to be superior in other aspects of the game to make up for the weak rebounding. That's what the Spurs do and the Heat, who just happen to have played in the NBA Finals. To get to the Finals they had to beat the #1 and the #12 rebounding teams in the NBA, Indy and Memphis.

Yes, rebounding is a core element as I explained above, but elite defense is a paramount along with efficient scoring....something Miami and Spurs are very good at.

More defense if the offense is poor....see Bulls and Pacers.

I know folks look at the Mavs to show yes, an offensive minded team can do it...

But the year they won....

Top 10 in defensive rebounding....-1.7 margin total.....and also 6th best in opponents PPS....they did more than score.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/year/2011/seasontype/3

To get a true view of where we were....

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense-per-game/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/seasontype/3

Although, they ranked 25th in defensive rebounds per game they had the 4th best defensive rebounding percentage at .747. SO the kNicks were not a bad defensive rebounding team.

Doesnt rebounding % add up your total rebounds to equal 100%? if I understand that correctly it isnt a comparison to other teams, but merely the % of how you get the rebounds you did.

So yeah 75% of the Knicks boards were defensive, but that 25th is a relation to all of teams...they were bad, awful actually.

There is no excuse for a playoff team to be that low on defensive boards.

IT adds up the total available defensive rebounds. So of the total available defensive rebounds to get on the floor the Knicks as a team grabbed 74.7% of them. They do not avg a higher number of rebounds because there are not more to be had. That can go to being a bad defensive team and being a good team at forcing turnovers.

I honestly dont see the purpose of this stat, they certainly were not getting more defensive boards than their opponent.

It's easy. The knicks had one of the slower paces in the NBA last year. They limited their TOs and turned their opponents over a lot, 4th highest TOV%, so that limits the number of possessions and opportunities to avg a high number of defensive rebounds every night compared to other teams. However of the available defensive rebounds 74.7% of the time the Knicks were able to grab the board.

Basically they can't avg a high number of defensive rebounds because there were not that many available to get. The knicks had 5 chances to get a rebound every night and of those 5 chances they avg 3.75 boards. Another team gets 10 chances to rebound the ball and of those chances they rebounded it 6 times. Even though the knicks avg less boards they actually do a better job at rebounding the ball.

I hope that simplifies things or give you a better understanding.

yellowboy90 wrote:

callmened wrote:so now were comparing bargnani to dirk..lol...no i get it. but please remember the difference is that dallas team surrounded him with defensive players (tyson, haywood, stephenson, etc etc). i dont mind playing bargs at all as long as he PROVES that he wont be lazy (his words) and hell give effort on defense and rebounding. he needs to prove that in training camp.

IF Tyson goes back to playing defense like he did the year before I'm cool with playing Bargs at the 4.

+10000

when i watched bargs for several yrs, i noticed a lazy and disintered player who always got bullied around. thats not to say that he CANT improve. its just a concern of mine with bargnani. he MUST improve his effort!

"I think AB is going to be motivated to play hard and being surrounded by other good players and a much more positive environment should help."..this is what you think, thats what i hope as well. most of the time, you cant teach and an old dog new tricks. some players are just lazy...it happens..

(by the way nixluva, im not knocking you. you make VERY valid points. its just that i respectfully disagree with you. we wont ultimately know the truth until the season starts. so far from what ive seen from him, he's a tall SF trapped in a center's body. lazy and soft though)

callmened wrote:"The stats suggest that AB is among the best as an ISO defender"...then you cant take stats seriously...lol..at least not that one. this isnt baseball, stats work BEST when isolated events occur repeatedly in order to compare...theres too much improv in bball to rely on stats (of course, they ARE useful in cases like shooting, FT shooting etc). but in terms of DEFENSE, i dont like to look at stats, i like to use the "eye test". good defense can be sliding over on help defense but thats not recorded. and im sure there are other events that occur on defense that CANT be accounted for.

when i watched bargs for several yrs, i noticed a lazy and disintered player who always got bullied around. thats not to say that he CANT improve. its just a concern of mine with bargnani. he MUST improve his effort!

"I think AB is going to be motivated to play hard and being surrounded by other good players and a much more positive environment should help."..this is what you think, thats what i hope as well. most of the time, you cant teach and an old dog new tricks. some players are just lazy...it happens..

(by the way nixluva, im not knocking you. you make VERY valid points. its just that i respectfully disagree with you. we wont ultimately know the truth until the season starts. so far from what ive seen from him, he's a tall SF trapped in a center's body. lazy and soft though)

What the gist of your comments are referring to is what it takes to be a good TEAM defender. NO ONE is saying that AB is a good team defender. The organizations presenting the stats are saying that AB is actually a VERY effective man defender. There's no other way to look at the information they've presented. If bigs shoot worse when defended man to man by AB then he's is IN FACT a good man defender. He just really sucks at playing TEAM defense and helping his teammates out.

Woody's job is to try and use AB for his strengths and hope to coach him up on his TEAM defense and getting better at hitting the boards. With concentrated effort on correcting AB's bad habits I think he can indeed make improvements. We've seen players make some improvements in their defense. Doesn't mean they'll turn into very good defenders, but sometimes just not sucking as bad can be a huge plus. On top of all this we would be adding a player who can do a lot of good things offensively.

callmened wrote:the main reason i think its do-able is because he turned melo from a HORRIBLE defender into a mediocre one...ironically this has been done by hiding him at the 4 spot (so he doesnt have to play perimeter defense)...woody has taught them team defense

i agree with you that bargs should play NOT center...my only question is whether he should start. until he learns these "good habits", i wouldnt start him...id rather start artest (who brings toughness) and keep melo at the 4 so that his bad perimeter defense can continue to be kept hidden.

thats all im PLEADING for...bargs may be good for us but until he proves it, keep him on the bench

How exactly can he prove it without actually playing in the SL in real games. Practice is one thing but AB is gonna have to play in games to see how much he's actually improved in the defensive parts of the game. I think Artest is a good role player but he's not really the guy you start IMO. What is the rotation if you have AB and STAT on the bench? If you play AB in the SL he and STAT aren't in conflict in your rotation. Artest isn't here to play starter minutes. Your 27/28 yr old 7'er is the guy you're bringing in to play starter minutes. Bargnani is a career 30+ mpg starter and PRIMARY scoring option. People call him all kinds of names but that's what he's been. There's this disrespect for Bargnani that is popular now, but it's a bit overdone.

Until last year Bargnani's career was on an upward trajectory.

SEASON	       MIN	REB	AST	BLK     PTS
'06-'07	       25.1	3.9	0.8	0.8	11.6
'07-'08	       23.9	3.7	1.1	0.5	10.2
'08-'09	       31.4	5.3	1.2	1.2	15.4
'09-'10	       35.0	6.2	1.2	1.4	17.2
'10-'11	       35.7	5.2	1.8	0.7	21.4
'11-'12	       33.3	5.5	2.0	0.5	19.5
'12-'13	       28.7	3.7	1.1	0.7	12.7

There's no way in HELL you should put this guy on the bench in place of Artest. If i'm Woody I put AB in the post more often like he did with Melo and Amare and let him play major minutes. My guess is that he'll get more boards if he's used properly and not just on the perimeter all the time. They can mix it up but just lean more towards getting AB in the post more. The more he's around the basket the better his production will be.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

knickscity wrote:Firstly, I do want to commend you for being able to temper your expectations, it makes it easier to respond.

nixluva wrote:The important point is that AB is NOT a bad defender when it comes to guarding his man. There's statistical proof suggests that he's a very good man defender at the PF spot. What he doesn't do well is help defense, which is what Tyson and KMart are here for. If you start Bargnani with Tyson and Melo you can still let Melo get to post up cuz it won't really effect AB who can score form anywhere on the floor.

I dont think this should be Woody's approach, the guy that should be free to roam the floor if anyone should be Melo.

Bargnani doesnt hit the three ball as well as melo, even though I'm not a fan of him taking 6 a game either, but he hits them at a high rate.

Bargnani needs to have a defined role, and that role is low post, make the defense pay to free up the wing.

nixluva wrote:The question of rebounds is a legit concern, however, let's also put that into perspective. Spurs were #20, Knicks were #26 and Heat were #30 in rebounds. Being a top rebounding team doesn't guarantee you will win. It's one aspect of the game. Of course you don't want to be bad at rebounding but you don't win the title on that aspect alone. The point of bringing in AB is to get him back to scoring the ball and making the team harder to defend. This team can't go further in the playoffs without more scoring variety.

Being a poor rebounding team makes it harder to win, and the Spurs and Heat arent bad at all....they dont miss shots...thus less OFFENSIVE rebounds to get......

But in the regular season the Spurs were 4th in DEFENSIVE rebounds...the Knicks were 25....a major difference, and that 4th was fractions away from #1, and a hair above the Pacers.

Miami was middle of the pack on defensive boards, and thats expected with no center, but ironically ranked higher than Memphis.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/rebounds-per-game/sort/avgDefensiveRebounds

You dont find it odd that the worst shooting teams are the best rebounding ones by stats? Indy and Chi cant shoot to save their life.

But Miami and Spurs get the boards the need to because they have good rebounders on their teams.

The Spurs were tied with Indy for top 5 in defensive rebounding, so yes, once again, they get the boards they should.

Our defensive rebounding was awful in the regular and post season....that has to change.

nixluva wrote:Of course we'd love it if Bargnani was a 20/10 guy but then we'd have zero chance of getting him if he was. We're not getting optimal position players here. The Knicks have to figure out ways to win despite the flawed nature of their players. Last year they were pretty successful despite being a poor rebounding team. The same was true for the Spurs and Heat. Teams today have flaws. Fans here just don't like the flaws the Knicks have because traditionally rebounding is a core belief of what it takes to win. It's a tough sell. To make it work the Knicks have to be superior in other aspects of the game to make up for the weak rebounding. That's what the Spurs do and the Heat, who just happen to have played in the NBA Finals. To get to the Finals they had to beat the #1 and the #12 rebounding teams in the NBA, Indy and Memphis.

Yes, rebounding is a core element as I explained above, but elite defense is a paramount along with efficient scoring....something Miami and Spurs are very good at.

More defense if the offense is poor....see Bulls and Pacers.

I know folks look at the Mavs to show yes, an offensive minded team can do it...

But the year they won....

Top 10 in defensive rebounding....-1.7 margin total.....and also 6th best in opponents PPS....they did more than score.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/year/2011/seasontype/3

To get a true view of where we were....

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/defense-per-game/sort/scoringEfficiencyOpponent/seasontype/3

Although, they ranked 25th in defensive rebounds per game they had the 4th best defensive rebounding percentage at .747. SO the kNicks were not a bad defensive rebounding team.

Yeah the team was much worse at offensive rebounding

Is that what the discussion was about? I thought it was about defensive rebouning. Yes, they were a bad offensive rebounding team (19th OREB%) which can be attributed to the players but it can also be attributed to team scheme.

It was about Bargs' bad rebounding in general, until you (strategically?) redirected it towards just defensive rebounding.