Exclusive OFFICIAL AROUND THE NBA: OCTOBER 2024

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
PtldPlatypus said:
Click to expand...

Before anyone starts scoffing at this as though it's completely unreasonable, take a look at the all-time leaderboard for rebound percentage.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_pct_career.html

This goes back to 70-71. If one discounts the numbers from the 60's due to lack of surrounding size and talent, his claim isn't crazy.

Also, looking closer at Wilt...I see that he averaged 27 rpg as a rookie in 1960, playing 46mpg, in an era where there were legitimately 120-130 rebounds available over the course of each game. Had they recorded opponent missed shots back then, his calculated TRB% would likely have been around 21-22%. I think I might actually side with Drummond here.
 
Last edited:
PtldPlatypus said:
Before anyone starts scoffing at this as though it's completely unreasonable, take a look at the all-time leaderboard for rebound percentage.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_pct_career.html

This goes back to 70-71. If one discounts the numbers from the 60's due to lack of surrounding size and talent, his claim isn't crazy.

Also, looking closer at Wilt...I see that he averaged 27 rpg as a rookie in 1960, playing 46mpg, in an era where there were legitimately 120-130 rebounds available over the course of each game. Had they recorded opponent missed shots back then, his calculated TRB% would likely have been around 21-22%. I think I might actually side with Drummond here.
Click to expand...

I was curious because the knee-jerk reaction is to say Wilt or Russell

this is from the 1960-61 season:

upload_2024-10-1_8-1-16.png

if you go by league average FG's vs FGA's, the average was that teams missed 64 shots a game...meaning, theoretically, there were 128 rebounds/game available. Wilt's 27.2 rebound average would put him around a 21.3 TR rate

obviously, that 128 number is inflated. I watched back then and I remember live rims. A good number of missed shots simply bounced over the backboard or out of bounds. And of course, there were lots of fouls and some of those were committed on rebounding which back then would negate the live rebound. if you anecdotally adjust for that (115 missed shots?), it 'might' puts Wilt's rebound rate in the 23-24% range

there's an offset though for rebounds on missed FT's. Now those were the days of 3 chances to make 2 so there weren't as many cheap missed-FT rebounds available. But there were some
**********************************
I'm not sure if the lack of surrounding size and talent is a valid factor. Maybe. But I know that rebounding was a definite focus back then and Wilt's team played 33 of 79 games against Boston (Russell averaged 24), St Louis (Pettit averaged 20), and LAL (Baylor averaged 20). Wilt played against Russell 13 times. Drummond has played in an era when the big man role has evolved to the point that many big men hang out around the three point line. IIRC the key was smaller back then so bigs were able to station themselves in 'easier' rebound position (not sure which way that points)

Drummond has had the advantage that the only thing he's really been asked to do is rebound and rim protect. Wilt was asked to that too, but he was also asked to score (a lot) and pass. Wilt was dominant on offense and defense. He was dominant on the glass and in the paint. I think Drummond probably only checks one of those boxes

so sure, Wilt's era may be a factor but so might Drummond's.
 
wizenheimer said:
I was curious because the knee-jerk reaction is to say Wilt or Russell

this is from the 1960-61 season:

View attachment 65813

if you go by league average FG's vs FGA's, the average was that teams missed 64 shots a game...meaning, theoretically, there were 128 rebounds/game available. Wilt's 27.2 rebound average would put him around a 21.3 TR rate

obviously, that 128 number is inflated. I watched back then and I remember live rims. A good number of missed shots simply bounced over the backboard or out of bounds. And of course, there were lots of fouls and some of those were committed on rebounding which back then would negate the live rebound. if you anecdotally adjust for that (115 missed shots?), it 'might' puts Wilt's rebound rate in the 23-24% range

there's an offset though for rebounds on missed FT's. Now those were the days of 3 chances to make 2 so there weren't as many cheap missed-FT rebounds available. But there were some
**********************************
I'm not sure if the lack of surrounding size and talent is a valid factor. Maybe. But I know that rebounding was a definite focus back then and Wilt's team played 33 of 79 games against Boston (Russell averaged 24), St Louis (Pettit averaged 20), and LAL (Baylor averaged 20). Wilt played against Russell 13 times. Drummond has played in an era when the big man role has evolved to the point that many big men hang out around the three point line. IIRC the key was smaller back then so bigs were able to station themselves in 'easier' rebound position (not sure which way that points)

Drummond has had the advantage that the only thing he's really been asked to do is rebound and rim protect. Wilt was asked to that too, but he was also asked to score (a lot) and pass. Wilt was dominant on offense and defense. He was dominant on the glass and in the paint. I think Drummond probably only checks one of those boxes

so sure, Wilt's era may be a factor but so might Drummond's.
Click to expand...
Still, pretty crazy to think that he actually has a case.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Still, pretty crazy to think that he actually has a case.
Click to expand...

no doubt...and his case is a strong one

one factor: looking at his rebound rates, he's really been padding that rate over the last 3 seasons as his minutes average has fallen well under 20 minutes. Pretty easy to inflate rebound rates when you're mostly a backup playing limited minutes

Drummond averaged 13 minutes and 17 minutes at 29 & 30. Wilt averaged 47 & 46 minutes at the same ages
 
Last edited:
Well as long as he averages 3.5 points a game, he’ll do it THIS season. HA!
Hate all you want….21/6/6 at age 19…….. 26/8/7 at age 39………..
 
I tend to think about player value more than anything else. How much would a team be willing to give up for Ant Edwards? A lot. A whole lot. That is all that matters.
 
67 hours and 2 minutes ‘til the first game of the season Celtics vs Nuggets! Fuck baseball…..all is right in the world!!!!
 
Driew said:
He's playing the heel so well. Vince McMahon would be proud.
Click to expand...
Good friend of mine I used to work with at HBO Boxing just produced a documentary on Vince and the history of WWE is it? People should check it out. I’m not a wrestling guy, but assumed a bunch on here are.
 
Who is doing the pooping scene stunts for that documentary? that is must see tv
 
Cugel said:
I tend to think about player value more than anything else. How much would a team be willing to give up for Ant Edwards? A lot. A whole lot. That is all that matters.
Click to expand...

My hunch is, his value is a whole lot less than people assume. Edwards is a massive ball hog with questionable shot selection, and is super disrespectful to the game, both current and past. I think teams would be wary about giving up a lot to build around those qualities. It's different with Minnesota, where they're already committed to him.
 
handiman said:
My hunch is, his value is a whole lot less than people assume. Edwards is a massive ball hog with questionable shot selection, and is super disrespectful to the game, both current and past. I think teams would be wary about giving up a lot to build around those qualities. It's different with Minnesota, where they're already committed to him.
Click to expand...
My hunch is that your hunch is wrong.
 
THE HCP said:
Good friend of mine I used to work with at HBO Boxing just produced a documentary on Vince and the history of WWE is it? People should check it out. I’m not a wrestling guy, but assumed a bunch on here are.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm on the last episode. I don't know much about wrestling other than the superstars the rock, hulk hogan, john cena so it's been cool seeing how those stars started their careers etc.
 
That documentary was boring for people that already knew all that stuff, pretty much anyone that used to follow wrestling or loosely still does.

Probably incredible for people that don't know anything about the history.
 
JFizzleRaider said:
That documentary was boring for people that already knew all that stuff, pretty much anyone that used to follow wrestling or loosely still does.

Probably incredible for people that don't know anything about the history.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know very little so it's been a lot of fun. And I think that was the intention of the documentary to introduce people to WWE before the McMahon sex allegations came to light and he had to step down. With Netflix picking up WWE this was meant to introduce WWE to a new audience on Netflix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top