# 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

The NBA champ New york knicks of 1972-73 were able to claim the title with a lowly rebound per game average of 47.34 vs a league average of 50.61. The 2009-10 Celtics averaged less than 40 rebounds per game but that was against a league average of only 41.7 rebounds per game. The 1972-73 ratio placed it well below the neccessary 39.9 rebounds to qualify as a sub 40 rebound champ. Of course all of the above is subject to my having made a correct mathematical calculation. Im sure you posters will let me know if I need to go back to school at age 80.
seems

2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaileyPowe. Show BaileyPowe's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

seems, help me out. is the following in accordance w/ your post? :

if the '72-3 knicks avg'd 47.34 caroms / game, they rebounded at a rate of 93.54% when compared to the league avg of 50.61. as such....

if the '09-10 celtics rebounded at that same rate of 93.54% when compared to the league avg of 41.7, they would have avg'd only 39.01 caroms / game, thus flying in the face of fierce's stance that nba champions must avg at least 40 rebounds / game.

3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

wow....you guys are head and heals above me........!!!!

Seems.......80...?  .....I can only hope I'm in the shape you're in.....I have 18 years to go.....you are my official hero pal...!

4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kobedaman. Show kobedaman's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

In Response to 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average:
[QUOTE]   The NBA champ New york knicks of 1972-73 were able to claim the title with a lowly rebound per game average of 47.34 vs a league average of 50.61. The 2009-10 Celtics averaged less than 40 rebounds per game but that was against a league average of only 41.7 rebounds per game. The 1972-73 ratio placed it well below the neccessary 39.9 rebounds to qualify as a sub 40 rebound champ. Of course all of the above is subject to my having made a correct mathematical calculation. Im sure you posters will let me know if I need to go back to school at age 80.    seems
Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

It's called an anomaly.  Enjoy!

5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

In Response to 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average:
[QUOTE]   The NBA champ New york knicks of 1972-73 were able to claim the title with a lowly rebound per game average of 47.34 vs a league average of 50.61. The 2009-10 Celtics averaged less than 40 rebounds per game but that was against a league average of only 41.7 rebounds per game. The 1972-73 ratio placed it well below the neccessary 39.9 rebounds to qualify as a sub 40 rebound champ. Of course all of the above is subject to my having made a correct mathematical calculation. Im sure you posters will let me know if I need to go back to school at age 80.    seems
Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

God Bless - this kind of stuff keeps you young!!

6. This post has been removed.

7. This post has been removed.

8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaileyPowe. Show BaileyPowe's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

In Response to Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average:
[QUOTE]Thinking that the Celts can win a championship being the 2nd worst or being the worst rebounding team in the NBA is a pipe dream.
Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
i think most of us would agree w/ that, fierce. i do. seems often has an interesting take on things. what do you think he's getting at w/ this thread?

9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

Being a at least a good rebounding team is very important, and a team can survive an injury to one player the way some champs in the past have if they are good in all aspects of the game... but no champion has survived the loss of their starting center, and two other starters games being limited by injuries, and been able to win it all.

Those Knicks were lucky enough to have Havlicek suffer a major shoulder injury that he played with but was not himself at all (much like Ray in '10) Hondo was unable to raise his arm above his chest just like Ray was unable to get the lift he needed to hit 3's.

Now those C's were obviously not talented enough to overcome that injury get past the Knicks in the ECF, but imagine if they were somehow up 3-2 despite Havlicek's injury, then Cowens or Silas tore his ACL?? Would they be expected to win two road games missing a starting big man and one of their top 3 scorers dragging his arm around at his side?

And yet Fierce likes to repeately point out that rebounds, and not injuries, were the biggest problem the Celtics faced after they tied LA 1-1. Methink if there were no injuries to Ray/Perk Boston rebounds slightly better, hits a lot more 3's and wins that title.

(and that putting the KG injury aside, he was limited compared to what he was in '08 and even now, but his injury was well in the past by the '10 finals)

10. This post has been removed.

11. This post has been removed.

12. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

yawn

I say injuries are a bigger reason for the teams failures and you want to pin it all on the rebounding, a department we'd have been better in had their been no injuries, but an issue that would not have kept us from winning the title... if we were tied with 5 to go, and you know, had our starting Center and the best 3 point shooter ever could, you know, hit some 3's the last 5 games... maybe we'd have won

I've said after the injuries the team didn't even deserve to win the title, but w/e keep kidding yourself with your lesser issue

13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

It just makes no sense how someone can say that you are not allowed to use injuries as an excuse to not winning a title?

Doc Rivers said it was injuries that kept us down all the time

Then to say we lost b/c no champ ever avg'd under 40 rebounds a game in the regular season, when we were 5 mins from winning despite mssing our starting C and having Ray unable to shoot his normal 3 point shot...

but yea, we'd have never won if we were healthy simply cuz of that rebounding stat, a much more lame excuse than injuries, b/c it suggests the style that team played and the heart, defense and swagger they brought to the court was seriously flawed... any fan with half a brain could see that was a title team after 2 games but was not a title team as soon as Perk's knee buckled... and a regular season rebounding stat is NOT the excuse to use.

ha

14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

To all
My post is simply to show that the league has indeed had a team that won the crown with what was the eqivelent of less than 40 rebounds per game. Everything else is irrelevant in this case.

Seems

15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

Bailey Powe,

Thanks for confirming my numbers. You got it right on the money.
seems

16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

Duke

I just got up from a little snooze. Almost put myself in a coma trying to do the math for this post. Actually I enjoy my hobby of  equating NBA stastitics between the 1950's-60's and the last 30 years. I must average 4 hours a day( for about 5 years now). Walking is a problem, but from the waist up life is great.

seems

17. This post has been removed.

18. This post has been removed.

19. This post has been removed.

20. This post has been removed.

21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaileyPowe. Show BaileyPowe's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

thank you, seems.

22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

Fiercest,

This is a one time response to you on this subject. I have no intention in getting into a marathon debate with you on this subject. I see it one way,you another. Thats what the board is for.

seems

23. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

In Response to Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average:
[QUOTE]thank you , seems.
Posted by BaileyPowe[/QUOTE]

yup thanks seems

those who are defeated are the ones who start in with childish name-calling and hysterics with exclaimation points...

I just matter of factly stated the obvious point.... that injuries were a bigger cause of the Celtics '10 defeat than rebounds. I mean it was obvious a team that avg's under 40 rebounds could have won a title that year if healthy... it is amusing to think anyone could place more blame on that one stat than a hurting starting lineup missing its center.

24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

Re: 1972-73 Knicks nba champs despite lowly rebound average

and I never used Green's inury as the '12 excuse...

Pietrus replaced Green only after Jeff was out, and had MP been healthy he'd have been the best backup SF since Posey... obviously Avery's injury hurt us the most, followed by Ray's, then the Pietrus/Pierce knee issues and Wilcox absence followed in some order... with Green and JON being last in line

INJURIEs is a plural word... and Avery, Pierce, Pietrus, Ray, Wilcox, Green and JON were ALL hurt or out for the '12 Celtics... That was FAR worse than Bosh missing 4 games and Miller having a bad back... and obviously the main reason the team lost in '12... but since it was the ECF its not as big a deal as the injuries that were the main reason the team couldn't close out a 3-2 advantage in 2010.

and this is pretty obvious

25. This post has been removed.