2nd best player in the nba

[PeptoKlepto]

Its hard to be really accurate with these because we mostly go off of public opinion unless its about our own team.. if Harden and Curry are on Russ' levels as defenders then Russ simply needs to step up big time, because he has the tools to be much, much better than those guys.

I agree that Curry has scaled himself back this year due to our talent, and he probably could put up just as gaudy #s as Harden or Russ if in their situations, but his rebounding and defense are the two things that keep me from putting him in my top 5. Thats not to say he's bad at both, but I feel that out of my top 5, not a single one isn't an impact defender and impact offensive player too. If Russ isn't impacting defense as well these days, then he would belong in the same tier as the other guys I listed initially

What kinda of rebounding rate do you expect Curry to put up? He's rebounding better than our 6'7 off guard.

Nothing spectacular. I think for his body and lack of athleticism I think 4-5 boards is fine. But I really cant care less though about how well guards rebound. I think the impact is close to 0. I honestly dont think OKC would be any worse of a team if Westbrook was grabbing 5 boards a game. There is at least 3-5 easy free boards Westbrook grabs a game that his bigs just let him grab. Im not saying Westbrook is stat padding or anything, thats just what the bigs do, theyre giving him easy boards.

So if Klay was grabbing 2 boards a game im fine with that, I just dont care how many boards 1s and 2s are grabbing espcially in our offense when Klay is always on the perimeter offensively and defensively he is out running every shot. 3-5 though is a different story and that is one of the reasons I think KD is making a great impact for us, his rebounding and defense are huge upgrades over Barnes.

I agree...just wondering why FNQ is emphasizing rebounding in a PG comparison/discussion. Kinda weird.

[FNQ]

What kinda of rebounding rate do you expect Curry to put up? He's rebounding better than our 6'7 off guard.

Our 6'7 off guard is on the fly to try and fast break.. it's very rare to see Curry streaking on a fast break, he usually runs towards the ball. This has been done to death on the W's forum.

Curry isn't the same caliber rebounder as the elite rebounding guards, which Westbrook and Harden both are. When comparing the 3, that becomes relevant

Don't really care what's been argued on the W's forum or not. That has nothing to do w/ me and my discussion with you.

And it's not really all that relevant. Rebounding is really the last thing you should look for when you're discussing PGs honestly, and Curry is a better defender and team defender than both Harden and Westbrook, so there's that.

Does rebounding impact the game? If yes, it's relevant in discussing who's better than who. To diminish an aspect of basketball based on position isn't really wise, because I dont think gameflow cares whether or not a C or a PG grabs a rebound.

And again, if comparing to elite rebounding guards, it's absolutely relevant. It isnt irrelevant because you don't value it.

[PizzaSteve]

The value of a Curry rebound is via his superior passing and court vision. Many of his rebounds turn into Green or Iguadala dunks, against slower defensive teams because of his passing accuracy. Also, he is able to dribble up and launch a long three before the defense matches up, sometimes. It is similar to when Westbrook launches a one man fast break on a rebound before defenders set up. Curry uses his strengths (passing, shooting, fast break), Westbrook uses his (speed, penetration, collapsing defense, finishing).

I guess my point is that an increase in Curry rebounds is valuable. For his size and athletisism, he is suprisingly good at getting contested boards and exceptional at turning a rebound into an an immediate offensive threat.

[FNQ]

What kinda of rebounding rate do you expect Curry to put up? He's rebounding better than our 6'7 off guard.

Nothing spectacular. I think for his body and lack of athleticism I think 4-5 boards is fine. But I really cant care less though about how well guards rebound. I think the impact is close to 0. I honestly dont think OKC would be any worse of a team if Westbrook was grabbing 5 boards a game. There is at least 3-5 easy free boards Westbrook grabs a game that his bigs just let him grab. Im not saying Westbrook is stat padding or anything, thats just what the bigs do, theyre giving him easy boards.

So if Klay was grabbing 2 boards a game im fine with that, I just dont care how many boards 1s and 2s are grabbing espcially in our offense when Klay is always on the perimeter offensively and defensively he is out running every shot. 3-5 though is a different story and that is one of the reasons I think KD is making a great impact for us, his rebounding and defense are huge upgrades over Barnes.

I agree...just wondering why FNQ is emphasizing rebounding in a PG comparison/discussion. Kinda weird.

Harden and Westbrook both move the needle over 1% when it comes to rebounding, which is hardly insignificant. As to why its valuable for PGs to get rebounds - why are outlet passers so valuable? Because they get the ball to the guy who's leading the offense, fastest. If the PG gets the rebound, the break starts faster and opens up more opportunities.

I mentioned it in passing as something that separates Harden/Westbrook from Curry. You are emphasizing it, in order to diminish its impact on the game. But regardless of whether you personally value it or not, it does affect the game, so it should affect in some way how you value lead guards.

[PeptoKlepto]

Our 6'7 off guard is on the fly to try and fast break.. it's very rare to see Curry streaking on a fast break, he usually runs towards the ball. This has been done to death on the W's forum.

Curry isn't the same caliber rebounder as the elite rebounding guards, which Westbrook and Harden both are. When comparing the 3, that becomes relevant

Don't really care what's been argued on the W's forum or not. That has nothing to do w/ me and my discussion with you.

And it's not really all that relevant. Rebounding is really the last thing you should look for when you're discussing PGs honestly, and Curry is a better defender and team defender than both Harden and Westbrook, so there's that.

Does rebounding impact the game? If yes, it's relevant in discussing who's better than who. To diminish an aspect of basketball based on position isn't really wise, because I dont think gameflow cares whether or not a C or a PG grabs a rebound.

And again, if comparing to elite rebounding guards, it's absolutely relevant. It isnt irrelevant because you don't value it.

I'm not diminishing rebounding, I'm telling you you're over-emphasizing the wrong category in this particular discussion and context. Okay - Harden and Westbrook are rebounders. Doesn't really mean anything to me when Curry has a pretty good rebounding rate for his position anyways.

Curry is a better defender than both, creates more transition opportunities than both, is a just as good if not a better playmaker than both, is a better, more efficient and more explosive scorer than both.

But hey, they're better rebounders so let's rank them ahead of Curry.

[The_Hater]

1. Bron
2. KD
3. Curry
4. Harden
5. Westbrook
6. Kawhi
7. CP3
8. AD
9. Cousins
10. Giannis

Your top 6 would mirror mine. Then I probably go AD, Giannis, CP3. I'm just not sure who I have at 10 right now. Cousins, Butler, George, Lowry, Griffin and Green would likely be my 9-15 in some order. Towns could move up fast and Embiid could bounce them all by next season. It's definitely not a stagnant list.

[FNQ]

I'm not diminishing rebounding, I'm telling you you're over-emphasizing the wrong category in this particular discussion and context. Okay - Harden and Westbrook are rebounders. Doesn't really mean anything to me when Curry has a pretty good rebounding rate for his position anyways.

Yeah, ya are. lol look at your posts, and just own what you said about how you don't understand why its being brought up.. when it was mentioned in passing. Curry has a pretty good rate. Harden and Westbrook have elite rates. Thus it makes sense to bring that up if you are rating Westbrook or Harden over Curry. I'm not seeing how any of this is illogical.

Curry is a better defender than both, creates more transition opportunities than both, is a just as good if not a better playmaker than both, is a better, more efficient and more explosive scorer than both.

But hey, they're better rebounders so let's rank them ahead of Curry.

The first 3 are entirely subjective and not supported by advanced stats. Only the scoring is. So basically, you are using anecdotal evidence to deride something that someone else believes because it doesn't match up to your belief. That.. is not worth going into any deeper than that. Harden and Westbrook both bring things to the table that are very different than Curry and how you value them is up to you. I wouldn't deride anyone for putting Curry over either or both, but I wouldn't use anecdotal evidence to pump up my arguments either. So being so cocksure about it is pretty funny to me.

[FNQ]

The value of a Curry rebound is via his superior passing and court vision. Many of his rebounds turn into Green or Iguadala dunks, against slower defensive teams because of his passing accuracy. Also, he is able to dribble up and launch a long three before the defense matches up, sometimes. It is similar to when Westbrook launches a one man fast break on a rebound before defenders set up. Curry uses his strengths (passing, shooting, fast break), Westbrook uses his (speed, penetration, collapsing defense, finishing).

I guess my point is that an increase in Curry rebounds is valuable. For his size and athletisism, he is suprisingly good at getting contested boards and exceptional at turning a rebound into an an immediate offensive threat.

Exactly. This kind of value gets lost in the shuffle of people looking for stats that are traditional for a position - a guard who rebounds or blocks shots, that kind of value isn't appreciated as much, as if a rebound or block counts less for a PG than a C. Or an assist counts more for a PG than a PF. When in fact, I'd argue the opposite - a player who can do things that is unusual for his position or size creates a distinct advantage for his team.

[PizzaSteve]

The value of a Curry rebound is via his superior passing and court vision. Many of his rebounds turn into Green or Iguadala dunks, against slower defensive teams because of his passing accuracy. Also, he is able to dribble up and launch a long three before the defense matches up, sometimes. It is similar to when Westbrook launches a one man fast break on a rebound before defenders set up. Curry uses his strengths (passing, shooting, fast break), Westbrook uses his (speed, penetration, collapsing defense, finishing).

I guess my point is that an increase in Curry rebounds is valuable. For his size and athletisism, he is suprisingly good at getting contested boards and exceptional at turning a rebound into an an immediate offensive threat.

Exactly. This kind of value gets lost in the shuffle of people looking for stats that are traditional for a position - a guard who rebounds or blocks shots, that kind of value isn't appreciated as much, as if a rebound or block counts less for a PG than a C. Or an assist counts more for a PG than a PF. When in fact, I'd argue the opposite - a player who can do things that is unusual for his position or size creates a distinct advantage for his team.

Agreed, but i would also argue the other elite guards also are exceptional in different ways. An interesting stat to explore would be "team offensive efficiency on plays in which a guard started the play via a defensive rebound". My guess would be that Westbook has a higher rebound rate, but that the points generated off his rebounds is lower, per rebound. Some of that is the offensive efficiency of the team, overall, but it would be an interesting stat.

[PeptoKlepto]

Yeah, ya are. lol look at your posts, and just own what you said about how you don't understand why its being brought up.. when it was mentioned in passing. Curry has a pretty good rate. Harden and Westbrook have elite rates. Thus it makes sense to bring that up if you are rating Westbrook or Harden over Curry. I'm not seeing how any of this is illogical.

I'm not diminishing rebounding at all. I'm actually using context. These categories are not weighted equally across all positions. For instance, I'd rather have an elite defensive big that's a weak passer over an elite passing big that's a weak defender. Doesn't mean I'm diminishing passing...it just means that, depending on the position and roles, these things are (and should be) weighted differently. The fact that you're weighting rebounding for Steph as much as his scoring or passing or play-making and or even his defending is quite ridiculous.

The first 3 are entirely subjective and not supported by advanced stats. Only the scoring is. So basically, you are using anecdotal evidence to deride something that someone else believes because it doesn't match up to your belief. That.. is not worth going into any deeper than that. Harden and Westbrook both bring things to the table that are very different than Curry and how you value them is up to you. I wouldn't deride anyone for putting Curry over either or both, but I wouldn't use anecdotal evidence to pump up my arguments either. So being so cocksure about it is pretty funny to me.

They are supported by stats. Curry has a better TO rate and steals rate than both of them. Curry leads the entire NBA in +/-. Curry is, by all accounts, a better team defender than both of them. He's also a more efficient and explosive scorer than both of them.

But hey, let's harp on the rebounding rate for a PG.

[FNQ]

The value of a Curry rebound is via his superior passing and court vision. Many of his rebounds turn into Green or Iguadala dunks, against slower defensive teams because of his passing accuracy. Also, he is able to dribble up and launch a long three before the defense matches up, sometimes. It is similar to when Westbrook launches a one man fast break on a rebound before defenders set up. Curry uses his strengths (passing, shooting, fast break), Westbrook uses his (speed, penetration, collapsing defense, finishing).

I guess my point is that an increase in Curry rebounds is valuable. For his size and athletisism, he is suprisingly good at getting contested boards and exceptional at turning a rebound into an an immediate offensive threat.

Exactly. This kind of value gets lost in the shuffle of people looking for stats that are traditional for a position - a guard who rebounds or blocks shots, that kind of value isn't appreciated as much, as if a rebound or block counts less for a PG than a C. Or an assist counts more for a PG than a PF. When in fact, I'd argue the opposite - a player who can do things that is unusual for his position or size creates a distinct advantage for his team.

Agreed, but i would also argue the other elite guards also are exceptional in different ways. An interesting stat to explore would be "team offensive efficiency on plays in which a guard started the play via a defensive rebound". My guess would be that Westbook has a higher rebound rate, but that the points generated off his rebounds is lower, per rebound. Some of that is the offensive efficiency of the team, overall, butnit would be an interesting stat.

Agreed. I think it would definitely favor Curry head to head per rebound because of his ability to hit the 3 in transition, but on a larger scale it would be interesting to see how much the needle moves when the lead guard gets the rebound in direct comparison to when he doesn't, especially on fast-break/uptempo teams

[PeptoKlepto]

The value of a Curry rebound is via his superior passing and court vision. Many of his rebounds turn into Green or Iguadala dunks, against slower defensive teams because of his passing accuracy. Also, he is able to dribble up and launch a long three before the defense matches up, sometimes. It is similar to when Westbrook launches a one man fast break on a rebound before defenders set up. Curry uses his strengths (passing, shooting, fast break), Westbrook uses his (speed, penetration, collapsing defense, finishing).

I guess my point is that an increase in Curry rebounds is valuable. For his size and athletisism, he is suprisingly good at getting contested boards and exceptional at turning a rebound into an an immediate offensive threat.

Exactly. This kind of value gets lost in the shuffle of people looking for stats that are traditional for a position - a guard who rebounds or blocks shots, that kind of value isn't appreciated as much, as if a rebound or block counts less for a PG than a C. Or an assist counts more for a PG than a PF. When in fact, I'd argue the opposite - a player who can do things that is unusual for his position or size creates a distinct advantage for his team.

You mean the amount of unprecedented, indefensible space that Curry provides for his teammates? That's not a distinct advantage? Or an unprecedented skill set to be a deadly shooter from both the catch and the dribble? I'd take that over a few more rebounds per game at the PG position any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Curry's impact goes infinitely beyond the box scores, and quite shocked that a Warriors fan doesn't fully comprehend the impact and willing to brush it aside 'cuz rebounds'.

[FNQ]

I'm not diminishing rebounding at all. I'm actually using context. These categories are not weighted equally across all positions. For instance, I'd rather have an elite defensive big that's a weak passer over an elite passing big that's a weak defender. Doesn't mean I'm diminishing passing...it just means that, depending on the position and roles, these things are (and should be) weighted differently. The fact that you're weighting rebounding for Steph as much as his scoring or passing or play-making and or even his defending is quite ridiculous.

And when did I say they were weighted equally? That's just a terrible strawman attempt. I'm gonna bold it this time so it sticks: when comparing the 3 guards, when 2 are elite at rebounding, it bares mentioning if the 3rd one is not. I'm extremely confused as to why this point hasn't landed and is being misrepresented so blatantly.

They are supported by stats. Curry has a better TO rate and steals rate than both of them. Curry leads the entire NBA in +/-. Curry is, by all accounts, a better team defender than both of them. He's also a more efficient and explosive scorer than both of them

But hey, let's harp on the rebounding rate for a PG.

So you cherry picked TO rate and steals rate - neither of which does anything but add minor support for being better playmakers or defenders - as the lone reasons why Curry is a better playmaker and defender? I can't imagine why assist % wasn't used, or an even more accurate AST%:TO%. And I dont think you understand what 'by all accounts' means, because I very much doubt that all people think Curry's defense is better than Russ and Harden's. In fact, Curry still draws the more desireable draw between him and Klay at times, and if Curry is getting torched he gets switched off pretty quickly.

And again, as repeating has become a theme here, one person here is harping on rebounding here. And one person is responding to it. I would have left it so long ago if there weren't so many glaring misrepresentations. If you can put together an argument that is solely based on your beliefs and not trying to change mine to fit your narrative, then it would be done by now.

[FNQ]

The value of a Curry rebound is via his superior passing and court vision. Many of his rebounds turn into Green or Iguadala dunks, against slower defensive teams because of his passing accuracy. Also, he is able to dribble up and launch a long three before the defense matches up, sometimes. It is similar to when Westbrook launches a one man fast break on a rebound before defenders set up. Curry uses his strengths (passing, shooting, fast break), Westbrook uses his (speed, penetration, collapsing defense, finishing).

I guess my point is that an increase in Curry rebounds is valuable. For his size and athletisism, he is suprisingly good at getting contested boards and exceptional at turning a rebound into an an immediate offensive threat.

Exactly. This kind of value gets lost in the shuffle of people looking for stats that are traditional for a position - a guard who rebounds or blocks shots, that kind of value isn't appreciated as much, as if a rebound or block counts less for a PG than a C. Or an assist counts more for a PG than a PF. When in fact, I'd argue the opposite - a player who can do things that is unusual for his position or size creates a distinct advantage for his team.

You mean the amount of unprecedented, indefensible space that Curry provides for his teammates? That's not a distinct advantage? Or an unprecedented skill set to be a deadly shooter from both the catch and the dribble? I'd take that over a few more rebounds per game at the PG position any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Curry's impact goes infinitely beyond the box scores, and quite shocked that a Warriors fan doesn't fully comprehend the impact and willing to brush it aside 'cuz rebounds'.

Yes, exactly like those things. Like Westbrook's 1st step that allows an even mediocre shooter like him the space to get off 3s, or Harden's triple threat position where he has no weaknesses. All 3 provide something uniquely difficult to defend on offense. So the lens you use on Curry should be applied to everyone in the comparison. But that's not what you are doing, you are engaged in a game of gotcha, where if I didn't mention something you are saying, then I must believe the opposite. Can we adult this up a little?

Now if I said that Curry's shot and the advantages created by it are negated by the fact that he's not as good a rebounder as those 2, sure, your argument makes sense and fits. But here it doesn't. You can see that, right? I'm only asking so I know whether or not this is about talking ball or a game of gotcha that isn't interesting.

[PeptoKlepto]

And when did I say they were weighted equally? That's just a terrible strawman attempt. I'm gonna bold it this time so it sticks: when comparing the 3 guards, when 2 are elite at rebounding, it bares mentioning if the 3rd one is not. I'm extremely confused as to why this point hasn't landed and is being misrepresented so blatantly.

That's exactly what you're insinuating when you say that I'm "diminishing rebounding". You're simply putting the emphasis on the wrong category. Sure, a few more rebounds at the PG position is nice...but it's not a tide turner either way...especially considering the advantages Curry has over the other two guys in other, more important PG categories.

So you cherry picked TO rate and steals rate - neither of which does anything but add minor support for being better playmakers or defenders - as the lone reasons why Curry is a better playmaker and defender?

I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm telling you that Curry creates more transition opps for his team, while limiting more transitions opps for the other team...this is substantiated by a better TOV% and a better steals rate.

I can't imagine why assist % wasn't used, or an even more accurate AST%:TO%. And I dont think you understand what 'by all accounts' means, because I very much doubt that all people think Curry's defense is better than Russ and Harden's. In fact, Curry still draws the more desireable draw between him and Klay at times, and if Curry is getting torched he gets switched off pretty quickly.

So does Harden and Westbrook. Beverly takes on the better opponent defensively and Roberson does the same for Westbrook in OKC. This isn't exclusive to Curry - happens all over the league. And one doesn't need mass data to prove that Curry is a better defender (also more willing/active, which is even more important) than both guys - a simple eyeball test suffices.

And again, as repeating has become a theme here, one person here is harping on rebounding here. And one person is responding to it. I would have left it so long ago if there weren't so many glaring misrepresentations. If you can put together an argument that is solely based on your beliefs and not trying to change mine to fit your narrative, then it would be done by now.

I'm harping on rebounding because that's the reason why you stated you had Harden/Westbrook ranked ahead of Curry. I just couldn't - and won't - let that go, given the advantages that Curry has over those guys in categories that should be weighted more.

[PeptoKlepto]

Exactly. This kind of value gets lost in the shuffle of people looking for stats that are traditional for a position - a guard who rebounds or blocks shots, that kind of value isn't appreciated as much, as if a rebound or block counts less for a PG than a C. Or an assist counts more for a PG than a PF. When in fact, I'd argue the opposite - a player who can do things that is unusual for his position or size creates a distinct advantage for his team.

You mean the amount of unprecedented, indefensible space that Curry provides for his teammates? That's not a distinct advantage? Or an unprecedented skill set to be a deadly shooter from both the catch and the dribble? I'd take that over a few more rebounds per game at the PG position any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Curry's impact goes infinitely beyond the box scores, and quite shocked that a Warriors fan doesn't fully comprehend the impact and willing to brush it aside 'cuz rebounds'.

Yes, exactly like those things. Like Westbrook's 1st step that allows an even mediocre shooter like him the space to get off 3s, or Harden's triple threat position where he has no weaknesses. All 3 provide something uniquely difficult to defend on offense. So the lens you use on Curry should be applied to everyone in the comparison. But that's not what you are doing, you are engaged in a game of gotcha, where if I didn't mention something you are saying, then I must believe the opposite. Can we adult this up a little?

Now if I said that Curry's shot and the advantages created by it are negated by the fact that he's not as good a rebounder as those 2, sure, your argument makes sense and fits. But here it doesn't. You can see that, right? I'm only asking so I know whether or not this is about talking ball or a game of gotcha that isn't interesting.

You stated that rebounding is one of the primary reasons why you had those guys ranked ahead of Curry. That's the logic I'm disputing. You're weighing it just as much as the advantages that Curry has over them. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and it's dumbfounding coming from a Warriors fan that should know Curry's impact goes infinitely beyond the box score.

[FNQ]

You stated that rebounding is one of the primary reasons why you had those guys ranked ahead of Curry. That's the logic I'm disputing. You're weighing it just as much as the advantages that Curry has over them. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and it's dumbfounding coming from a Warriors fan that should know Curry's impact goes infinitely beyond the box score.

See, this is your mistake, and I've noticed it in your interactions with others too.

You are correct. It doesnt make any sense. And even though I didnt say it, you have attributed it to me. Why?

You have decided for me that Curry's a better offensive weapon than Westbrook and Harden. And you have decided for me that I value rebounding equally as everything else. THAT is the problem here.

I dont think Curry's necessarily a better offensive weapon than both of them. He is different, and he is dangerous. And so are they. And unlike those 2, Curry has a support system that destroys the other 2, so he doesn't have to force anything he doesn't see as advantageous. So then you get into the lesser responsibilities: defense and rebounding being 2 of those. And eyeball test aside (anecdotal, and again, so so far from a consensus), Curry's defense and the opportunities he gives by stealing the ball slightly more can easily be negated by defensive rebounding that leads to more fast breaks. Both sides of that argument are circumstantial. That's my takeaway as a Warrior fan. But let me give you an example of how you sound to me:

I think its dumbfounding that a Warrior fan cant see that Curry's efficiency has risen to higher levels than other elite guards because he is surrounded by 2 elite shooters and one do-it-all F. By not seeing this, I'm amazed how low you value the contributions of Durant, Klay, and Green to Curry's efficiency.

See how pointless that is?

[DNP - Old]

Curry for me. No way he is not a top 3 player.

The 'what have you done for me lately' generation.

[DubTheVanDamage]

The value of a Curry rebound is via his superior passing and court vision. Many of his rebounds turn into Green or Iguadala dunks, against slower defensive teams because of his passing accuracy. Also, he is able to dribble up and launch a long three before the defense matches up, sometimes. It is similar to when Westbrook launches a one man fast break on a rebound before defenders set up. Curry uses his strengths (passing, shooting, fast break), Westbrook uses his (speed, penetration, collapsing defense, finishing).

I guess my point is that an increase in Curry rebounds is valuable. For his size and athletisism, he is suprisingly good at getting contested boards and exceptional at turning a rebound into an an immediate offensive threat.

Exactly. This kind of value gets lost in the shuffle of people looking for stats that are traditional for a position - a guard who rebounds or blocks shots, that kind of value isn't appreciated as much, as if a rebound or block counts less for a PG than a C. Or an assist counts more for a PG than a PF. When in fact, I'd argue the opposite - a player who can do things that is unusual for his position or size creates a distinct advantage for his team.

I have to disagree with you here -- all stats are not created equal. It's funny that analytics have convinced many fans that all points scored are not equal -- efficiency matters as well as the impact on the overall offensive game (floor spacing, the ability to get opponents in foul trouble, etc) yet people argue until they're blue in the face that a rebound is a rebound.

One analysis of the SportVU rebounding numbers came to these conclusions:

Here are the findings:
A slight negative correlation for the percent of team rebounds contested and the percentage of opportunities grabbed.
A small positive correlation with Contested Percentages and total rebound %
No correlation with defensive rebounds and contested rebounds.

A significant (statistically and practically) correlation between number of contested rebounds per game and offensive rebounding percentage and correlation between the percent of team rebounds contested and team offensive rebound percentage. The R2 for all 30 teams being .29.

This basically confirms what we knew already. Many of the defensive rebounds any individual player grabs could have been taken by one of his teammates.

http://counting-the-baskets.typepad.com/my-blog/2013/12/sportvu-date-contested-rebounds-are-offensive.html

Now does this mean we should chart every rebound and discount all the ones players nab without competition? Not necessarily since there could be reasons why the player got the rebound that are to his credit -- he may have been the only player on the floor who accurately predicted where the rebound would carom to, or the player might be such a formidable glass cleaner that the other team didn't even bother to contest it when they might have with a lesser player.

Still it does seem clear that the range of difficulty when it comes to rebounds is pretty large. A more substantial rebounding rating should then look at the specifics of a rebound and not just count them all as one more tally in the scoresheet.

http://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm

You can point to rebounding percentage or on/off numbers and, while those can be helpful, there can be significant issues with those stats: small sample size, other players on the floor, opponents, situations, etc. Of course, in the first article I quoted, many of the conclusions were based on rebounding%, which, if flawed (as I contend), does impact the conclusions as well.

Quite frankly, I'm not saying that I have a conclusive answer on this, or that one even exists, but I do think it is pretty clear that all rebounds are not created equal nor do raw rebounding numbers correlate to impact on the game. The eye test will back this up: as a simple example, Tristan Thompson is a much more disruptive player on the glass than any guard, rebounding numbers be damned.

Likewise, with blocks, there are a lot of factors: 1) whether there was a change of possession, 2) how high of a % shot was blocked (i.e. blocking a 20 foot jump shot doesn't have the same impact as stopping a dunk) and 3) whether the defender in question is able to alter shots.

[The Real Dalic]

Went Durant, was tough between him, Westbrook, and Leonard. Had to think about Harden there as well.