Rebounds Didn't Start the Fire

Suppose that, one evening, you wanted to roast some marshmallows. Too lazy to do the whole "camping outdoors" scene, you build an impromptu fire pit in your living room. A good time is had by all as the marshmallows flow like wine. You decide to let the fire burn itself out, as you don't want to deal with the hassle of the smoky mess that would ensue if you were to douse it with water. Then, remembering that you'll need to mow the lawn tomorrow, and also remembering that your containers of gasoline have been stored in your icy-cool shed, you think it prudent to bring said containers inside to "de-ice" them near the fire. Finally, in a visionary move, you seize this rare opportunity to throw that stack of newspapers -- which had been previously slated for retirement in a nearby recycling bin -- squarely on the fire. You head off to bed for a well-deserved night of rest, but not before setting the meth lab in your basement to "auto-pilot".

The next morning, as fire inspectors are pressing for clues, you suggest that "the big problem here is that the house was largely constructed with wood. Studies show that 94% of the time when a house burns down, it was built with some sort of flammable material."

Every game night we hear the same old clichés. "We need to go out and grab the boards tonight if we want to win." "We got out-rebounded tonight, and it's hard to win games when that happens." "The key stat is that the Jazz had five less rebounds than their opponent tonight." "Rebounding IS defense."

Such was the rhetoric following the Spurs game. Obviously if you don't get rebounds, you don't have the ball. And if you don't have the ball, then you can't score points. And if you can't score points, then your only hope is that neither can Houston, err, your opponent. So obviously the Jazz need to work on rebounding, right? After all, studies show that 94% of the time when the Jazz lose, they were out-rebounded.

If it's not blatantly obvious by this point that the answer is going to be "no, you moron!", then please stop reading this article, and start from the beginning of the harpringsucks blog.

The Spurs, indeed, did manage six more rebounds than the Jazz on Friday. Forty to the Jazz' thirty-four, to be exact. It can be, should be, and WAS assumed that the Spurs beat the Jazz on second-chance points from offensive boards. In fact, the Spurs had nine offensive rebounds to the Jazz' paltry...nine? What the...HOW...IS...THIS...POSSIBLE? So the Spurs had six more defensive rebounds than the Jazz? I don't get it.

Enter the marshmallows. Could it be a possibility...I mean, should we even consider that...no, couldn't be. But just for fun, let's hypothesize that potentially, just maybe, those six extra rebounds came as a result of the Jazz missing more shots than the Spurs. I know, I know, I'm crazy. The Jazz missed 44 shots on Friday (shooting 43%), while the Spurs missed only 36 (52%). So one could conclude that a big part of the Jazz' loss was that they didn't hit as many shots as they should have, and allowed the Spurs to hit more shots than they should have, resulting in a rebounding gap. Did the Jazz lose because they sucked at rebounding? As Balki would say, "don't be ridiculous" [laughter].

Did someone say that the Jazz missed Harpring's presence? Oh right, just about everyone said that. I guess if Matt would have played in that game, the Jazz would have scored 11 more points
and had 4 more rebounds, since, logically, those are his averages. Poppycock. The Jazz missed Harpring's rebounding about as much as they missed CJ's poise and Araujo's gracefulness. Harpring would have only helped the team had he gone 7-8 from the floor, passed the ball well, passed the ball at all, or played defense. In other words, he would have only helped the team had he not been himself.

Next time you decide to blame the kindling for being in the way of the spark, first think to yourself "what would bordelais7 say?"