drza44

drza44

12p

8 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 0 replies · +1 points

As I just pointed out to Thomas, KG has been a huge part of 23 of the Celtics' 28 wins. This isn't like Iverson or Tmac barely being on the court, this is KG as a key member in more than 82% of the teams' wins. Only 3 other teams in the East even HAVE 23 wins. I just can't see how that can be enough to disqualify him from being an All Star, or make it worth a Celtics fan calling him out publicly as being unworthy.

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 0 replies · +1 points

It's been fun, thanks to both of you for letting me talk basketball. Almost nothing I like better than that. As for your post, KG shooting 70% jumpers doesn't support your argument. KG ALWAYS shoots about 70% jumpers or more. Last year 72% of his shots were jumpers, the year before 73%, the year before that 77%, etc.

One difference this year is that could support your point is that a slightly higher percentage of KG's shots are assisted than before (82% this year, vs 74% last year, vs 68% in '08). But as I said to Jay above, that could easily be an effect of the team wanting him to be a finisher as opposed to an initiator as Rondo has come into his own to handle a larger amount of the offense initiation. There's a difference between DOESN'T create as much and CAN'T create as much individually. Seems to me that the pick-and-pops/pin downs lead to high percentage shots for a larger number of people than anyone going iso...so it's hard for me to find fault in something that leads to high percentage scoring for the team.

As for the value vs production argument, I would say that Garnett has been (at the least) a key member of the Celtics for 23 of their 28 wins this year. Not only is that the vast majority of their wins, it is also more wins than all but 3 other teams in the East. If he's produced enough to contribute in such a strong way to such a large number of wins, I don't see how # of games played can really be used as an argument against him.

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 2 replies · +1 points

Can Garnett create his own offense anymore? We don't know. He isn't asked to. It has been decided that the team offense works best with him as a finisher instead of an initiator, and he's done that job very well.

Is he the same right now as he used to be? Of course not. But he used to be the best player in the league. That's too high of a standard to be used for criterion for an All Star game. Even as he is, he still has a huge qualitative effect that is very well supported by quantitative evidence. That is much more relevant to the discussion than what Garnett used to be able to do. What he currently is able to do still makes him an All Star.

And actually, yeah, Garnett does get relied upon to score in crunch time when healthy. I know you hate numbers, but again there's a website that keeps track of how players do in the last 5 minutes of games that are within 5 points. In those situations, in the last 3 years Pierce, Garnett and Allen all split the scoring fairly evenly. This year, Rondo has joined them as a 4th option that does a lot of crunch time scoring.

The Celtics are championship contenders primarily because of their defense, and Garnett is by-far the best defensive player on the team. They round that out with a strong offense as well, and Garnett is also one of the key offensive performers on a similar order to the other key guys. Put that together, and he's still the best player on the team. Or at the very least, he deserves to be an All Star. As I said, I hope he has several of his teammates there with him, and if you think they're better more power to you. KG still deserves to be an All Star, though.

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 0 replies · +1 points

Once again, the dreaded numbers that you hate don't support your assertion. I agree that KG is doing a lot of scoring on pick-and-pops...in fact, that was exactly my point before, that when KG is healthy the pick-and-pop is a staple of the Celtics offense. But 70% of KG's shots are jumpers, so he is doing much more of that than he is getting fast break buckets or dump-down layups. My point was never that Garnett's offensive contributions were him alone...merely that his contributions can't be replicated by anyone else on the team. Just like Rondo's offense can't, and Pierce's offense can't...offensively, all 3 of them have done the most damage this year while playing off of each other.

Defensively, this isn't a contest even with Garnett slowed from what he used to be. I would rather have Perk guard Howard, or Shaq, or any other huge/explosive scoring center...a population that includes at most 10% of the big men in the league. The other 90% of the bigs, which includes just about every power forward and a good chunk of the centers in the league, I'd rather have Garnett on in 1-on-1 situations. And team-wise, as you point out, Garnett is still by far the best defender that we have and the only reason that Thibs' defensive scheme works.

On the whole, when both offense and defense are factored in, there aren't any other Celtics that have meant more to the team's wins than Garnett. I have no problem with Pierce and Rondo also being on the team, in fact I hope that's how it works out. But to say that Garnett doesn't deserve to be an All Star or that he's a role player now, despite all of the quantitative and observational evidence to the contrary, that's what I don't agree with.

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 4 replies · +1 points

Again, your counterexample is a straw man because it fails the most basic test: is it consistent. Varejao has a higher +/- than LeBron, but his PER is hugely less. His win shares are hugely less. His Roland Rating is hugely less. Any one stat, in a vacuum, can (as has been pointed out) give counterintuitive results that upon further analysis can likely be easily explained.

But that isn't the case for the Celtics. Garnett has a small lead in PER. Garnett has the lead in win shares/minute. Garnett has the lead in +/-. Etc. All of these stats, that all come from different angles, all come to the same result.

And again, it doesn't have to rely sole-ly (or even primarily) upon composite advanced stats. Basic team stats also support the huge difference Garnett makes. The eyeball test is cool, but we both have described what our eyeballs tell us and our eyeballs don't agree. Failing that, I would think quantitative analysis would be a logical second step. If you don't like my numbers, give me something else to work with besides just "my opinion is different than yours, and there isn't anything in the world that can make me think otherwise." I mean, how the heck are we supposed to have a constructive discussion like that? Unless "agree to disagree" is just the outcome that you prefer?

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 0 replies · +1 points

Again, the stats that I used were only to support my own "eyeball test", and I also watch every Celtics game. If it just comes down to a "this is what I think", "no this is what I think" contest that's fine, but it just seems more productive to me to have some quantitative facts that we can point to and use as support.

As for the stats being arbitrary or concocted, again, we don't have to use any that you have a beef with. You don't like PER? That's fine. Win shares doesn't float your boat? Cool. Same with Roland rating, or whatever else one you can think of. But I do think it's worth noting that all of them tell the same story...even in the counter-intuitive situations that you point out, rarely do you have a case where just about all of the advanced stats across the board say the same thing and have it really be shocking or difficult to support.

But even if you leave those stats out, things like the defense giving up 91.8 points/game on 43.8% shooting with Garnett and 98.9 points on 46.2% without him...those aren't stats that you need a mathematician for. And again, if something shows up pretty clearly on my eye-test, shows up in even the most rudimentary numerical analysis, and ALSO is supported by the more advanced stuff...to me that's a lot stronger than just saying, "well my eye test disagrees" and leaving it at that.

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 9 replies · +1 points

You say that you are using the eye test...the problem with that is that everyone has different eyes, so that means that there's no such thing as "the eye test", that's just another name for your opinion. And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to pass off your opinion as "truth" or "proof" isn't a good way to support an argument.

You scoff at my use of advanced stats, but in reality all I'm using them for is to support my "eye test". My eye test tells me that Garnett , even in his injury-returning state, completely transforms our defense from "average-or-below" to "best in the league". That isn't something you mention as an aside or minimize. Considering that defense is THE focal point of this team, that the only reason this team has championship aspirations is because of their defense, then being the key and focal point to said defense alone would make Garnett probably the most important player on the team.

And that's not even considering offense, where again Garnett's impact is obvious to my eye test. By far the most successful offensive sets that the Celtics run are 2-man sets featuring KG. The out-top pick-and-roll with Pierce that is almost guaranteed to get one of them a good shot, the side pick-and-roll with Rondo that either results in an open shot for them or a teammate as it collapses the defense, the pin-down pick that KG sets that either opens up Allen/House for wide-open wing/elbow treys or leaves Garnett in favorable position to score down low. These aren't "small" parts of the offense...when the team is playing well, they are the STAPLE of the offense. And despite Perk's improvements and Sheed's shooting/passing abilities, they are things that just can't be replicated when Garnett isn't in the game.

That's what MY eyeball test tells me. And as mentioned before, the advanced stats just support my opinion. It's why KG has the highest PER or win shares/min on the team, it's why his +/- is so good, it's why the team's scoring differential is 9 points better when he's on the court than when he's off. It's why the team was 21-5 when he first got hurt and is 6-8 since then. He is the best player, the straw that stirs the drink, on what is the best team in the league when he's healthy. He pretty clearly deserves to be an All Star.

14 years ago @ Celtics Town - Kevin Garnett an undes... · 1 reply · +1 points

You make a lot of claims, but you don't do much to support them. The only numbers that you use in this article are "11" and "40", pointing out that he has missed a quarter of the season. That's fine. And you're right that role players don't deserve spots on All Star teams. The thing is, if you actually look in-depth Garnett is pretty clearly still the best player on one of the best teams in the league. He still leads the team in just about every advanced stat I can find, the team's effectiveness still suffers visibly and dramatically without him even now that we have a brand-named back-up for him, and the team still visibly plays DRAMATICALLY different when he's on the court in both style and productiveness. Garnett's return isn't the case of a "role player" coming back to "shore up" a defense...it's that of a team desperate for their best player to return so that they can get back to playing at the level and tenor that they're used to. Garnett is still an obvious All Star, even in his attenuated state, because quite frankly the best player on the best team in the league deserves to make the All Star game...even if he misses a quarter of the season (enough time for it to be abundantly clear what his importance is to that squad)...