Copyright 2008 NBAE (Photo by Brian Babineau/NBAE via Getty Images)
Game #42, Road Game #23: Minnesota 86, Boston 87
Season record: 7-35
1. KG In A Nutshell
During the twelve years Kevin Garnett spent with the Timberwolves, a debate steadily escalated over his true value and place in the annals of the all-time great NBA players. KG supporters could point to his unprecedented versatility, his unbelievable endurance, his unyielding work ethic, and his infectious competitive spirit. Critics carped that there was a level of greatness to which KG's character and temperament could not ascend: The ability to put a team on his back and deliver the goods when it mattered most; the seizing of the onus that he would be The Man when a Man was required.
Garnett boosters point to the longest consecutive streak of at least 20 points, 10 rebounds and 5 assists--7 years, nearly all of them buttressed by KG's place on the league's all-defensive team. His detractors would point to one measly year in which the Wolves made it past the first round of the playoffs, and three straight years in the prime of his career when his squad didn't even make the postseason.
Most Wolves fans are intimately familiar with the debate, which prompts eye-opening claims on both sides. Detractors like to say that Garnett is merely a great sidekick, that he needs a more dominant personality on the team in order to be truly effective, a Pippen to someone else's Jordan. Strib writer Jim Souhan and KFAN jock Dan Barreiro have both voiced this view, with Souhan recently dubbing Garnett the "world's greatest complementary player." By contrast, Celtics' color commentator Cedric Cornbread Maxwell was the latest to big-up Garnett by naming him the second best player in Celtics history, behind only Bill Russell and ahead of Larry Bird, among others. Maxwell didn't flinch from the predictable outcry, saying that KG's huge edge on defense tipped the scales in his favor.
As one who is closer to Maxwell's view than Barreiro's and Souhan's--I have actually taken the Garnett position in KG vs. Bird debates, although I go back and forth on who I think is a better player--it was a sincere pleasure watching the greatest Timberwolf there likely will ever be in my lifetime going against the Timberwolves when it counts (meaning a non-exhibition game) for the first time in his career last night. And it was a curiously nostalgic feeling to be marveling in his myriad gifts on the court and then being compelled to remember again his "flaw of unselfishness" that is necessarily part and parcel of his many virtues.
101 seconds into the game, when KG vanquished a triple-team near the corner baseline by feeding to his point guard Rajon Rondo for an easy layup, I realized how very little that has occurred on the Wolves this season, and how deeply ensconced such a play was in the DNA of any Wolves fan who watched the team in the KG era. Ditto when Garnett sealed off penetration with his interior rotation and his help with teammate Kendrick Perkins guarding Al Jefferson.
But after going 4-4 FG and registering a game-best plus +7 to lead the Celts to a three point halftime lead, Garnett stubbornly continued to take only what the Wolves' D gave him in the second half. Now that he's surrounded with the highest caliber teammates of his 13 years in the league, KG is even more inclined to trust his teammates with the open look--something Wolves' fans always admired and cursed during his stint in Minnesota. If four shots in 16:29 seems like injurious modesty for a 7-1 gazelle being guarded by Al Jefferson and/or Ryan Gomes, consider that Garnett deigned to offer up exactly one shot in 14:35 of second half action, with Antoine Walker as one of the prime defenders.
Yes, the Wolves (obviously wisely) chose to constantly at least double and often triple team him. But how many bricks does Ray Allen have to toss before you realize it just isn't his night? For all you folks who watched the game--how many times to KG dish out to the perimeter to an open Ray Allen; five? Six? Eight? Do you know how many times Garnett assisted on an Allen bucket? Zero. Allen going 1-9 FG in the first half should have been a clue. Then 1-4 FG in the third quarter. Then he got "hot" and went 2-5 FG in the final period. That's 4-18, with five turnovers to boot.
Meanwhile, after doing a marvelous job of breaking down the Wolves with dribble penetration in the first half--he was 1-5 FG but had 6 dimes and 4-4 FT in 20:06--Paul Pierce had a surprisingly difficult time with Corey Brewer's length and quickness and the Wolves' alternation of zone and deftly rotating man-to-man. Pierce clearly remained a thorn for the Wolves--he finished with 19 points, 9 boards and 8 assists--he Minnesota made him earn it, sending him to the line 10 times (he made them all) and forcing him into a 4-18 FG night with a half dozen turnovers.
So, to recap: The smaller two of the Big Three for the Celts combined for 8-33 from the field with 11 turnovers. The current favorite to win the NBA MVP was 4-5 FG with 2 turnovers that weren't his fault. The faithful in Boston are generally smart hoops observers, and probably appreciated how Garnett's defense quieted Gomes in the first half (5 points and 2 rebouns for someone averaging 16 and 7 for the past few weeks) and helped quiet Jefferson in the second (6 points and 3 rebounds for the 20-12 Big Al; by contrast, Craig Smith had 4 points and a team-high 10 rebounds playing 13:22 of his 14:20 with KG on the bench). Even so, if you're a diehard Celtic fan, you're screaming for KG to get the ball and then do something with it in the direction of the hoop. You're like Doc Rivers, who went bananas on Tony Allen after Allen chose to drive the lane and *then* dish to KG, resulting in a three-second call (the first of Garnett's two turnovers) rather than immediately feeding an open KG on the low block. Allen, a third year pro currently averaging 6.0 ppg., had as many shots in the 4th quarter as Garnett took the entire game. The problem is that Doc had to speak for KG, who needed to pull a Keyshawn Johnson--as in "somebody get me the damn ball!"--long before then.
But then it's crunchtime and many of the attributes that make Garnett a player for the ages come to the fore. After staggering to the sidelines with an "abdominal strain" (replays seemed to indicate that Brewer inadvertantly punched him in the nuts trying to strip him on a drive to the hoop, creating a pain intense enough for Garnett to immediately drop the basketball, which was his second turnover), Garnett went to the dressing room for four minutes of play in the latter stages of the fourth quarter. His trainer advised him not to play again that night. But Garnett talked his way back into the lineup. Amazing ability to surmount all manner of injuries? Check. Which segues into the Celts' last basket: KG sets the pick that frees Ray Allen for an open layup which Allen promptly blows, but the Wolves are so concerned with Allen-Pierce-KG that Perkins has an easy weakside putback. Faithfully doing the little things that don't show up on the box score but help the team? Check. Which segues into the final play of the game. KG, the seven-footer, ranges out to the perimeter beyond the three point arc and uses what Flip Saunders calls his Inspector Gadget arms to steal the ball from Sebastian Telfair, diving on the floor with Telfair to push the ball ahead toward the other end of the court as the buzzer sounds, sealing Boston's one-point win. Freakish athletic versatility and extra hustle in service of defense? Check.
Which segues into something that is foreign territory for Wolves fans, even when KG was here. Team has a serious chance of contending for the NBA championship? Check.
2. What About The Wolves?
They played their fourth solid game in a row. After the Celtics burned them with a flurry of points in the paint early, they played good-to-great defense in the second half, perhaps their best defensive effort of the season. The bench was especially important here, with Brewer regaining that controlled intensity on defense that has been only sporadic in recent weeks (and don't overlook the continued accuracy of his much-maligned jumper--he went 4-8 FG tonight), and Walker ball-hawking superbly as well as giving KG a variety of different looks, occasionally fronting him and at other times fighting him for postion. Yes, they concentrated on not letting Garnett, and then Pierce, beat them, and if Ray Allen could have hit the broad side of a barn, that strategy could have easily looked foolish, or soon abandoned. As it was, Perkins was free to cut in from the baseline most any time he chose, which is why he went 8-10 FG with a game-high 21 points. But that's why the Celts own the NBA's best record--they have a load of offensive weapons and are playing stout team defense.
Most nights a game like Brewer's would have qualified as the most pleasant surprise, but Top Kudo of this tilt has to be Bassy Telfair's team-MVP performance. Not only did Telfair face up to Boston's pressure defense--his counterpart Rondo is a superb defender--with six assists versus three turnovers, but he was the most confident Timberwolf on the floor during the 4th quarter, one of the rare occasions that can be said about a Minnesota point guard this year. Knowing him well from his stint here last year, Boston dared him to shoot and so Bassy did--7-14 FG, including 3-7 in a throat-squeezing final period--while playing the entire second half. Along with his team-high 18 points he chipped in 3 steals (Walker had 4, and the Wolves as a team filched a remarkable 13). But most significant was his demeanor. This was a player determined to live up to that cliche of the guy returning home to show his former team they had made a mistake giving up on him. Mission accomplished.
Some final quick hits about the Wolves this night:
Great to be reminded that Corey Brewer has a killer instinct. When the Wolves were making their run and forcing the Celts into 6 straight turnovers at one point, you could just see Brewer pouncing on the perceived vulnerability, upping his aggressiveness and looking to do something very proactive at both ends of the court, be it a steal, a daring assist, or a jumper with a flourish. He and Telfair were fearless, trying to dance on a grave in crunchtime. It augured well for the rook's future.
For the second straight game, Craig Smith had trouble getting his shot to drop but worked hard on the glass, pulling in ten rebounds. There is no place for Smith in the team's starting lineup, nor should there be. But in the right situations he can be a valuable reserve on a good team.
Got to hand it to Gerald Green, who, inserted into the game for the first time in nearly two weeks in the final seconds of the first period, went on one of his little mini-explosions in the second quarter, with 8 quick points. He also played what for him was very good defense (and what for others would be very inconsistent) and obviously seemed happy to be back on a court where he had plenty of opportunity to shine last season. I understand this is condescending, but I can't help but liken Green being in the game to a child holding a gun with a robber in the house: His family knows somebody is going to get hurt and they just hope they buck the odds and it turns out to be the other guy.
3. The Unpleasant Shilling of Hanny and Pete
I have great respect for Wolves announcers Tom Hanneman and Jim Petersen, and when you get the NBA League Pass (it has been free all this week on cable, in an effort to sell the half-season remaining for $99) you hear commentators working games for other teams who usually aren't up to their standard, particularly in analyzing the game and refraining from blatant homerism.
But last night was a sorry exception for Hanny and Pete and made the game practically unlistenable. The first problem was when Petersen went out of his way to justify the KG deal as having been a shrewd trade. Now I endorsed the trade at the time it was made, and still think the deal was one Minnesota had to make, given all the financial and attitudinal circumstances involved. But methinks Pete doth protest too much about how Minnesota didn't get screwed. To do that, he absolutely lionized Al Jefferson, who obviously was the key to the deal, along with the draft picks, for the Wolves. I like Al Jefferson, quite a bit in fact, all things being equal. But when Pete brings up only to downplay the Lakers' offer of Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom and others, in order to continue praising Jefferson by comparison, it begins to sound fishy. Raving about how Jefferson is such a great low-post scorer at the age of 22 (he forgets Jeff turned 23 on January 4), Pete conveniently omits that Bynum won't turn 21 until October, averages more rebounds per 48 minutes than Big Al, is two inches taller than Big Al, is already a better defender than Big Al, is shooting 63.6% from the field and averaging more than 13 points per game in less than 29 minutes of action. And gave Jefferson fits in their head-to-head matchups this season.
I'm not saying Bynum is better than Jefferson; only that it will be an intriguing thing to track as they both mature over the next five or six years. And, more to the point, the same *must* be said about the Garnett deal. Minnesota could very well look very smart round about 2010--or look like fools. As I say, relative to other superstar trades, I think McHale and Minnesota came out pretty well, at least on paper, compared to what, say, Philly got for Iverson.
But let's get a little perspective. Boston came into this game with the best record in the NBA--and undefeated against the generally tougher Western Conference (and yes, I know they haven't played the West's cream of the crop). Minnesota came into this game with the worst record in the NBA. This is *not* the time to be thumping your chest about how well the Wolves did in that transaction. Petersen can be prone to overselling the Wolves, but generally he stays on firmer ground than this.
Having invested themselves in praising the blockbuster deal that had so many of the players on the court staring at the uniforms they so recently wore, Hanny and Pete began to root for the Wolves as nakedly as I can ever remember, and it really hurt the quality of their announcing. Petersen moaned about a no-call on Jefferson (hardly the first of the evening--the refs pretty much let them play) but didn't bat an eye that there was no call on the play that sent KG to the sidelines and prompted a turnover just a few minutes before then. He openly wondered if the five-second call on Corey Brewer--a devastating crunchtime turnover--was a quick count by the ref until the replay demolished that little conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile, Hanny offered up a series of whoppers. Two of my "favorites," in stiff competition, was first his claim in the 4th quarter that "Garnett has not been a big factor. Al Jefferson has been a big factor;" then, sailing into a commercial, the statement that if the Wolves were to prevail it would be "One of the biggest wins in franchise history." To state the obvious, KG was a big factor in the Celtics win--he already had one of those double-doubles Hanny used to rave about when Garnett played for the Wolves (he finished the game with 16 rebounds), and was a defensive force the entire night. And unless Al Jefferson went off for 82 points on 29-53 FG and 24-33 FT or something, any game that would "up" Minnesota's record to 8-34 is not, in the grand scheme of things, memorable to any franchise--even the Timberwolves.
I expect sanity will be restored during the next telecast.
Based on the last two/three weeks of play, I have two questions for posters:
1) Are the Wolves still the worst team in the league, or does that dishonor fall to the Heat?
2) If/when Foye comes back, does he replace Telfair or Jaric?
1. no. Knicks, heat, sonics are in worst situation
2. I'd play foye at the 2 guard instead of jaric
The Heat. If it is still smallball, I sit Telfair. Otherwise the size disparity gets really extreme.
The Heat are bad, but they still have Wade, a superstar in his prime. The Knicks are the true trash of the league.
The five-second call, IMO, is on Witt. He either has to have a fool-proof inbounds play or the ability to get his guys to call a TO at the four-second mark.
Britt- I think your analogy for GG works. Fun as it was to see him go off in the first half, it sure would be nice to see him do something within an offensive set. It was all one-on-one, gunner basketball ... when he had the ball, his on-court teammates may as well have been watching from the upper deck.
Even as a charter member of the KG Apologists Club, I'm not comfortable with putting him too high on any list including Larry Legend. Bird's court vision, passing and clutch killer instincts are incomparable.
Another great trey Britt, thank you.
It's always great to read about Bassy. It seems he's finally found a place where he can play his game and mature his game. I hope he stays and shares PG minutes with Foye.
I have blamed Wittman a few times before for not making some players feel confident. Whatever he did it seems he's figuring out how to make them feel confident. Even though the inbouds 5 second turnover should have been evaded .. the coach needs a chance to mature his coaching too.
As for the KG trade. I'm not sure if they should have chosen a little more quality over quantity. I think they got good quality AND good quantity. Off course I don't know what trades really were on the table.
I agree Smith could be a serviceable back-up behind Big Al or sharing PF minutes with Gomes when we're up against a smaller lineup. Let's hope we can keep all these players (telfair, gomes, smith) together. Green is the only guy I really don't care if he isn't offered a new contract because we already have enough players at that spot (especially if you count foye)...
I'm gonna read through the rest of the comments soon and maybe add another comment ;).
Always interesting to read a "how great is KG" thread. It makes me seem actually reasonable in some of my rants. The catalyst that would convince me that KG belongs in the Bird category would be a transcendent playoff run, much like Lebron James did last year, putting the Cavs on his back against a superior opponent. I think if KG had been able to push the Wolves past some of those first round playoff exits despite the odds, the debate would be over. His opportunity to finally settle these debates comes in the next three to four years. I don't think he has to necessarily win a ring, but it has to come very, very close, and for a couple of years running. That would put him at least in Tim Duncan territory, a player who many think is clearly superior to KG.
Until that time, it's hard to make comparisons between Bird and KG in today's watered down version of the NBA. Bird's defense wasn't great, but he was one of the best clutch shooters of our time, which tends to get people's attention, especially when it leads to Finals appearances and NBA titles. Unfair or not, for many people, that's the bar for the former Da Kid. Yeah, he may be the greatest Wolf in our lifetime, but to me that's like Jim Pete saying Mark Blount was our best center ever. So what?
As for the game, if Big Al manages to play better defense on his pal Perkins, and Brewer could have used that Gator U education to count to five, we probably win, KG not withstanding. The fact is bad teams find a way to lose, good teams find a way to win. Give folks like KG, Pierce and Allen too many chances, and they will beat you, plain and simple.
It was a great game to watch, and since I thought the Wolves were going to get blown out, a pleasant surprise. The interesting dynamic will now be how they come out against the Nets today. This is a winnable game, given the Nets slide and trade rumors of their big three. There's no time left to cry over spilled clam chowder.
Peter,
You fail to make even the slightest acknowledgment of the talent differential between KG's Wolves and Bird's Celtics. Put Bird (in place of KG) on those Wolves teams that lost in the first round of the playoffs, and they probably would have won one or two due to Bird's clutch scoring.
However, Bird would have never gotten those teams in the playoffs to begin with. Bird was the kind of player that could take over a game, but not the kind of player who could elevate a team for an entire season.
KG is definitely one of the best players of all-time. However his greatness is somewhat uncoventional...more Bill Russell than Wilt Chamberlain.
Had he played with better teams, like Bird or Duncan, it would be clear to all.
Rhino -
I disagree whole heartedly. The Celtics were 29-53 the year before Bird joined the club; in his first year with the Celtics, they won 61 games. Parish and the Iron Ranger came a year after that. He was a transformational player, along with Magic who came in the same year. I think any one who has paid attention to NBA history would tell you that.
KG will be in the top echelon of players, but he won't be spoken about in the same way as Bird, Jordan or Magic until he wins something, or goes deep in the post season consistently. It may be unfair, given his talent, but that's the way it is. He has every opportunity to advance your notion of him in the next few years. This is his time to establish his greatness, and his legacy.
Peter--
Remarkably restrained for you--I didn't even feel the rapier. What's more, I agree with most everything you say here. What's the world coming to?
Britt -
I watched Obama's victory speech last night in SC, and Bill Clinton's bad behavior the last week or so. I was caught up in a unifying "yes-we-can" moment.
I'll probably never drink as deep from the KG well as you, but every time I want to rebuke the hero worship, I hear spin from Hanneman, Petersen, McHale or Taylor, and it makes me realize how dysfunctional this situation is here, and I end up rooting a little more for KG. He bears some share of the blame, but the percentages of fault are heavily weighted in Taylor.org's camp.
However, I'm not going to put KG on a "Bird" pedestal, until he does more in the post-season. By Cornbread Maxwell's criteria, Tim Duncan should then be also better than Larry Bird, and as much as I like Duncan, I'm not ready to say that either. In recent history, if a game came down to the line, I think I'd still want the ball in Bird, Magic or Jordan's hands, which to me is the ultimate measure of greatness.
Russell is still my favorite of all-time, so I'm with Maxwell on that.
Peter -
It would be interesting to see how KG and TD compared when matched up with one another. My recollection is that TD pretty much owed KG.
Cornbread's comment was foolish, and I find such comparisons about players from different eras inconceivable. For example, how would you compare a George Mikan with Kareem or Bill Russell or Wilt?
What's with all of this venom towards Britt? I'm glad that people on this forum have different opinions, but....Really? The Gerald Green-Robbery analogy is quite simply the best b-ball related thing I've ever read.
Simply put, we gave up a top-50 player for some potential in Bassy & Green, an expiring contract (Ratliff), an eraser for the Wally trade, a late 1st round draft pick, the right to rent Ryan Gomes for one season, and Big Al. Read all of that again. Assuming Gomes signs elsewhere, we received a backup PG, an AND1 Mixtape candidate, a late first rounder (Ebi, anyone?), and Big Al for one of the best 50 players in the history of the game.
Now, if Big Al starts bringing 20K fans to their feet at the Target Center for the next 10 years and brings the squad to the playoffs for the better part of a decade, this will look like a great trade. Anything short of that is exactly what Britt alluded to: A semi-dissapointment which had to be endured. Not as bad as Philly/AI; Not nearly Herschel Walker for 3 Super Bowls.
I know most of this is just re-hashing things we have been talking about since July, however I refuse to sit idly while normally insightful posters rail on Britt for pointing out the obvious.
Hanny tosing out "one of the biggest wins for the franchise" made me sick. I believe that there are dozens of W's in the history of the franchise far ahead of last night's prospective victory. In fact, this might make a fun sidebar to this 3's comment board: I'm going to start with Game 4 of the First round against the Nuggets during the 2003-2004 series. Remember Spree missing those FT's, lucking out with Andre Miller's miss at the buzzer, and then getting into Jon Barry's face after the game ended? If Miller hits that shot, we may have never seen the Sactown series and KG's Game 7. Good Stuff.
Steve -
Always nice to read the shared banter of the glass half full crowd.
Unless we draft Michael Beasley instead of Derrick Rose, any Gomes offer will be matched by the Wolves.
Let's start with Theo's expiring contract. Wiping Theo's $11.7M annual contract off the books at season's end is a major coup. That's roughly the equivalent of what Big Al's new contract is this season and next. Good spending money for the Wolves, right?
Can you agree that KG's best years are now and in the past, given he is 31 years of age and in his 13th season? Doc Rivers certainly recognizes KG's mileage by giving him more bench time during games. It is also reflected in KG falling off his career averages (slightly right now) at 19.5 ppg versus career 20.5 ppg, and 9.8 boards per game versus career average 11.3.
For the record, Michael Jordan started falling off his gaudy career averages starting at age 33 and 12 years in the league.
Conversely, Big Al is 23 years of age is today one of a handful of contemporary 20 ppg and 12 rebounds NBA players.
Your observation about whether or not Big Al will bring 20k fans to their feet like KG is an interesting one. Shouldn't be the team rather than a single player who brings the fans to their feet? Of course, we all realize how important adoration is to KG even when it is not mutual.
I realize that KG was probably puffing out his chest and his Celtics jersey to get a reaction from local fans, but many Wolves fans took this as an affront to their love unreturned by the former franchise player. I have diagnosed these symptoms and categorize it as BFS (battered fan syndrome).
As for railing on Britt, please. I suspect Britt has big shoulders and he can give as well as he gets. He was just endowed with two Tommy Points.
Gomes is a restricted FA. We will match damn near any offer; he ain't going anywhere.
Thats certainly a possibility. If we scare teams from making an offer sheet by saying that we will match any offer, Gomes and his agent might ask for the 1 year qualifying offer. However, usually in those situations teams will negotiate with the player on a long term deal. I assume Ryan would much rather have the security of a long term deal.
As someone pointed out, if we draft Beasley, then Gomes is a goner. Otherwise, I love our odds to re-up him.
Petey J--
You are correct that Gomes is a restricted FA. But what if teams--especially the Celtics--realize that the Wolves will match any offer and nobody bids? What if Gomes then insists on a one-year deal? If a restricted free agent wants to leave, it isn't that long before he can. I'm not saying that will happen, but saying "he ain't going anywhere," isn't as certain as you and I would prefer.
I think he asks the Wolves for $30 mil over 5 and if he doesn't get what he wants, he walks in 09-10. A bit risky in the long run, but another team will bite.
Would you give it? 30mil over 5 years? I think I would...
I think they have to keep 2 players from the trade for no other reason than keeping 2 players from the trade.
That was definitely the most interesting Wolves game of the season, and I suppose that most or all of that of that is attributed to it being played against KG. Some observations:
The 5-second call was bogus and a painful reminder of the NBA's problem with officiating. A few TiVo replays of it, and the highest I could count to was 4. I imagine a stopwatch would show it somewhere around 3.8 seconds. Boston still would've had a chance to win, but the refs didn't need to make it any easier for them, especially on something as stupid as a 5 seconds call.
Paul Pierce would worry me if I were a Celtics fan. He, like KG, fills up the statsheet, but a lot of that can be attributed to having plays run through him on every possession. He takes a lot of bad shots, especially 3's, and might disrupt whatever offensive rhythm they are trying to establish. Allen was the colder shooter last night, but his shots come in a certain flow, whereas Pierce takes bad shots with everybody standing around. I just wasn't impressed and, as a Wolves fan watching last night, was happy every time he tried to force something, which was a big reason why we stayed in the game. With that said, he may have been smart to realize that the refs were on his side last night and they sent him to the line when it wasn't always deserved.
I hadn't heard about this Garnett-Bird comparison, or the concession that Bill Russell was better than both those players and Havlicek, Cousy, McHale and others. It's an interesting debate, but I'd quickly dispose of KG's place in it until he wins ONE ring, let alone three, like Bird, or eleven, like Russell. He also needs to start making crunch-time baskets, which is unlikely for a player in his thirteenth season. KG was a great citizen in Minnesota, and a tireless worker, but he's not, and never will be, in the category of Larry Bird. The NBA is a fourth quarter game, and while it's nice to have KG in there to keep games close with good defense and rebounding, the closers are more important and deserve a higher place in the all-time ranks.
It was a lot of fun to watch Bassy and Brewer step up last night, and that's exactly why I was more excited about this season than either of the past two. There is clear improvement happening with the team and certain players, and hopefully that will mean a lot more wins in the second half of the season.
I've heard from some third and fourth-hand sources that we may trade Shaddy soon. Does anyone know anything about this, or who it would be to?
Andy G--
You count too slowly. When Channel 45 replayed the out of bounds sequence, both Jim Petersen and I were counting along--he had just said it was a quick count; I had thought it was about right--and we both came up with more than 5 seconds. Pete admitted as much; I was watching by myself or that's what I would told you too. The official, whose job it is to slap his side every time a second ticks off, probably would have told you also; in fact he did when he blew his whistle.
As for the rings, where would you rank Luc Longley among the premiere NBA centers? Caliber of one's teammates is important, don't you think, or do you subscribe to the idea that hoops is a one-man show? And how many rings did Bird win without McHale, a player good enough for you to unilaterally include among the greatest players in the most successeful franchise in NBA history.
My favorite part of your post is when you said the NBA is a fourth quarter game and in the midst of denigrating KG and pumping up Bassy you neglected to mention the final play of last night's fourth quarter.
I won't respond to the 5-second call remarks, unless somebody has a youtube clip so I can actually use the stopwatch.
As for the stuff about counting rings: I completely agree that teammates matter, and they matter a lot. But, in ranking the best players of all time, I think championships won--(or at least playoff success, more generally) is a very relevant consideration. Watching 12 seasons of KG was probably a good enough sampling to understand that he doesn't consistently produce in crunchtime. How many times have you heard Wolves' announcers and coaches mention how many games they were tied or ahead going into the 4th Quarter? I feel like I heard that every day during the Dwayne Casey era. The truth is that most games are still in doubt when entering the 4th Quarter, and that's when the go-to guys step up and make things happen. Posting up from 15 feet, holding the ball a few seconds and return-passing it to the same wing who dumped it in, isn't exactly what I have in mind when I think of all-time great NBA players. KG is a very strong defensive player, but plenty of guys have given him trouble over the years. Tim Duncan, young Antonio McDyess, Rasheed Wallace and Zach Randolph instantly come to mind. Part of me doesn't like getting into this argument, because I certainly respect almost everything about Garnett, but listenting and reading about how he is a true all-time great player begs for a strong reaction. He is certainly an all-star caliber player, and when traded to a team that features two other all-star players, they become a top-notch team. Being an all-star doesn't make you Larry Bird, or any other player who led teams to three championships and two other trips to the Finals, taking and making big shots to get them there. If Garnett does that in his time in Boston, I'll admit I'm wrong and rethink his place in history. But after a dozen seasons, he's nowhere near that elite company, hardly having played beyond the first round of the playoffs. His teammates weren't as good as Kevin McHale, but they weren't bad enough to keep a Larry Bird-caliber player from bringing them deeper into the post-season than KG did.
Your last criticism hardly warrants a response. I was happy to see Bassy play well. No reasonable person would equate that with me thinking he's better than KG. Maybe if he keeps working on that jumper...
I have sorely missed the banter on this blog this year not having as much time to indulge in the informed and intricate analysis not only of the author but of the many readers that participate.
This game was very interesting to watch. Not having watched the Timberwolves much this year, they played a very impressive game while Boston played absolutely horrendously committing 20+ turnovers and with a putrid shooting percentage in the 30s. This game simply showed to me that good teams find a way to win while bad teams always find a way to lose. Good teams don't lose faith in themselves and bad teams fail to execute the fundamentals through 48 minutes, hence the inability to inbound the ball or to block out really cost Minnesota what I agree would have been a historic win.
Which brings me to my main point which is that I still continue to believe that KG is one of the best players in the league. Despite not contributing much offensively, he rebounded like a monster and made key plays defensively (including the last second steal that sealed the victory). I don't know that the Celtics will win an NBA title this year but I do believe they will contend and that KG will be a huge factor in the playoffs.
Having said that, annointing him better than Larry Bird is way off mark, at least for now. Until KG can truly carry a team to a championship (and by carrying I mean more in the Bill Russell mold which means by playing great defense) he can't be talked about in the same mold. Bird was truly a great player. Not only was he a great clutch shooter but he had a truly great mental knowledge of the game. While he may not have been highlight-reel defensive player, he wasn't terrible and had a knack for making great defensive plays when it mattered most (how about the steal against the Pistons in the playoffs in the 80s). I believe KG has to have at least two championships to be placed in the same echelon as Bird.
On a more friendly note, I was introduced to this column a few weeks back and have really enjoyed it--(and, obviously, the comments page). Keep up the good work.
Thanks--yes, that play should be mentioned, and like I said, I'll reevaluate my thoughts on KG if plays like that one lead to great Celtics success in the coming post-seasons. But, in the all-time great debates, I think most of the attention should be geared toward big playoff performances. I obviously exaggerated Garnett's deficiencies, but I was always a little frustrated that he didn't take a more determined offensive role, and get more free throw attempts in the 4th Quarter. My post that said Kobe-KG would make the best combo in history shows that I think highly of him as an all-around player, but until that leads to more playoff wins, he's behind Larry Legend, in my book.
I plugged my nose and read the rest of your analysis. The Bynum and Jefferson comparison is pretentious and silly. Bynum is a star in the making; whereas the star is already born with Jefferson. They play different natural positions.
There was a reason that Kobe dissed Andrew during the summer (when the trade offer was being pitched). Kobe has changed his tune now that Andrew is beginning to flourish (well after the trade pitch was made and not accepted).. Lamar Odom is an under achiever bar none.
Speaking of thumping your chest, how about KG's thumping his chest at beating an admittedly inferior team by a single point.
I trust your sanity will be restored in your next piece. In the interim, what's will KG mimicking Rahseed Wallace loud mouthing Big Al? And for the record, I have never enjoyed thug like behavior from any player including the one who you believe walks on water.
CA--
Okay, I'll start with this one first. If Jefferson is already a star, why are the Wolves 7-35? Why did the man he was supposedly guarding execute the putback that won last night's game, and, not incidentally, go off for a game-high 21 points? Why did the man he was supposedly guarding the game before that one go off for 14-16 FG and ring up 33 points in 29 minutes with Jefferson on him? Why has this "star" not shut down a single player this entire season on defense--or do you have one you want to nominate? When was the last time Kevin Garnett let a man score more than a point per minute on him? Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait. See, you don't need to walk on water to play defense, you just need to make it a regular part of your game. At least that's what real stars do. Or perhaps you prefer Vince Carter and Michael Redd.
See, CA, I gave you some facts and names, just as I provided facts and stats and names in my comparison vis a vis Bynum and Jefferson. What you provide is...what? That I'm pretentious and silly. That Kobe is as poor a judge of talent as you are. Have you looked up what Jefferson did when he was Bynum's age? Did you consider that, in their current stage of development, it might be better for the Wolves to have a "star in the making" rather than one who was already there? All things being equal, did you think about which natural position player might be more valuable, the center or the power forward?
You think I overrate Garnett. The "reasons" you give is because he was celebrating a win over an inferior opponent and because he practiced "thug like" behavior by trash-talking Jefferson. Oh, yeah, I see your point--terrible player. I already gave you some of the main reasons why people carp on KG; at least you could have recycled those points. Meanwhile, here's a couple more stats for you: KG, 16 rebounds, six above his average; Jefferson, 5 rebounds, seven below his average. Must have been because he playing an admittedly superior opponent.
Take the plugs out of your nose, it clouds your thinking.
I'll answer your first question, "Okay, I'll start with this one first. If Jefferson is already a star, why are the Wolves 7-35? " with a quesiton: if KG was such a star, why didn't the Wolves make the playoffs in his final years with the franchise?"
The answer in both cases is that basketball is a team game.
As for Perk's putback, are you asking me to compare Perkins (the guy Al was "supposedly guarding") stats with Big Al's stats? Of course, you would prefer to argue your case on the basis of a single play. Of course, you would like to dwell on the defensive shortcomings of Big Al instead of his overall contribution.
You and I both know that Perkins gets the ball handed to him under the rim and gets an inordinate number of putbacks due to the double-teaming of KG or Pierce.
As for your penchant for defensive play, I too admire strong defensive play, but use your head. How much is Bruce Bowen getting paid versus Melo or A.I.? How often has Bruce Bowen been a cover story versus Melo or A.I.? Are Melo and A.I. "stars" in this league?
As for Kobe's assessment of Bynum, you completely misconstrued my comment. Kobe made his feelings known about the Bynum experiment last summer. Last summer coincidentally is when the possibility of a trade for Bynum and Lamar was being considered. I blame you for this. You never told Kobe or the Wolves management last summer that Bynum would have a good upcoming season. Your prescience is only as good as those you are able to convince of it. For the record, Bynum's line last season is readily available on NBA.com: 22 mpg, 7.8 ppg, 5.9 boards. His record this season: 28.8 mpg, 13.1 ppg, 10.2 boards.
Bynum remains a flourishing 5; Big Al remains an All Star caliber 4. The rest of your middle paragraph argument is an attempt to recreate history. Hopefully, you realize the futility of such contentions.
You take the argument into the sphere of the absurd in your final paragraph. There is an obvious difference between performance and behavior. KG is admittedly has great talent but his manner is lacking. What's next for KG, mimicking the wiping of his rear end on the post? KG is a close second only to Rasheed Wallace in terms of mannerisms. I don't recall seeing any of the NBA legacy players carry on in the manner of KG and Wallace.
Sure KG acted out in this matter to some extent with the Wolves. That is why I cringed when the Wolves management decided to make KG the face of their franchise. Fortunately, the Wolves acquired quality people in Al and Gomes in exchange for the unhinged KG even if you poo-poo Big Al's budding stardom.
As for stats, did you forget KG's awesome 10 points and 2 TOs?. Of course, in your world, KG getting 10 points really means he scored 100 points and 2 turnovers means he was error free.
I'll give you two Tommy Points, though.
1. Regardless of what the wolves knew or didn't know at the time, the franchise may come to regret not picking up Bynum in the KG trade. Even if they made the best decision possible with available information at the time, the fans and the franchise may look back 3 years from now and say "Damn, we could have had Bynum." It may be like Allen vs. Marbury in the draft (did we know that Marbury was a world-class a-hole?)
2. Comparing KG and Rasheed Wallace as basketball players makes sense. Comparing them as personalities is not warranted. Although KG is emotional he tends to channel this emotion into useful team-improving activities (e.g., rebounding) as opposed to dissipative activities like earning vast quantities of technical fouls. Check the numbers on techs for their careers. Wallace often hurts his team and has a reputation for not showing up to play on occasion. I think the Pistons and every other team in the NBA would take KG over Wallace in a heartbeat. In all his years with the T-wolves did he ever do anything to embarrass the franchise or the fans? I say no.
3. Yes, it helps Perkins that he gets great looks and wide open dunks, but Big Al just plain doesn't put in the effort on defense. Although AI and Melo are stars, both fans and opponents know that that they don't historically have great all around games, especially Melo. In fact, Melo has been getting a fair amount of press this year for being a better rebounder and defender.
Look at San Antonio. They play defense. Everyone on their team plays defense. As a fan, that's the kind of team that I want to watch. I want to see effort on defense. Jefferson often fails to get back on defense (all he has to do is run!) and although a good rebounder, he often fails to box out (like against Perkins on Friday night). Other fans may not enjoy watching good defensive effort, and that's fine.
Also Perkins plays alongside KG, Pierce, and Allen every night. Yet against the wolves he goes off for a huge game (one of the biggest of his career). And on that night, Big Al was guarding him. Hopefully Al will improve his effort on defense. That's all I would like to see, more effort. It's also the most frustrating part of watching the man play. As Britt as previously noted, Al clearly puts in a large amount of work on his post moves and offensive skills. He should be applauded for all that effort. It's too bad the same effort isn't expended on defense during the game.
Sure, Al can be star in this league by averaging 25 and 12. But he won't be a great player until he plays hard on both ends of the floor.
Britt:
As bad as it may have been with the home town crew (and I don't doubt their ability to turn on the homerism), Tommy Heinsohn was in rare form last night on league pass. I think my favorite moment was when he blamed the poor officiating (read: no calls for the Celts) on the youth of a particular ref. He did have 2 fairly interesting things to say about Green and Bassy: for Green he was shocked that the young guy actually pulled up for a mid-range jumper; for Bassy, he thought he'd never have to utter the words, "what they really need to do is stop Telfair."
As president, founder, CEO, and treasurer of this comment section's Bassy Fan Club, it's nice to see him play so well; especially against his former team and in doing so further expose one of the Celts' biggest weaknesses. I've said it for a long time: Bassy is 3-5% away on his FG% from being an above-average point in this league. Part of what he has done so well in recent games is to limit his 3pt attempts. He took 5 last night but several of them were with the clock winding down and for the most part he was content to take Rondo off the dribble and shoot from mid-range or dish. Shot selection is proving key for both him and Brewer. He's finally made it over 40% from the floor and he's hitting at 45% in his last 10...largely because he's given up on the 3-ball when he has the opportunity to drive. Freeze his stats at the 1/2 way point because I think he's going to improve on them all.
I fall a bit more towards the Barriero side of things when it comes to KG. While I recognize that he was the Wolves best player, he was never my favorite guy on the squad because of an annoying tendency to completely wig out when playing a short list of lesser players (fake thug Pryzbilla being the prime example). The ugly fake thug side of KG has reared its head a few times this year; against Portland, the Knicks and now the T-Wolves. While I acknowledge that jersey popping, in theory, is a fun thing to witness, in practice by a man making $20+ million a year and yelling "mother f#$ker" at his opponent kind of takes some of the glitz and joy out of the moment...emotional or not. It's also a bit disingenuous to see such an outburst after a couple of days telling fans and media outlets that the Wolves game wasn't a big deal. I'll always have good will towards the man for his years here at the Target Center but even KG has to realize that even though he says all of this isn't about his relationship with Wolves fans, after a few more technicals, f-bombs, and whatnot directed at the players Wolves fans are moving forward and rebuilding with (not to mention the inverted records)...well, it would have been nice to see him equal the class exhibited by Big Al upon his return to the only club he ever played for.
I'd also like to take a moment to bitch a bit about the final few inbounds sequences. If ever there were a moment to crystallize Witt's failures as a coach, the last 45 seconds of the 4th were it. Player development is not just about teaching the x's and o's, it's about putting players in positions to succeed. Putting a rookie in a position where you are running an obvious inbounds play to the low post from 1/2 court is questionable. Running the same set and having to call a time out is beyond questionable. Running a different set and using your timeout while having a foul to give is insane. Going back to the idea of entering the ball to a low post player out of the block in a double team while refusing to take the ball out under the hoop with the full length of the court and the ability to run up and down the base line is bat-guano insane.
I could almost see the thought bubble in Brewer's head when entering the ball: "Coach said to get it to Big Al but everyone else on the court saw the set and knew where the ball was going and they collapsed on the entry angles and they are overplaying the backcourt entry and...." Whistle. Time's up. I don't blame that one on Brewer at all. You could see him count, you could see him move his arms to call for a time out, and you could see that each and every single Celtic on the court knew what the Wolves were trying to do.
Oh, and don't get me started on Tommy 'Points" Heinson's bias.
Britt -
I had to stop reading about midway through, as I was choking on pablum. I'm okay with some KG love, a great player and huge contributor to the Wolves history. But, aren't the Celtics the world beaters? Aren't the Wolves the world's beaten? Didn't the Wolves take them down to the wire where Doc admitted his belief that his team would lose?
Jim Pete is completely right in terms of the trade. The argument pro/con is a tired one and, frankly, overspent, but really.
I too have League Pass and the post-game Celtics announcers spoke mainly about how the Celtics almost lost the game as opposed to how the Wolves performed practically well enough to win. So, the perspective depends on which side of the fence you dwell on.
Given that this season for the Wolves is not one based on win or losses but on player development. And, given that the expectations placed on the Celtics is to at least get to the conference finals, a realist would consider this one-point win game along with the recent loss to the Raptors as cause for some concern. The Celtics still are yet to play the Mavericks nor the Spurs.
Come on, Britt, you're better than that.
CA--
What, you think the Wolves and Celtics should have each gotten a point, like the hockey ties? Uh, unless I'm missing something, the Celtics fulfilled their role as world beaters last night and the Wolves fulfilled their role as the world's beaten. How else do you characterize a team where two of its three stars go 8-33 FG while a third leaves the gave in middle of crunch time with an injury and jacks up only 5 shots in 31 minutes, a team down by 5 with two minutes to play, and still comes back and finds a way to win the game? You want to call that a cause for concern, okay. The Celts are enduring their "worst" month thus far in the month of January. They are 8-4, a 54 win pace. Yes, they haven't played either the Mavs or the Spurs. Assuming they lose all four of those games, that will make them 12-4 versus the West. And maybe they'll meet one of them in the NBA Finals and lose--personally, from what I've seen, I don't think anybody can beat the Spurs if they stay healthy. What does that have to do with anything I wrote?
You seem to be upset because I find praise for a player whose absence has caused one team to sport the worst record in the NBA, and whose arrival has caused another team to sport the best record in the NBA. And as I said in previous comment to you elsewhere in this thread, if you are going to disagree with me about the validity of what we got in the KG trade, you are going to have to do better than words so banal they can't even be called generalities.
It's embarrassing that so many Wolves fans these days have taken to over stating KG's flaws to make themselves feel better about big Al and the rest of the current team.
The facts are so easy to see: Celtics have the best record in the league with KG. Replace KG with big Al and that team is fighting for a playoff spot. That's because the Celtic's success is because of its number one rated team defense. Until Al starts playing defense he's not a star. I'm glad he puts up huge points, but there's a lot of one dimenstional players in this league who are never a part of winning teams. Few would rip Mike Redd's game, but why are the Bucks, with a very respectable amount of talent on their roster, often blown out? It's because their best player doesn't play defense.
The complaint on KG is basically that he couldn't lift a bunch of underperforming misfits to the promise land with Michael Jordan-like heroics in the fourth quarter the past three years. Get over it guys, KG is the MVP of the league this year and Al Jeff is the best player on the worst team in the league. The reason startes with a capital D.
Britt -
I'm having a hard time finding your normal logical mind in your posts. You, like the Boston fans and announcers, attribute everything negative in the Celtics performance to their just having an off game 8-33 FG and KG taking a 4-minute med check. Could it be that the Wolves were at least partially responsible for the Celtics poor shooting exhibition? Don't let you head explode in exploring this possibility.
Doc Rivers encapsulated the two clubs strategies very well. The Celtics are playing for the here and now; the Wolves are building a long-standing successful franchise. This is evidenced by the Celtics going well over the NBA salary cap while the Wolves are wiping deadwood off the books and will have plenty of walking money, particularly in the 2009-10 time frame.
Consequently, any intelligent discussion about the relative merits of the trade cannot be made until after the terms of the trade run their course (including the development of perspective draft choices garnered by the Wolves from the Celtics from the trade).
If I'm a NBA general manager, I like the Wolves future more than that of the aging Big 3.2 who individually and collectively are off their career averages in terms of points and rebound production. Does anyone doubt that the future for these big 3 is a downward path in production versus an upward one? Yet, they will continue to be paid as if they are at the top of their respective games well into the future.
CA--
I think we can do this one more time before it gets tedious (others may disagree). This response will be to the variety of posts you have put up since I last addressed you. Feel free to have the last word.
You might rediscover my "normal logical mind" if you actually read what I wrote. For example, what part of "they played good-to-great defense in the second half, perhaps their best defensive effort of the season," didn't you understand? You see, I did explore the possibility that "the Wolves were at least partially responsible for the Celtics poor shooting exhibition." Too bad, because that marvelously clever line about my head exploding has now gone to waste.
You write, "any intelligent discussion about the relative merits of the trade cannot be made until after the terms of the trade run their course..."
I wrote, "I'm not saying Bynum is better than Jefferson; only that it will be an intriguing thing to track as they both mature over the next five or six years. And, more to the point, the same *must* be said about the Garnett deal. Minnesota could very well look very smart round about 2010--or look like fools." Did you not read that part, because it sounds like we agree with each other.
I guess in your haste to defend Jim Petersen, you also take what I said about Bynum versus Jefferson out of context. Go back and read it--carefully this time. I was criticizing Pete for flatly claiming that the Jefferson package was better than the Bynum package *even with the benefit of hindsight on Bynum's play this year.* So your snide asides in an above response about my "prescience" and the "futility" of me "trying to recreate history" with respect to Bynum and Jefferson totally distort the context both of my original remarks and my first response to you.
On to Kevin Garnett. You think I deify him and I understand that public opinion puts me on the booster side of the debate. But again, that doesn't give you the right to ignore the places where I mitigate my opinion. You wrote, "Of course in your world, KG getting 10 points really means he scored 100 points and two turnovers means he was error free."
But I had written, "Garnett stubbornly continued to take only what the Wolves' D gave him in the second half...how many bricks does Ray Allen have to toss before you realize it just isn't his night?...if you're a diehard Celtics fan, you are screaming for KG to get the ball and then do something with it in the direction of the hoop." Does that sound to you like I gave KG a free pass (let alone squared his point total) for getting only 10 points? As for the turnovers, I went into some detail about both of them, and if you thought my description was inaccurate you should have stepped up and said where I was wrong. No, I don't think he was error-free; only that he was not primarily responsible for the two turnovers with which he was charged.
That's at least four specific places in my original text where you either distort or ignore what I wrote.
Meanwhile, your harshest criticisms about Garnett revolve around his trash talking and the pulling out of his jersey and his "dissing" of Wolves fans. You claim it was a mistake for the Wolves to make KG the public face of the franchise. Oh, even with 20/20 hindsight, who would you recommend: Sam Cassell? Latrell Sprewell? Wally Szczerbiak? Laettner? Rasho? Ricky Davis? Terrell Brandon? Remember, other decent candidates like Fred Hoiberg and Sam Mitchell were frequently trotted out by the team to address the crowds over the mic and do other marketing activities.
But let's focus back on KG. I don't think he currently has the top selling uuniform and the highest all star vote totals because of overwhelming support from wannabe thugs. I think your garden-variety NBA fan appreciates the fact that he comes to play, hard, every night; that he constantly plays hurt without complaint; that he fortifies a team by practicing hard, taking responsibilty for his mistakes on the court, and mentoring younger players; that he never has been in trouble with the police or otherwise made sordid headlines his entire career in the NBA; etc etc. Why aren't these things more important to you than KG trying to get inside Al Jefferson's head?
Finally, right after you accuse me of taking the argument "into the sphere of the absurd," you compare Garnett to 'Sheed (who once threatened an NBA ref with bodily harm off the court after a game, and has been suspended for too many technical fouls) and, because that somehow isn't enough, fantasize a comparison with Randy Moss and his butt wiping move in Green Bay.
Were these arguments "logical" enough, or are you going to devastate me with another riposte about Tommy Points?
Britt -
Tedium has set in. But just a couple points. In a team game, I don't think any player should be designated as the face of a franchise. Sure, certain players will garner more acclaim than others. But I believe the player should defer to the team rather than grab the limelight (even if offered by management). For a player who has built his reputation as a team player, there is a great deal of inconsistency at best.
As for KG's mannerisms. No, to the best of my knowledge, KG has not threatened an NBA ref with bodily harm, etc. And he doesn't compare with Wallace in terms of volume of technicals. But that doesn't change KG challenging Dice to a fight or KG whining incessantly to the refs about getting nicked up during the L.A. game, or KG acting the fool after the Wolves game (Celtics fans are welcome to disagree).
Using the Moss analogy stuck a cord with you, fine. I liken KG's post game antics and his loud-mouthing Big Al to taunting in the NFL. If KG is such a star, why does he need to rely on his mouth to try to get into someone's head? I don't see Big Al using bad mouth to supplement his manhood, but Al doesn't strike me as a thug either.
As an aside, having visited KG a few times in the past over his 12 years, he is a very private person who travels incognito with an entourage. I bet his privacy in Boston is an incredible challenge.
There is one factor worth mentioning in this "Bynum vs. Jefferson: what was a better trade?" discussion. That is the fact that a Laker team featuring Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett would almost surely be the greatest team in NBA history, and would stay that way for the next five seasons. It would be the NBA version of Brady and Moss, and I'm not sure it would be in our best interest to create that problem in our own conference. Garnett-Pierce-Allen is obviously very strong, but Pierce and Allen probably won't stay good for as long as Kobe, and aren't nearly as good right now as Kobe, so that should say something about what LA would be doing with Big Ticket alongside Bryant. Yikes.
Or that a T-Wolves team built around Bynum, Odom, and whatever was left over might have put the Wolves between 10-15 in this year's draft (giving the pick to the Clips) and the Wolves would have then had to give the next draft's pick to Boston. If you then add in the 2nd rounder owed to Detroit, the Bynum-led Wolves would have had 1 pick (a 2nd rounder) in the next 2 years.
This is the biggest reason why the Celts trade was the best option on the table.
"too have League Pass and the post-game Celtics announcers spoke mainly about how the Celtics almost lost the game as opposed to how the Wolves performed practically well enough to win. So, the perspective depends on which side of the fence you dwell on."
...not to mention Bob Ryan writing about how the Wolves were 1 no-call during that rebounding/mugging scrum from winning the game. I heard some quotes from other Boston media today calling for Rondo's head. The guy has apparently been exposed for a few games in a row now.
Britt,
IMO, you are overstating KG's performance on a similar level as Tom overstating Big Al, at least for this particular game. The most egregious example is attributing KG's defensive performance to Jefferson's very average second half. Jefferson was stymied by Boston's team defense, not KG alone. Big Al was hawked by two or three Celtics every time he touched the ball. What kept the Wolves in the game today was the fact that guys like Brewer and Bassy were actually hitting open shots while Jeff was rendered ineffective.
Note in the first half, there were a couple of plays where Jefferson absolutely abused KG, even when KG had help. Remember that up and under that Peterson hyperbolically compared to "the Dream shake."
I also don't think "holding" Gomes to 5 points in the first half is anything special, either. We are talking about a guy who averages 11.7 points a game. Yeah, he's been scoring more of late, but it's been against "small ball" teams. Against a bigger team like Boston, he shouldn't score much more than his average.
Finally, where was KG's offense in the second half? He scored 8 points in the first quarter, then 2 the rest of the game . . .against a team that has been getting abused by power forwards and centers. I don't care if he's doubled, 2 points is not adequate, especially against the Wolves. This game is a perfect example of why KG is "the world's greatest complimentary" player!
Yes, KG does sets nice picks and had a solid rebounding effort. Important things that make up for some of his misgivings (like the not so surprising failed easy put back in crunchtime).
KG had a decent game, certainly not bad. However, this was not the game to use an example of KG's brilliance.
Have you ever posted your KG vs Bird argument? I'd love to read it. I personally don't see it, but maybe you could convince some of us. Personally, I think KG vs McHale makes for a good debate, not Bird.
On to other things. This game is an example of how good Bassy could be if he had an outside shot. Hitting the jumper totally changes his game. It makes his lightening quickness and speed even more of an advantage.
Ditto Brewer. You would have been better served using some of your KG space on Brewer's defensive effort. He gave one of the best scorers in the game (Pierce) fits and was a big reason Pierce was 4-15 while being single covered. The inbounds play was unfortunate, given how well he played Pierce.
It was nice to see how hard Green played. Diving for loose balls, moving his feet, head in the game. I still tihnk he shoots too much, but it should be mandatory that he get at least 5-10 minutes a game to develop.
Krush--
The points are well-taken. I think that "Dream Shake" happened in the second half--KG was almost always on Gomes in the first half.
As for the Celts' "team defense," Rondo is regarded as a ball-hawking point guard (and he probably was shown up more than anyone on D Friday night) but neither Ray Allen nor Pierce has a rep for playing defense. Ask anybody around the Celtics why a team that has played horrible D since Jim O'Brien left is suddenly way ahead of the rest of the league in most defensive categories and they'll mention the schemes of coach Tom Thibodeau and the role of Garnett, both physically and attitudinally, in re-energizing his team toward a greater commitment to defense.
I am not trying to argue that KG had a great game on Friday--what I said was it was a game that crystallized his strengths--and weaknesses-- in a tidy little package. But I do think it bears mentioning that the criticism of KG has always been that he puts on a great show but disappears in crunchtime when the game is on the line. The Celts-Wolves game was the opposite--not such a great show, but KG made the key steal when the game was in the balance. KG's critics can't have it both ways.
KG deserves mention for MVP because of defense alone. Last year the Celts had a 106.9 defensive rating. This year they lead the league at 97.9, nearly 6 full points better than second place. In fact, the difference between 1 and 2 is the same as between 2 and 21. Last year's Wolves had a 107.9 rating, which is impressive by itself if you have followed the post-Wolves careers of Blount, Davis, Hassell, etc. This year, the Wolves are dead last in the league with a 113.3 defensive efficiency rating. That's a mind-numbing difference for both squads.
This year's Celts lead the league in opponent FG%, turnovers, and they allow the 3rd fewest offensive rebounds. I disagree with Britt on Rondo's defensive effectiveness (he's essentially a replacement level player), but I think this only goes to highlight that the reason for the Celts' surge in defensive efficiency is their front court play; i.e. the loss of Big Al and the acquisition of KG.
As for the Bird/KG comparisons, I'd actually side with KG. Bird's best 3 year stretch was 85-87. His best numbers during that stretch were 29.9 ppg (87), 9.8 rpg (85), and 7.6 apg (86). In 86 he had a mind blowing eFG% of 61% and his highest PER was 27.8 in 87. He also had high-quality running mates to take off a bit of the pressure in McHale (nearly his equal in 86), Danny Ainge (44% from 3), Robert Parish (17 and 10), and a guy who could control the tempo with Dennis Johnson. KG’s best 3 year stretch was 2002-2004, where he had highs of 29.4 PER (03), 24.2 ppg (03), 13.9 rpg (03), and 5.7 apg (04). He never had the running mates like Bird and he controlled the defensive end of the court like Bird never could.
So when are we going to get your KG vs Bird analysis :)
I was pained by the Celtics game at the end. The imbound play was horrendous. Cory Brewer doing his best Chris Webber imitation. Not the same, but similar mental lapses. Argh.
After holding KG to 10 points, and losing by one? That final 37 seconds proved to me I'm a Wolves fan first. While I admire KG, and always will, his jubilation at the end pained me. I know rationally he's a Celtic. Pro atheletes are mercenary. I was puzzled though that he was jawing with Al Jefferson during the game. What's THAT about?
The celebration at the end seemed over the top. Disproportionate for the star of the team with the BEST record surviving against the team with the WORST record in the league.
KG acted like they won the 7th game in the League finals in June.
Oh well, Doc Rivers reaction seemed more appropriate. He came down the court and embraced Green, and said nice things about the Wolves afterwards.
Not that I wish KG ill, but the abdominal strain might the first sign, all those minutes are catching up. What would the Celtic nation's mood be if 40K catches up in the spring. Him and Ray Allen. They'll be back where they started, with Paul Pierce against the world. I don't wish that on Doc Rivers.
As far as the Bill Russell KG comparison, I don't know that you can do that. The era's are too different. There were 8 and 9 teams in the league. during Russells prime. Most were made up of 4 year college players. Team work wasn't a foreign concept to most of the competition. The players had fewer distractions, and fewer outside pressures. Basketball was pretty much all they did. All you can say is both Bill Russell, and KG are defense first all stars, who make their teammates better. One has 11 titles, the other has none.
I agree with your characterization of KG's display at the end of the Celtics game. Out of proportion, and it would have been more appropriate to congratulate AJ or other wolves. But for me, it served a purpose.
KG's prancing after they almost got whupped by the worst team in the league cut the cord for me. No more KG love -- though he will always deserve respect. I love AJ's responses to KG's trash talking ["keep talking, mofo..." & "we have one thing in common, no titles"] and I'm gonna enjoy fanning for AJ from now on. Someday, we are going to be very happy, IMHO.