KG catching up to Dirk? Or is this not possible?

[ElGee]

And yeah its fair to talk about team success when you are discussing the best players on the team. Its different when you talk about the 3rd string center who has very little influence over how the team performs but we are talking about the franchise guys here.

Curious -- how much do you think star players can impact a game? Both on average and in a single game...and then what do you think this does to the chances that his team wins?

[JordansBulls]

And yeah its fair to talk about team success when you are discussing the best players on the team. Its different when you talk about the 3rd string center who has very little influence over how the team performs but we are talking about the franchise guys here.

Curious -- how much do you think star players can impact a game? Both on average and in a single game...and then what do you think this does to the chances that his team wins?

Well we saw Dirk's impact in the 2011 playoffs as the only star on his team.

[drza]

And yeah its fair to talk about team success when you are discussing the best players on the team. Its different when you talk about the 3rd string center who has very little influence over how the team performs but we are talking about the franchise guys here.

Curious -- how much do you think star players can impact a game? Both on average and in a single game...and then what do you think this does to the chances that his team wins?

Well we saw Dirk's impact in the 2011 playoffs as the only star on his team.

Interestingly enough, it was very similar to KG's impact in the 2008 playoffs.

[Doormatt]

well that doesnt even have anything to do with supporting casts, it just shows how valuable dirk and kg were to their respective teams.

i dont know where youre getting supporting casts from that.

[AnaheimRoyale]

they are obviously comparable, the 08 celtics didnt have prime allen/pierce. rondo was basically a nobody at that point and perkins wasnt much more useful. they had very nice role players and a very good big 3, but the mavs also had a deep team that gelled perfectly. i dont see how its so absurd to compare the two. the 2011 mavs are an incredibly underrated supporting cast. they had shooters, solid defenders, and all of them fit perfectly around dirk and his game. i mean, who would take 08 rondo over 2011 kidd? how much better was allen than terry, especially in the playoffs? tyson chandler imo is clearly better than any of the bigs the celtics had other than KG, and marion was a really strong player as well. obviously not as good as pierce but still very good.

its not at all a ridiculous comparison. and you basically not responding to it because you dont agree with +/- (which is an actual legitimate tool, whereas you have nothing but opinion) leaves you with no leg to stand on.

I don't agree at all, but at least you've got the guts to come out and say what you feel, unlike some posters.

You say the 2011 Mavs were underrated. I couldn't agree more. You say they had a deep and balanced team. Right on the money I say. But we're comparing them to the 2008 Celtics here, maybe the best support cast a star player has had in recent memory.

No, the Celtics didn't have a support cast big as good as Tyson Chandler, but they did have one who was very, very good. Perkins is just a role player, but he's a damn good role player. More importantly, the Celtics beat the Mavs everywhere else. They had 2 borderline Franchise players who were in the tail end of their primes. Terry, Marion, these are good players... but prime Ray Allen and Paul Pierce they're not. These guys were 30 and 32, and posted lower volume stats because of how stacked the team they were going to was. In 2005 Ray Allen was the best player on a team who won 52 games in the Western Conference, with Rashard Lewis and Luke Ridnour as his 2nd and 3rd best players. Jason Terry could never have even dreamt of doing something like that. Paul Pierce was the man on a team who made the Eastern Conference Finals on the back of his great play. Sure, the East sucked when he did it, but so did his support cast. These guys were all-nba players, vastly better than anyone else on the Mavs in 2011.

Jason Kidd was a handy PG last year, and Barea off the bench was great stuff. But even young Rondo is better than that, especially when he's augmented by smart vets like Cassell and House. It's not like Rondo was crap in 2008, he was just asked to do less because of the deep team he was on, and as things have changed since then, and the Celtics vets have fallen off a bit, he's stepped it up and done more. Speaking of depth, the Celtics had crazy depth everywhere that year, a still good James Posey, Vet PJ Brown, 26 year old tough as nails defender Tony Allen, even big guys like Powe and Big Baby played well in their roles. Sure, guys like PJ Brown and Posey weren't in their prime anymore, but they sure were good in the roles they were asked to play. 1-12 the Celtics were ridiculously deep.

[colts18]

Interestingly enough, it was very similar to KG's impact in the 2008 playoffs.

No. The Mavs lose in 5 games in the 1st round without Dirk.

[ahonui06]

I can't believe someone just said that KG's Celtics teammates in 2008 were the same as DIRK's in 2011. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

DIRK would kill to have a prime Paul Pierce on his team along with Rondo and an efficient sharpshooter like Ray Allen. The 2008 Celtics also had James Posey who played amazing defense and hit timely 3s during that postseason run. Even PJ Brown played huge in the playoffs. The Mavs didn't even have a backup PF during their title run. Marion would play backup PF minutes or Cardinal would go in there for a minute or two.

The two teams aren't even comparable. The Truth was as important to that 2008 team as KG. The same can't be said for the Mavs. DIRK was the clear cut #1 option and go to guy for the Mavs during that postseason run.

[drza]

Interestingly enough, it was very similar to KG's impact in the 2008 playoffs.

No. The Mavs lose in 5 games in the 1st round without Dirk.

Similarly, the Celtics likely lose to the Hawks. If by some chance they squeak by, they get torched by the Cavs.

[colts18]

Similarly, the Celtics likely lose to the Hawks. If by some chance they squeak by, they get torched by the Cavs.

The Celtics were 9-2 without KG. Their O Rating-D Rating differential in the games KG missed was higher than any NBA champion in NBA history except the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls (yes better than 00 Lakers, 86 Celtics, and 87 Lakers). The Mavs were 2-9 without Dirk.

What do you think the 08 Celtics record would be without KG? Same with 11 Mavs without Dirk? I think the 09 Celtics (inferior version of 08) made it to game 7 of 2nd round without KG. No chance the Mavs would do the same with Dirk.

[AnaheimRoyale]

The Celtics were new, and had some rough patches in those playoffs (not unlike the Heat over the last 2 years). Young teams like the Hawks made them work for it sometimes, and they took longer than they should have to put them away. But they were clearly the superior team. I mean, if you believe we should take the 2008 Hawks-Celtics series at face value Drza, you just let me know. Apparently the Hawks were almost a title team in 2008, if not for the Celtics they win, yes? Come on, don't make dishonest arguments dude.

[therealbig3]

The Celtics were new, and had some rough patches in those playoffs (not unlike the Heat over the last 2 years). Young teams like the Hawks made them work for it sometimes, and they took longer than they should have to put them away. But they were clearly the superior team. I mean, if you believe we should take the 2008 Hawks-Celtics series at face value Drza, you just let me know. Apparently the Hawks were almost a title team in 2008, if not for the Celtics they win, yes? Come on, don't make dishonest arguments dude.

I think this highlights the importance of matchups in playoff series.

The better team doesn't always win, sometimes they just don't matchup well with an inferior team, and they end up losing, or come dangerously close to losing (ie, 08 Celtics vs Hawks, 04 Pistons vs Nets, 07 Mavs vs GS).

I think little tweaks here and there in favor of the Hawks, and they beat the Celtics in 08...and we see a Cavs-Lakers Finals.

[AnaheimRoyale]

When it comes to real contenders, the better team does always win. The 2008 Celtics is an example of that, despite some hick-ups and inexperience as a unit in the playoffs, and bad match ups. I can't think of any team I'd label a true contender losing to an inferior team on the back of match ups... maybe the 93 Rockets, but it's not like the Sonics weren't similarly talented to them, of like the Rockets would have won that year either.

[drza]

Similarly, the Celtics likely lose to the Hawks. If by some chance they squeak by, they get torched by the Cavs.

The Celtics were 9-2 without KG. Their O Rating-D Rating differential in the games KG missed was higher than any NBA champion in NBA history except the 92, 96, and 97 Bulls (yes better than 00 Lakers, 86 Celtics, and 87 Lakers). The Mavs were 2-9 without Dirk.

What do you think the 08 Celtics record would be without KG? Same with 11 Mavs without Dirk? I think the 09 Celtics (inferior version of 08) made it to game 7 of 2nd round without KG. No chance the Mavs would do the same with Dirk.

We've had this discussion several times. I've seen you have it with others several more. The Celtics played trash teams without KG in 2008. They were 7 - 0 against teams averaging 26 wins, and 2 - 2 against teams over .500. If that's a convincing amount of evidence for how that team would have performed without Garnett, more power to you.

The '09 Celtics sans KG were a superior version of the '08 Celtics because Rondo made a big jump in his 3rd NBA season (which is a normal thing for a young player).

The '08 Celtics without KG would have gotten curb-stomped in the early rounds of the playoffs. Ray was playing some of the worst basketball of his career (just found out his son had diabetes), Pierce was wildly inconsistent, and neither Rondo nor Perk were ready yet. KG was the lynchpin that held that team together...again, much like Dirk in '11.

[drza]

The Celtics were new, and had some rough patches in those playoffs (not unlike the Heat over the last 2 years). Young teams like the Hawks made them work for it sometimes, and they took longer than they should have to put them away. But they were clearly the superior team. I mean, if you believe we should take the 2008 Hawks-Celtics series at face value Drza, you just let me know. Apparently the Hawks were almost a title team in 2008, if not for the Celtics they win, yes? Come on, don't make dishonest arguments dude.

What on earth are you talking about? How does what you wrote in any way relate to what I said?

[NO-KG-AI]

The Celtics were new, and had some rough patches in those playoffs (not unlike the Heat over the last 2 years). Young teams like the Hawks made them work for it sometimes, and they took longer than they should have to put them away. But they were clearly the superior team. I mean, if you believe we should take the 2008 Hawks-Celtics series at face value Drza, you just let me know. Apparently the Hawks were almost a title team in 2008, if not for the Celtics they win, yes? Come on, don't make dishonest arguments dude.

I think this highlights the importance of matchups in playoff series.

The better team doesn't always win, sometimes they just don't matchup well with an inferior team, and they end up losing, or come dangerously close to losing (ie, 08 Celtics vs Hawks, 04 Pistons vs Nets, 07 Mavs vs GS).

I think little tweaks here and there in favor of the Hawks, and they beat the Celtics in 08...and we see a Cavs-Lakers Finals.

The point differential in that series was + 84 for the Celtics. The Hawks won some tight ones at home, but were obliterated on the road.