drza wrote:Many of Garnett's critics attempt to use the 2008 playoffs to criticize Garnett. I've always found this odd. So let's take a closer look at some of those criticisms, and what happens if you apply any logic at all during the thought process.
1) 2008 Celtics were stacked. Usually some version of "most stacked team in history"
2) 2008 Celtics had to go 7 games against the Hawks in the 1st round and the Cavs in the 2nd round which led to them having the "worst" playoff record of any champ.
3) Garnett doesn't deserve much credit for barely winning a title on a stacked team, and/or Pierce/Allen deserve more credit
Those points were paraphrased, but they should sound familiar if you've read this thread (or really any of the Garnett criticism threads on this board). But here's the kicker: It's categorically impossible for all three of the above statements to be true. Despite that detail, these points are argued simultaneously (ad nauseum) by several posters to support a stance against Garnett. The barest application of logic and research disabuses it, whether you're a Garnett fan or not. Consider:
The '08 Celtics played 26 playoffs games. Over the first 13 games they went 7 - 6, while over the last 13 games they went 9 - 4 against much better competition.
So, the entirety of point (2) above (e.g. the Celtics' "poor" playoff performance) focuses on those first 13 games, correct? Now, let's look at those 13 games:
Garnett: 20.9 ppg (52.1% FG, 84% FT), 9.6 rpg, 3.5 apg, 1.7 TO/game
Pierce: 17 ppg (40.7% FG, 77% FT), 4.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 2.8 TO/game
Allen: 13.4 ppg (39.4% FG, 97% FT), 3.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.2 TO/game
Outside of the boxscore, we also know at this time that Garnett was playing amazing defense (with clear agreement between statistics and accolades) and was the on-court focal point of the defense.
Now, can there be any argument that through those 13 games, Garnett is the ONLY reason that they survived? That Pierce and Allen were not contributing nearly to their level, and that were Garnett one whit less effective the team is out of the playoffs within those first 13 games? That, in fact, if Garnett wouldn't have carried them through those 13 games, they would NOT have made even the conference finals (let alone won a title) in 2008? If there is such an argument, now would be the time to voice it so that all those that read this discussion can really assess the points being made.
Conclusion: I kept this extremely basic, and purposefully didn't include any type of "advanced" stats. But check my logic:
IF Garnett doesn't deserve credit because those Celtics were historically stacked, then how come they ONLY made it out of those 13 games due to Garnett's brilliance in the face of a struggling cast?
IF the Celtics were a "weak" champion because of those first 13 games, and they were "weak" over those first 13 games because of the play of Pierce and Allen, then how could they be so "historically stacked" that Garnett doesn't get credit?
It's a double-edged sword. People argue that the team was weak in the postseason as an indictment of KG, then simultaneously want to say that the team was strong and use THAT as an indictment of KG as well. But Garnett was the constant, it was the support...the team around him that alternated wildly between great and struggling. Pierce had a superstar Game 7 against the Cavs and Game 5 against the Lakers along with many other moments both good and bad...Ray had a huge game 5 against the Pistons and a number of big offensive moments in the Finals after his earlier struggles. Over those last 13 games, especially, the other Celtics finally raised their game to the level of support expected of a team capable of +10 SRS in the season and exclamation point victories over strong competition in the last two series. But KG was there the whole time.
In that single playoffs, KG showed the ability to lift his game when necessary and also to allow his teammates to shine when they were ready to perform. The team may have fluctuated as the support did, but Garnett's impact on the team and influence on their winning was consistent, large, and measurable over that postseason. It was every bit worthy of a superstar centerpiece on a championship run. The logic of his critics melts away in the face of the barest common sense application, leaving the double-edged sword blunt all-the-way-around.
I'm sorry NO I missed this argument. Now if you want to say that KG was the best defensive player on the Celtics you won't get an argument from me but you cannot play both sides of the coin. This is REALGM Players Comparison board and we have already established that ONE PLAYER is not entirely responsible for a teams defense good or bad. How do we know this?
12 years of KG in Minnesota and he didn't have nearly the impact as he had in Boston. It was his teammates fault that he his teams posted mediocre to terrible Drtg's.
I have already shown this before:
Defensive Rating 2008
1. Kevin Garnett-BOS 93.8
2. Tim Duncan-SAS 96.6
3. Chuck Hayes-HOU 96.7
4. Kendrick Perkins-BOS 97.3
5. James Posey-BOS 98.0
6. Rasheed Wallace-DET 98.1
7. Marcus Camby-DEN 98.3
8. Rajon Rondo-BOS 98.4
9. Dwight Howard-ORL 98.8
10. Yao Ming-HOU 99.4
11. Paul Pierce-BOS 99.7
How is it that 5 of the top 11 players in 2008 were on the Celtics but all of the credit is going to KG? Nobody can make a defense #1 by themself and when it clearly shows that KG had a lot of help on that end. He was not some one man show. That doesn't even take in account Tony Allen or Glen Davis who were also rated at 99 on defense. That is a stacked team on defense.
For comparison's sake another similar built team that had multiple all stars and were built around their defense the 2004 Pistons. They had DPOY winner Ben Wallace.
Defensive Rating
1. Ben Wallace-DET 87.5
2. Tim Duncan-SAS 88.5
3. Kevin Garnett-MIN 91.6
4. Rasho Nesterovic-SAS 92.2
5. Kenyon Martin-NJN 93.1
6. Manu Ginobili-SAS 93.1
7. Jermaine O'Neal-IND 93.1
8. Hedo Turkoglu-SAS 93.8
9. Mehmet Okur-DET 94.7
10. Kelvin Cato-HOU 95.1
11. Marcus Camby-DEN 95.3
12. Jeff Foster-IND 95.6
13. Metta World Peace-IND 96.0
14. Donyell Marshall-TOT 96.6
15. Samuel Dalembert-PHI 96.8
16. Jason Kidd-NJN 96.8
17. Yao Ming-HOU 96.9
18. Andrei Kirilenko-UTA 97.3
19. Bruce Bowen-SAS 97.3
20. Tayshaun Prince-DET 97.7
In comparison there were only 3 Pistons in the top 20 while there were 5 in the top 11 for the Celtics? Care to explain how no one is saying that Ben Wallace had all time Bill Russell like impact......anyone?
Also, KG did not lift his game at all. How? His stats are still pedestrian EVEN IF HE WAS THE BEST PLAYER! And I still want to see how KG raised his game or anyone's game in these 2 games:
Game 7 vs the Cavaliers
Game 6 vs the Pistons
KG doesn't bring you back from down under. He doesn't put a team away on his own. He doesn't dominate individually. He can't; it's not his game. He can't go mano-a-mano with another teams superstar. He's the support not the main point......
I'm so tired of the typical......
