richboy wrote:drza wrote:Let me recap.
1) Your view: Thibs is the best defensive mind in the game, and 3 of the 4 non-KG starters are elite defenders. Thibs proved that by leading the Bulls to the top defense this year.
2) In Boston, KG + other 4 starters + Thibs defense = 97 points allowed/100 possessions
3) In Boston, not KG + other 4 starters + Thibs defense = 112 points allowed/100 possessions (Baby, Sheed among the replacements)
4) In Boston, KG + not Perk + other 3 starters = 99 points allowed/100 possessions (Baby, Sheed among the replacements)
And your conclusion is that the Celtics' D only "suffers" without KG because the replacements don't rebound. Yet, the Celtics' defense is fine when those same non-rebounding replacements replace Perk. But KG still shouldn't be credited as (by far) the key to the defense in Boston because the Bulls' defense with entirely different players was good.
Right?
Those same replacements do just fine without Perk? Did you not watch the Celtics without Perk. You didn't hear all the we lost game 7 last year because we didn't have Perk.
I'm saying KG by far has the biggest plus in rebounding on the Celtics. When you take him out of the game the Celtics can't rebound. With KG they grab 74% of the defensive boards. Without him its drops 4 points. Thats a huge problem especially for a team that doesn't do that great of a job on the glass anyway.
I'm saying Thibs now has the best defense in Chicago. KG doesn't play with him there. Compare what he had in Chicago to Boston. Position by position you could say Boston has the better or equal defenders. Did Thibs need KG to put an elite defense. Not in Chicago. So why is it hard to believe that if I switched KG off the Celtics and gave them Noah they couldn't have similar success. KG impacts the game in a lot of ways on offense and defense. The fact is that Boston has no athletic big men outside of KG. That KG plus minus numbers are as much a product of how teams have been constructed around him as much as his individual talent.
What your trying to believe because plus minus says so. A team with Perkins, Rondo, Allen, and Pierce coached by Thibs is one of the worst defensively all-time without KG. That is ridiculous Bull.
I think your last 2 paragraphs are the exact crux of where we've been disagreeing. First, to clarify, the 5-man unit defense numbers aren't "+/-". They are the exact numbers that the unit gave up per 100 possessions...essentially, it's a defensive rating for that particular unit.
Second, and more importantly...I'm not "trying to believe" anything...I'm observing that a defensive unit featuring Rondo, Allen, Pierce and Perkins running a Thibideaux system has put up very bad results without Garnett.
Where we differ is in deciding what is the "given" data and what is the "theory". We both have our own observations of what we think we've seen on the court. Your conclusion, based on that, is that KG is a great defender but not elite. My conclusion is that he is possibly the best defensive player I've ever seen. Obviously, these are conflicting theories. So we have to build cases.
But if you re-read this thread, you'll see that when you bring up facts (e.g. the Wolves' team defense generally was only average, the '07 defense was bad, Thibs has proven results with his defensive system) I try to address those facts and include them in my overall story. But when I bring up facts (the current state-of-the-art of quantified analysis suggests that KG has been the best individual defender for the past 8 years, the Celtics' team defense has suffered when Garnett didn't play, and even more specifically the starting unit defense REALLY suffered w/o KG) you either ignore or ridicule the data that don't fit your preconceived notion. You don't address it, you don't account for it, you simply say that it either couldn't be true or that it shouldn't be believed.
You can't write off the Celtics' starters without KG giving up 112 points/100 possessions as just "ridiculous Bull". That actually happened. We can try to explain why (I agree with your rebounding effect, I'd also say that KG's ability to play team help defense is by far the larger component)...we can interpret the data (you say such a number makes them "one of the worst defenses All Time", whereas I interpret it as 4 solid defensive role players without their lynch pin being unable to pull the ship...not unlike what happens to the Mavs' offense without Dirk, despite the presence of other players on the team that have offensive talent). We can discuss/argue over the interpretations of what the numbers mean...but "ignore it and/or ridicule it" isn't an acceptable interpretation IMO.
