Boston goes way down then comes back to win, going up 3-1 and making themselves pretty prohibitively favorite to win the series. Nice performance by the much-derided Lamar Odom, though. Lakers fans, meanwhile, have nothing to complain about as the Bynumful future of their franchise seems very bright.
« m4intern | Main | The Wrong Airport »
Comeback Kids
13 Jun 2008 02:37 am
Comments (109)
i've noted in these precincts before that i was at the gah-den game 4, 1987, when magic hit that baby hook in the final seconds to win and put the lakers up 3-1. what's often forgotten about that game is that the celts had a very big first half lead.
i had to take a flight tonight, so i saw the first half before i had to board, and my thought was: wouldn't it be something if the celts came all the way back comparable to that night in '87 for the lakers?
which doesn't mean i wasn't amazed to find out they actually did. not seeing the second half, i can't say how they did it, but from a quick scan of the game accounts, it would appear, once again, that the lakers couldn't defend the lane.
Yep. Lakers' interior D was crap. Celtics' second-half D, on the other hand, was great. And that's how they did it.
Celtics were the best team in the league all year round and then a bunch of people suddenly picked the Lakers because the Celtics had two rough opening rounds.
I'm a Laker fan and I picked the Celtics. What pisses me off (besides tonight's awful loss), is the way the Celtics were considered underdogs in a series I was certain they'd win in five.
i'm a celtics fan. but the thing with "picking" any one team is how much statistical noise is going to obscure the outcome. consider two teams,
A & B. A is 4 times better than B so that in any given game A has an expectation of winning 80% of the time while B wins 20% of the time. what are the chances of A sweeping? only 41%. teams as closely matched up as the lakers and the celtics are a crapshoot. by the numbers you should pick the team that is marginally better, but for a "sure bet" you'd really need to play dozens of games (if a team is 10% better you'd need thousands of games to hit statistical significane in terms of certitude of an outcome in a series).
Watching the Boston bandwagon fans celebrate will be about as pleasant as watching Michael O'Hanlon rub coconut oil on a shirtless Richard Perle. Go Lakers!
Assignment desk: Where's the Euro 2008 coverage? This blog is slacking.
Go Croatia!
the Bynumful future of their franchise seems very bright.
Yes, until one of the humongous egos on that team gets one of their supporting stars sent packing.
Awesome game. I somewhat called it a couple days ago on this blog when I said the Celts would lose Game 3, but win Game 4. But I can't say I expected them to get in that big a hole and still win. They are simply the better team. And the Lakers are over-rated. I wouldn't expect to see them in another finals for a while.
I'd bet that the Lakers having Bynum to look forward to next year, along with the big three of the Celts knowing this is the best chance they'll ever have, helps to explain how something like last night's comeback was possible. There's obviously a lot of more tangible X's and O's stuff going on, but at this point, with talent very even, hunger and chemistry matters.
Shout out to the refs for doing a great job letting 'em play last night. I only saw KG getting mugged in the first quarter without a foul call, and Kobe getting nailed for a ticky-tack touch foul on Pierce at the end of the game, as their only significant mistakes.
Stern is under such a high-rez microscope he hadn't the room to fix this series to go 7? Refgate might actually result in the truly better team winning a few championships before memories fade and the fix returns.
Good performance by Odom in the first 8 minutes of the game, after which he disappeared almost entirely.
He came out with a ton of aggression and then...nothing...even when matched up against significantly smaller defenders.
It's not really that surprising. I think that the Lakers were aknowledged to be a little bit better than the Celtics by an unusual consensus. If everyone thought the Lakers had a 51% chance of winning, it made sense for everyone to pick them. Now when they lost to the Pistons, that was a surprise. A lot of people predicted a sweep. They were right about that; they just got the team wrong.
I believe the celts are a better team than the Lakers, but they're also an impossible matchup. The only tool the Lakers had at their advantage was Rondo's poor outside shooting allowed Phil to put Kobe on him and roam. But once House is in the game, the Lakers have to man up on D and Gasol and Vujavic are helpless. Plus, the Lakers have no clue what to do against the Celts D, even Kobe looks confused.
Now when they lost to the Pistons, that was a surprise. A lot of people predicted a sweep. They were right about that; they just got the team wrong.
There are 5 game sweeps now? Why do so many people here* think that 2004 was a sweep, when Detroit won in 4-1? Detroit won Game 1 in LA, LA won Game 2 and then Detroit won the next 3 at home.
* This is a strange phenomenon limited solely to the MY comment boards
12 straight playoff losses for the Grizzlies, you would have thought Pau might put the team on his shoulders and win just ONE, right? really, the ole D shouldn't have surprised anyone.
Here's to a Portugal-Holland final, rematch of the red card game from Germany '06!
and here's to james posey, another former griz, for outscoring gasol. classic.
Watching the Boston bandwagon fans celebrate will be about as pleasant as watching Michael O'Hanlon rub coconut oil on a shirtless Richard Perle. Go Lakers!
Despite being a Celtics fan, I must concede the single best line in these comments came from a Lakers fan.
I think Gasol's getting a bad rap. He was awesome all through the playoffs. What changed?
1) He's teh chok!
2) Boston has the best interior defense in the league, probably the best of the decade
I think it's mostly column (2). Kevin Garnett has been an absolute monster on D, preventing anyone from getting into the paint unobstructed.
joejoejoe writes: "Watching the Boston bandwagon fans celebrate will be about as pleasant as watching Michael O'Hanlon rub coconut oil on a shirtless Richard Perle. Go Lakers!"
A Lakers fan calling Celtics fans "bandwagon fans" is a joke. That crowd last night was the biggest pack of bandwagon know-nothing assholes I've ever seen. No wonder LA can't support an NFL team.
A Lakers fan calling Celtics fans "bandwagon fans" is a joke.
I've never seen the Staples Center so full of Celtics (or any other team's) fans that they chanted MVP for an opponent.
A Lakers fan calling Celtics fans "bandwagon fans" is a joke.
I'm a Pistons fan on the East Coast. I'm sure Laker fans are every bit as bad as Celtics fans but I'm insulated geographically from Laker stupidity. Boston fans, not so much.
Go Pistons!
Is Petey ever right?
I knew his pre-series posts were a jinx.
And thanks again for your prediction, Matt.
I just browsed through the comments section from a post before the series began. The ones by Petey really are hilarious. But he wasn't alone. Most of the commentators thought LA would win easily.
Also, comments like: "Phil Jackson >>> Doc Rivers" look pretty bad after last night.
Where do people come up with this stuff?
Jim,
As a big advocate of Phil Jackson >>> Doc Rivers, I will say that there is nothing in their careers prior to this series that would lead me to believe otherwise. Rivers' coaching was horrid in the playoffs. Jackson has 9 rings and outcoached many top coaches (like Pop). This series still isn't enough to make me think that Rivers is a better coach (Rivers is the one with superior talent and without Thibideau (sp?) next year, Doc is SOL).
"Why do so many people here* think that 2004 was a sweep, when Detroit won in 4-1? "
It might just be me over and over again. It makes for a better story if it were a sweep.
Petey?
Petey, are you in here?
[...crickets...]
Why do people think Andrew Bynum is some sort of star? He averaged 13 and 10. 13 and 10! Stop the presses! The second coming of Wilt Chamberlain! Please.
Also, no, the 2004 Finals wasn't a sweep. Just a wall to wall ass-kicking by a superior team.
Lakers just don't look mentally tough enough. They wilt, complain about the refs, etc, etc. Frankly, I think a lot of that is just their relative youth and inexperience, as well as the fact that their superstar is kinda ... well ... not exactly a calming presence.
I don't think Bynum is necessarily the answer - although he'll add some physical toughness - so much as just getting older and more experienced and tougher overall. Posey and House are just way tougher than Ariza, Vujacic, etc ...
Overall, though, the biggest surprise for me has been Kobe v Celtics D. But I said that if Pierce could win his matchup in the same ZIP code as Kobe won his, they Celtics would win, but it's more than that: Pierce has been the better player of the two so far. He's winning his matchup by more than Kobe (even when it's a matchup directly with Kobe), so the Celtics are beating the Lakers handily right now. I gave the Lakers the slightest of margins going in because I hadn't seen Kobe much this year and thought he was better than Lebron. IMO, Lebron is solidly better than Kobe.
Just because no one has ever come back from 3-1 doesn't mean it won't happen, but it's really hard to see the Lakers manning up and actually doing it.
2004 pistons were not the superior team. they were the lucky team who saw thei opponent beset by injuries, as the lakers lost 3 of their top 6 in karl malone, rick fox and devan george, which decimated them. pistons got lucky.
celtics have always been the clear superior team. pundits and fans got caught up in the la hype and forgot to look at the actual evidence before picking the winner, like celtics have one of the best ds of all time,, they crushed lakers twice in regular season, win the matchup battle, lakers have frontrunning bench that folds under pressure, and a soft front line.
I thought the Lakers bench would be a little better than the Celtics bench, and would provide the margin of victory in this series, because the Celtics bench had provided so little in the three previous playoff series. The afternoon before game 1, I heard Bill Walton on the radio state that nearly everyone was exactly wrong about which team's bench matched up better against the opposition. Chalk one up for the redhead.
I'll also second the assertion that Garnett has been a monster on defense, even when he has been clanging jumpers. Not enough fans understand this part of the game, and not enough talking heads bring it up, although they did a good job last night in explaining that it was defense which pulled off the comeback. You'll rarely see the triangle defended better than how it was done last night in the 2nd half. The Celtics assistant coach (name escapes me) who runs the defense is an unsung hero, and Doc Rivers deserves great credit for having such an assistant on his staff.
As to the future, obviously Ray Allen isn't quite as old as I thought he was 2 weeks ago. I think the Celtics could be here again next year, especially if they can rest Garnett more during the season. The guy has logged a lot of hard fought minutes over the past dozen years, and I think he is worn down now, which shows up on the offensive end.
The Lakers obviously have huge potential, especially if they play better defense, but assuming good health in a large 7 footer with knee problems may be assuming too much.
"which doesn't mean i wasn't amazed to find out they actually did. not seeing the second half, i can't say how they did it, but from a quick scan of the game accounts, it would appear, once again, that the lakers couldn't defend the lane."
From what I saw, it was a whole bunch of great defense by the C's in the second half: they were in Kobe's face every time, though without fouling much, and the Lakers were forced into taking tough contested long-range shots. And on average that doesn't work out well: occasionally you'll have a hot streak of shooting, but more often your points-per-possession goes way down.
With this performance in a crucial finals game,
on top of their historically great regular-season defense, I think this Celtics team must be one of the best defensive teams in history. A strange outcome, after all the pre-season talk about how Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, all 20ppg offensive players, wouldn't be able to work together. And we expected great D from Garnett, but it has been a pleasant surprise to see it from Pierce as well.
I hope that this series will put to rest who the true MVP of the league is, having watched both play against the Celtics, I'd take LeBron over Kobe every time. The only knock on LeBron is a lack of consistent effort, but he played much harder in the 7 games against the Celtics than Kobe has. He wasn't always successful (his first two games were awful), but he kept after it and played great in the last 3 games of that series. If Pierce hadn't come up with an amazing effort in game 7, it might be the Cavs in this position (no insult to the Pistons intended).
Let's step back and give some props to what may be the best interior defense the NBA has ever seen. (and yeah, I saw Bill Russell, the Walton Trailblazers, the Unseld Bullets, etc.) The Lakers haven't been able to run anything when it counted, and if Kobe wasn't the best player ever at creating a shot when nothing's there, the Lakers would be losing each game by 30.
OTOH, Andrew Bynum, while not the second coming of Moses Malone, is a big, tough inside guy a la Kendrick Perkins, and I think is going to make a huge difference to the team. Gasol had a great playoffs prior to this series, but he and Odom are not gonna consistenly beat KG inside, ever. Not their fault.
Also, mention must be made of what a pathetic crowd was at Staples Center last night. What a bunch of frontrunning phony fans. Yeah, Boston sports fans gave become like Yankees fans over the past decade, but I'll take them over the type of "fan" which commonly shows up at Lakers' games any day.
Well, I was one predicting a Lakers win in that thread, but I certainly didn't think it would be easy. I thought they had an outside shot at splitting in Boston and then winning 3 at home, but otherwise it was going to be a very tough 6 or 7 game series. I think Petey was the only one truly confident that the Lakers would win, but that's just his style: overconfident to the point of absurdity.
I was disagreeing pretty strongly with people arguing that Gasol is only slightly better than Perkins, and that claim does not look so good at this point. I still think it's true that Gasol brings a lot more to the table than Perkins, but the matchups were really a problem in this series. With a strong inside presence I think the Lakers would have been better on offense and defense. As it was, it seemed like in all their losses, the open 3s just stopped falling at the wrong time. And this is a team that needs to make their open 3s to win.
Also, this has been really irritating as a Lakers fan, but Kobe is just not that good. One of the best players in the NBA today, yes. The best? Probably not, and if so, hardly by much. Comparable to MJ? No way. I've known this for years and it's really annoying to hear people comment on it. Every so often, something like this series happens and the Bill Simmons of the world are like, "well, we can never compare him to MJ, that's for sure". And then next year they'll be going to the finals again and suddenly the comparisons will come out again. I don't really know how many NBA playoff games MJ botched or stunk up the joint in, but I'm guessing it's not very many. But I do know that when he finally broke through to the finals, he was 6 for 6. Kobe is just not that good. As a defender, as an offensive player and as a team leader. Basketball is dominated by centers, but if you take them out of the equation, MJ was the Pele of basketball. As it is, he's still the best player who ever played.
It is so calm, peaceful, and rational here today with all the Lakers fans lying low. It's almost like hanging out with Aristotle or Plato on the brightest of Grecian mornings. Petey is hiding out hoping for the one thing that can take the crow off his plate: a historic Laker turnaround.
Could happen, but it won't. In the final analysis, I think the intangibles are everything, despite the Celtics great defense. I think if Kobe isn't such a jerk to his teammates (see Curt Shilling's blog and the great Bill Simmons ) then some of the Lakers shots go down in the third quarter yesterday. That was a total offense collapse on their part.
Thrilling win, but let's not go overboard on Doc; in the second quarter he still thought Sam Cassell was a viable option, when it has been clear for weeks (months?) that he is not just ineffective, but downright harmful.
A friend of mine calls him Sam Gagne, in honor of the relief pitcher who ruined many a summer night for the Red Sox last year.
What surprised me was that a guy like Mark Jackson would put Bryant on Jordan's level. Maybe he was just trying to fufill his role as the talking head making provacative statements.
The Celtics player who has impressed me the most (other than Pierce, of course) is Ray Allen. That guy is smooth. Other than the gum chewing, I don't see him moving any muscle in excess of what is required. Its almost like watching an android play. I mean that in a good way.
I didn't watch the Celtics during the regular season, so its been fun getting to know the team in the playoffs.
Provocative Claim!
The real lesson from these finals, so far, is that Kevin Garnett is the best player in the NBA.
On acquiring Garnett, the Celtics went from a middling defensive team to the best in the league. They have taken the best offense in the NBA and embarrassed them, leaving the league's putative offensive MVP with no option but to shoot contested fallaways. The key to this defense is its interior integrity - no one gets an easy shot in close, mainly because Kevin Garnett is always there to alter the shot. He's one of the best defensive players I've ever seen, and he's doing it on the biggest stage.
It's just a pity that people still seem unable to realize that defense is 50% of the game.
"The Celtics player who has impressed me the most"
The big surprises for me have been:
a) Rondo. He's been very very good: and just
amazing for a guy in only his second year
b) Pierce's defense.
Beyond that, the role players like Perkins, House,
Posey have stepped up when it was needed. Which
is probably indicative of good coaching and good team chemistry, so I'll give a good deal of credit to Doc Rivers as well.
DivGuy, there's reason why Bill Russell said several times, prior to KG going to Boston, that Garnett was his favorite player watch in the NBA. I'm not an anti-Flip Saunders guy, but having Saunders coach a team with Garnett as the superstar for nearly the entirety of Garnett's career may have been one of the great mismatches between a coach's style and a player's style.
It is interesting to contemplate the career arcs of Garnett and Duncan, with their teams reversed.
2004 pistons were not the superior team. they were the lucky team who saw thei opponent beset by injuries, as the lakers lost 3 of their top 6 in karl malone, rick fox and devan george, which decimated them. pistons got lucky.
Bullshit. They destroyed the Lakers. Tayshaun Prince D'd up Kobe who had just a pathetic series, especially considering he refused to pass to Shaq for half the series. Shaq was starting to break down, Kobe was selfish and overmatched. The fact that you're honestly suggesting that Devean George is some sort of key Finals player shows the absurdity of your argument. Go watch the series; it was a mauling.
Garnett sure has proven his worth despite some mediocre offensive performances. I think Duncan does everything Garnett does but a little better. It's very close between them. LeBron is the best though. Seriously, have people actually looked at his team? He made the finals with those guys! They almost beat Boston this year. I'd love to see what the Cavs would do with Kobe instead of LeBron. Also, while his jumper is suspect, no one is better than LeBron at getting to the rim in crunch time. Personally, I'd rather have my superstar creating layup and dunk opportunities than jumpshots.
Anyway, I have really enjoyed Jeff Van Gundy's work in the playoffs but I'm very tired of hearing him refer to Kobe as the best player in the world.
I thought the Lakers would win, so obviously I was wrong there. But I've also been saying for the past 2-3 years that LeBron is clearly better than Kobe. I feel a little justified in that right now.
I've also been impressed by Rondo. Before hurting his ankle, he played great. Amazing quickness and gracefulness, and a lot of poise for a 2nd year player.
alan in SF: before we refer to the celts as the greatest interior defense ever, maybe we ought to see them against a great low-post offense (since there hardly are any true low-post offenses anymore, i'm not sure when that time will come!).
will, there was a nice writeup in either yesterday's times or usa today (i just took a quick look and couldn't find it with the times, so i guess usa today) about the celts assistant coach for defense (thibodeau, i think it is?) who has had a terrific track record everywhere, and coach van gundy (who knows defense as well as anyone) was quoted essentially as saying that even garnett has benefitted from thibodeau's coaching, which i think goes to your point.
"On acquiring Garnett, the Celtics went from a middling defensive team to the best in the league."
Not wanting to take anything away from Garnett,
but really the whole Celtics team changed in the
offseason. And, great as Garnett is, good defense, perhaps even more than offense, requires coordinated execution of a team concept. KG is the anchor, but the other guys have been great too - especially Pierce, who prior to this season played on a sequence of woeful defensive teams and never got much respect for his D.
Or to look at it another way, if Garnett's individual skills are so overwhelming, why did his Minnesota teams never get anywhere ? It has to be a combination of several good players, *and* good coaching to find schemes which suit their skills.
KG is terrific, but it's a team game.
It has seemed obvious to me for a couple years that if you had to start a team with either James or Bryant, you'd pick James, even without considering age.
Agree with Richard Cownie on this. The Celts added KG and Allen, but also subtracted a bunch of guys who couldn't play D. Losing Al Jefferson didn't hurt on the defensive end. Pierce has improved his defense, Perkins has improved greatly, and replacing Delonte "turnstyle" West with Rondo's quickness has been tremendous. I think KG's biggest contribution on the defensive end is that his intensity has been completely contagious. Guys who didn't play any D last year stepped up their intensity tremendously (especially Pierce).
This is stating the obvious, but Rondo oughta' move into Ray Allen's basement for the summer, because if any of Allen's shooting touch rubs off on Rondo, the Celtics have another perennial All-Star in their lineup.
It's really hard to say that Duncan does everything a little better than Garnett, given that this is the first year that Garnett has had better teammates. I'd certainly say that Duncan is the better offensive player on the low block, which is no small thing, but I'd be hesitant to assert that Duncan has been better elsewhere.
Doc Rivers' achilles heel is the Rondo thing. It's almost like watching a father coach his own son and always find fault with him. Rondo is a key to this team and Doc has done everything possible in the playoffs to disrespect him and take away his confidence. And don't get me started on Sam Cassell. After Eddie House's great job last night, Doc still told the press that he could have gone with either Cassell or House. On the subject of Sam, he's out of his mind. It was the addition of Sam as a lineup option that took the Celtics out of their formula for regular season success. It started on the loss to New Orleans in their last road trip.
But other than that near-fatal flaw, and his reluctance to play Leon Powe, Doc has done a great job in many ways.
Agree with Richard Cownie on this. The Celts added KG and Allen, but also subtracted a bunch of guys who couldn't play D. Losing Al Jefferson didn't hurt on the defensive end. Pierce has improved his defense, Perkins has improved greatly, and replacing Delonte "turnstyle" West with Rondo's quickness has been tremendous. I think KG's biggest contribution on the defensive end is that his intensity has been completely contagious. Guys who didn't play any D last year stepped up their intensity tremendously (especially Pierce).
Definitely agree that even though Kobe is a better jump shooter, LeBron was able to get to the basket against Boston, which makes him more valuable against Boston.
I think if Kobe is getting to the basket, he might be more valuable than LeBron due to the better outside shooting and generally higher FG%. I know people are somewhat allergic to the idea that different players (even the best players on the court) can be more or less valuable depending on the matchup, but it is still true.
Also, definitely do not agree that Garnett is the best player in the NBA AT ALL. Did you see the Celtics play this year while Garnett was injured? They were still pretty damn good. And check out the last two years with the Wolves. Those years proved that Garnett was not that great. Garnett is a very good defender, but he's not great offensively. One of the reasons the Celtics improved this year was that a lot of their younger players improved substantially this year. They are getting substantial contributions from those guys. Whether they just got better (which is imminently plausible), were inspired by Garnett*, or just inspired by winning, I don't know. But they're giving a lot more than they were last year.
*I doubt these kinds of explanations, really. I think NBA players give more commitment when they think their season *means* something, and I think that's more of the difference b/w this year and last.
It has seemed obvious to me for a couple years that if you had to start a team with either James or Bryant, you'd pick James, even without considering age.
Isn't part of that potential? Kobe is at his peak, James is still getting better every year. Lebron's peak is higher than Kobe's peak. If you frame the question, "Who would you want for one year?" The question is tougher (I'd still pick Lebron).
And Walter, there are plenty of Laker fans around, just no Petey.
This Celtics team is very good. The only thing that can stop them from repeating is if Thibideau gets a well-deserved offer to be a head coach. He'd be ideal for the Bulls opening, an interesting one for the Suns.
"This is stating the obvious, but Rondo oughta' move into Ray Allen's basement for the summer, because if any of Allen's shooting touch rubs off on Rondo, the Celtics have another perennial All-Star in their lineup"
Absolutely. Rondo has done a good job of running
the offense (5.1 assists, only 1.9 turnovers per
game) and he's a pest on defense (4.2 rebounds,
1.7 steals). If he can improve his midrange shooting he'll be an all-round beast: especially since opponents have to cover Pierce, Garnett, and Allen.
The Celtics could be very very good for the next couple of years.
mpowell, I wouldn't claim that Garnett is the league's best player, but merely descrbing him as a "very good" defender is way off base. He is a historically great defender, certainly in the top 10 of all time, and no, the fact that he was surrounded by garbage in his last two years in Minnesota is not indicative of much.
Agree with Richard Cownie on this. The Celts added KG and Allen, but also subtracted a bunch of guys who couldn't play D. Losing Al Jefferson didn't hurt on the defensive end. Pierce has improved his defense, Perkins has improved greatly, and replacing Delonte "turnstyle" West with Rondo's quickness has been tremendous. I think KG's biggest contribution on the defensive end is that his intensity has been completely contagious. Guys who didn't play any D last year stepped up their intensity tremendously (especially Pierce).
I hate you, atlantic posting system. I hit post 1 time.
Yeah, Mo, I'd take James for just one year as well, in good part due to the fact that he is a bigger guy than Bryant, which, with the right teammates, allows a coach and team to better dictate the tempo of the game.
He is a historically great defender, certainly in the top 10 of all time
Off the top of my head, here are 13 guys that are better defenders than Garnett. Pick four to knock off.
Russell
Ewing
Mutumbo
The Glove
Hakeem
Rodman
The Admiral
Pippen
Ben Wallace
Mark Eaton
Michael Jordan
Sid Moncreif
'Zo
Honestly, I think Detroit and Cleveland would have beaten the Lakers.
The west has gotten a little overrated in recent years. Phoenix, San Antonio and Dallas are past their primes. I don't think any of the teams in the west have the defensive intensity you see among the top teams in the east.
alan in SF: before we refer to the celts as the greatest interior defense ever, maybe we ought to see them against a great low-post offense (since there hardly are any true low-post offenses anymore, i'm not sure when that time will come!).
will, there was a nice writeup in either yesterday's times or usa today (i just took a quick look and couldn't find it with the times, so i guess usa today) about the celts assistant coach for defense (thibodeau, i think it is?) who has had a terrific track record everywhere, and coach van gundy (who knows defense as well as anyone) was quoted essentially as saying that even garnett has benefitted from thibodeau's coaching, which i think goes to your point.
I'd knock these 4 off your list without any problems:
Ewing (come on)
Mark Eaton (come on)^10
Michael Jordan (great, not top 10)
Ben Wallace (overrated)
"Also, definitely do not agree that Garnett is the best player in the NBA AT ALL."
KG has averaged more than 20 pts, 10 rebs and 4 assists for 9 out of his 12 years in the league. It would have been 10 years (and 10 straight years) of getting those numbers this season if he hadn't played his fewest minutes per game since his rookie season.
If the criteria of greatness is Sportscenter highlights, KG doesn't rate. And since he's only had a decent team around him for two seasons out of his entire career, he doesn't have the playoff legacy. But in on court performance, KG is definitely in the "best of his era" discussion.
Mike
Mo, i don't begin to know how to figure the 10 best defenders of all time (i start with russell and rodman and then don't worry about it), but mark eaton was a great shotblocker, not necessarily a great defender....
Mo, I think you are missing the value of Garnett's flexibility on defense; a guy who can defend any player on the floor, 1 through 5, is a terrifically valuable attribute.
Yeah, howard, I kinda selfishly wish Thibodeaux would hang around Boston for one more season, to improve the Celtics' odds of getting back to where they are now, but obviously if the guy gets a chance to sign a head coach's contract, it's well deserved.
Mark Eaton (come on)^10
2 time defensive player of the year on some pretty mediocre Jazz teams. Held the record for most blocks in a season (he had almost double the bpg of second place that year) and #2 all-time. The fact that you think Mark Eaton is (come on)^10 for defense shows you don't know hoops. He was the big white Mutumbo of his day
Ben Wallace (overrated)
He's 4 time defensive player of the year. He's overrated, but his D (especially in his prime) isn't. Ben Wallace is a worse defender than KG today, but at his prime KG's D is nothing in comparison to Big Ben's
Michael Jordan (great, not top 10)
You could say the same about KG as well. Jordan is one of the, if not the, best 2s defensivly ever. How many guards get DPoY? Would Garnett have cracked the all-time top 15 before this year? No. That in my mind seals him as not top 10.
Mo, go ask those two know-nothings, Hubie Brown or Bill Russell, if they would have preferred having Wallace or Garnett on a defense they were coaching. Also, howard is exactly right in regards to Eaton, on the difference between being a great defender and a great shot blocker.
Ewing was a better defender than David Robinson. Also, Walt Frazier and Dennis Johnson do belong on the list ahead of Michael Jordan.
Maybe a better way to put it would be that on Mo's list, the only ones I think are unequivocally better defenders than Garnett are Russell, Olajuwon, and Mutombo. Any of the others and you could start an argument.
Tom Thibodeau has gotten an enormous amount of press and credit in Boston. It has been well deserved, although Doc deserves major credit for being to yield so much control to an assistant - especially an assistant who has "future head coach" written all over him. If the Celts had started slowly, who do you think would have replaced Doc? And yet Doc gave him complete control of the defense anyway.
I think people overstate the immediate impact on the team if Thibodeau leaves next year, however. His system is in place and the players will continue to execute the system for a solid two years, even after he goes. After those two years, his absence will start to hurt in conjunction with roster turnover - but Pierce nad Garnett will be getting old at that point anyway.
I agree with the sentiment that Kobe is not that good. He is a supremely talented SG, but the fact remains that SG's do not impact the game in nearly as many ways as interior big men. While a SG scores and neutralizes one perimeter player on defense, a dominant big guy scores, clogs the middle on defense, and rebounds. MJ was one of a kind, although I think in many ways, Pippen was a slightly smaller version of KG who continuously gets overlooked as people are heaping praise on MJ.
I wonder how differently people will view Pierce as a player if the Celtics win. His career numbers versus Kobe's are as follows:
Pierce - 23.1 ppg, 44% FG, 6.4 rpg, 3.9 apg
Kobe - 25.00 ppg, 45% FG, 5.3 rpg, 4.6 spg
True, Pierce had some very immature moments as a younger player. But so has Kobe.
Garnett has been one of the best NBA players through out his career. But he has never been the best. Back in the day, Shaq and Duncan were definitely better. Those guys were studs. I'd also like to look into how Garnett defended Shaq. One problem with saying he could guard 1-5 is that I don't think he's nearly as effective against a true 5, but I could be wrong about that. And I think Wallace was better in that regard.
I think that there's a good argument for KG making the top ten and definitely the top 15 best defensive players of all time. Nonetheless, Tim Duncan has to make the list as well.
Garnett has been an All-NBA Defensive First Team selection 7 times and on the 2nd team twice.
Ben Wallace, while a 4-time winner of DPOY, has been on the First Team 5 times, the 2nd once. This year he didn't make either one.
Like Tim Duncan, Garnett deserves Top Ten consideration for his consistency and longevity; Wallace maybe gets in for his burst of dominance and the nonsensical extra credit that we seem to give players who are terrible on offense and/or undersized.
Again, the only area where I'd say Duncan was "definitely better" than Garnett is offensively on the low block, and that is certainly no small thing. I highly suspect, however, that if Duncan has spent his career in Minnesota, and Garnett in San Antonio, the opinions on which one was definitely better would be reversed. It can't be stressed enough; seperating individual performance from the team context is very, very, hard to do.
"I wonder how differently people will view Pierce as a player if the Celtics win."
I don't think Pierce is going to get mentioned in the Lebron/Kobe/Duncan class. Sure, his career numbers look comparable to Kobe but then Pierce has played most of his career as the number-1 (and often just about the only) offensive option on woeful losing Celtics teams; while Kobe was putting up those numbers on a team that won 3 championships, with Shaq inside. For all the talk of Kobe's selfishness, the ball got to Shaq plenty of the time on those teams.
Pierce is a very good player; occasionally he gets hot and can take over the game. But he isn't so dominant so frequently as Kobe or LeBron: he's a very good player, probably a top-10 player, but not a top-3, and this season not even the best player on his own team.
"Garnett has been one of the best NBA players through out his career. But he has never been the best. Back in the day, Shaq and Duncan were definitely better."
You have to factor in that KG's teams were all considerably worse than most of Shaq's. Duncan's teams didn't have quite the same talent disparity, but the one time KG had players close to Parker and Manu, he made the Western finals. People shouldn't forget the Joe Smith scam that cost the Twolves multiple 1st round draft picks and just how bad those teams were in KG's prime. We're talking Barkley in Philadelphia-type bad.
Mike
Garnett definitely wins based on longevity over Wallace. But it's one thing to argue about career versus single year talent. Wallace got into basketball relatively late and took a while to develop. That is why his career was so short. He's already pretty old. Garnett came straight out of high school. So listing the number of defensive team selections is a bit unfair. You could argue that Wallace didn't deserve his DPOYs, but otherwise I think your stuck conceding that at his peak, Wallace was better (and a 4 year peak isn't bad at all).
It is also difficult to truly seperate offensive and defensive performance. I'd never claim that Garnett has been a historicaly great offensive player, but he has been a very good offensive player, with extremely large offensive reponsibilities on every team he has played on. Guys who have never been counted on to score points have a much easier time focusing their energies on defense.
Well, sure. But Shaq has 4 rings and 6 final's appearances. The dude was a beast. The most unstoppable offensive force in the history of the league with the only possible exceptions being MJ and Wilt. We're talking peak here, of course.
But here is an interesting question for you: if you flipped LeBron James and Kevin Garnett, what happens then? I think the Celtics win that series pretty easily and that's why I think James is better than Garnett. Garnett could have been the best player in the NBA 2-3 years ago as Shaq or Duncan were slowing down, but he didn't play his best basketball during those years. Now James is the best and there are a bunch of other pretty good guys.
Mo, I tend to view the DPOY as a bit of a joke, usually going to whomever blocked the most shots. Mark Eaton is a perfect example, he was 7'4", never left the lane, and blocked anything within his considerable wingspan without appreciably moving his feet. If Manute Bol could've held up well enough to play 35 minutes a game for 5 years, I have no doubt he would've won a couple DPOYs, too.
So to turn this around a bit, name 2 power forwards you would put ahead of KG, defensively.
Except all of Shaq's teams were him, a SG sidekick and a bunch of scrubs. For his championships, Rick freaking Fox was the best 3rd option he's had. The KG and Starbury weren't as woeful as you make them out to be. They just never made it past the playoffs because KG is the A-Rod of basketball (still true today). He shies away from taking big shots in the clutch, he falls in love with his 20 foot jumper when he should be pounding Odom and Gasol in the low post. If the Celtics didn't have Ray Allen bailing them out, the story wouldn't be about Kobe's petulance, it would be about KG's 4th quarter vanishing acts. Tim Duncan, for all of his good luck, is still the man for all 48 minutes and you know you're getting quality the whole time. For example look at that crazy shot he made seconds before Fisher's 0.4 second shot.
"I don't think Pierce is going to get mentioned in the Lebron/Kobe/Duncan class. Sure, his career numbers look comparable to Kobe but then Pierce has played most of his career as the number-1 (and often just about the only) offensive option on woeful losing Celtics teams; while Kobe was putting up those numbers on a team that won 3 championships, with Shaq inside."
In his 10 year career, Pierce has never taken more than 1,598 two point shots in a regular season and his career totals are 12,579 two point shots, 3,409 3 point shots.
In his 12 year career, Kobe has taken as many as 2,173 shots in a regular season and his career totals are 16,450 two point shots and 3,192 3 point shots.
And that's considering that in Kobe's 1st three seasons just out of high school he put up just over 2000 two point shots and less than 500 3 pointers, while Pierce put up about 3000 two point shots and 800 three pointers in his 1st three seasons.
So, the argument that Pierce's numbers are somehow inflated is just wrong. And does anybody think that Shaq/Pierce couldn't have won as many titles as Shaq/Kobe?
Mike
Come on (^10 again) Mo. I'm not here to argue for KG as the MVP or best player, but you do realize that your comparison requires Stephon Marbury to be equivalent to Kobe Bryant, right? Also, remember that Shaq wasn't exactly the big 4th quarter guy for the Lakers on most of those teams either, since Hack-a-Shaq worked pretty well at the end of games.
Rodman and Duncan. Next question.
"KG is the A-Rod of basketball (still true today)"
If KG is the A-Rod of basketball, that means he's the best player in the game. I like KG, but I don't think he's that good.
Shaq's 4th quarter struggles weren't because he wasn't good or played worse in the 4th quarter. In fact he often did better. Shaq just never got the ball at the end of a tight game because of free throws, but he generally stepped up in big moments. You can't say the same about KG. Also, I'm not asking him to win a championship with Starbury, but win 3 games in the first round. He didn't get that until he had that amazing team in 2004 where Cassell carried them.
Rodman and Duncan (and Wallace, but he's as much a 5 as a 4). Next question.
Crusty Dem - that's an interesting point. But I think it's being unfair to true centers. Garnett's greatest strength on defense is his flexibility. You might even say the most unique thing he can do well is defend the pick and roll. And he can control the paint pretty well against smaller painters. A true center will not defend the pick and roll as well, but may control the paint slightly better, as evidenced by the higher number of blocks, and will probably also defend a true center better.
82games.com, I think, did an evaluation of the league's defensive players 1-2 years ago based on normal stats and corrected plus/minus number on points allowed per opponent's possession. Garnett was in the top 7, league-wide, I believe, but he was not clearly the best. I think they picked Marion that year as being the best defender, but many of the parameters pointed to different players.
Good gravy, could we avoid making comparisons between baseball, a team game comprised of distinct individual performances, and basketball, a team game where individual performances are almost impossible to seperate from the team context? Even so, the criticism of Rodriguez is mostly ignorant.
Garnett is not a historically great offensive player, but anybody who thinks one must be a historically great offensive player to be a historically great overall player just doesn't understand the game. One may as well rip Larry Bird or Charles Barkley because they weren't great individual defenders.
Mo, you do realize that a player is responsible for his free throw shooting, and that if a team can't trust him at the line, and thus won't give him the ball, that is a form of "not stepping up", don't you? I'm not ripping Shaq; I think it obvious he was the league's MVP for several consecutive years, but to somehow seperate free throw shooting from 4th quarter performance is ridiculous.
"Also, I'm not asking him to win a championship with Starbury, but win 3 games in the first round."
KG and Starbury were only together for two full seasons, KG's 2nd and 3rd years in the league and Star's rookie and 2nd years. Seems a little unfair to hold it against them that two very young players didn't set the NBA on fire in that short period of time.
Mike
Will,
I don't disagree and Shaq's free throw shooting prevents him from being one of the top 5 players ever (I do not want to get in this discussion). If he were a reasonable free throw shooter and had a decent off season work ethic, he'd be the greatest center to ever live. However, compared to KG's late game wilting, it's pretty small potatoes.
Good gravy, could we avoid making comparisons between baseball, a team game comprised of distinct individual performances, and basketball, a team game where individual performances are almost impossible to seperate from the team context? Even so, the criticism of Rodriguez is mostly ignorant.
Garnett is not a historically great offensive player, but anybody who thinks one must be a historically great offensive player to be a historically great overall player just doesn't understand the game. One may as well rip Larry Bird or Charles Barkley because they weren't great individual defenders.
Mo, you do realize that a player is responsible for his free throw shooting, and that if a team can't trust him at the line, and thus won't give him the ball, that is a form of "not stepping up", don't you? I'm not ripping Shaq; I think it obvious he was the league's MVP for several consecutive years, but to somehow seperate free throw shooting from 4th quarter performance is ridiculous.
Mo, saying a player wasn't as valuable as Shaq hardly counts as criticism. If Garnett was a great late 4th quarter offensive performer, he might be one of the top five players of all time. So what?
Also, in a close game Shaq was very useful. If you're trying to make up a last minute deficit with 3s or you're up in the last minute and you know you're going to get fouled, you don't pass it to Shaq, obviously. But 0:50 left in the game down by 2? Lakers went to Shaq all the time. And the rest of the 4th quarter was the same thing. The man had an absurdly high fg%. Yeah, he would have been better with a higher ft%, but he was generally leading the league in ppg and true shooting % while seeing a consistent stream of double teams.
Is it even worth saying that Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game? That he once got 55 rebounds in the game? That he led the league in assists from the center position? That, contrary to popular belief, he won almost every individual matchup with Bill Russell?
Probably not. For some reason, it's fair to judge Shaq by his numbers, but not Wilt. Ugh.
I think the reports of Garnett's late-in-the-game wilting acts are greatly exaggerated.
Mo, i don't begin to know how to figure the 10 best defenders of all time (i start with russell and rodman and then don't worry about it), but mark eaton was a great shotblocker, not necessarily a great defender....
Is it even worth saying that Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game? That he once got 55 rebounds in the game? That he led the league in assists from the center position? That, contrary to popular belief, he won almost every individual matchup with Bill Russell?
Probably not. For some reason, it's fair to judge Shaq by his numbers, but not Wilt. Ugh.
What point is this intending to refute? Yes, Wilt was a ridiculous force in the game of basketball. Yes, Russell's 'winning' ability is greatly overrated in that he did it primarily in a league composed of 8 teams. But Wilt also played in the same, less-competitive league and it was adjudicated somewhat differently (offensive players could dunk balls bouncing around the rim, for one), so is it fair to directly compare Wilt's numbers to those of modern day players? I don't think so. But he still regarded as top 5 player and many think he was the best ever. What sentiment expressed on this thread has bothered you?
"So, the argument that Pierce's numbers are somehow inflated is just wrong. And does anybody think that Shaq/Pierce couldn't have won as many titles as Shaq/Kobe?"
I still think you're comparing apples and oranges.
Kobe mostly played on good teams, with another strong offensive option. The team as a whole scored a lot; the presence of Shaq helped Kobe get open.
Kobe could take a lot of shots *and* Shaq could still get the ball.
Also Kobe has been playing in the West, which over the last decade has generally been tougher.
I'm not knocking Pierce: as I say, he's a top-10 player. But he isn't a top-3 player, either by his stats or by subjective impression of watching him in action. Kobe and LeBron *frequently* take over the game and get 35+ points; Pierce does that only occasionally. He's very very good: but he isn't in the LeBron/Kobe/Duncan/Wade class, and
I don't think winning a ring with KG/Allen/Rondo is going to change that, unless he drops 40+ points on the Lakers to dominate the last game.
And who cares anyway ? Winning is what matters.
tinisoli: "I think the reports of Garnett's late-in-the-game wilting acts are greatly exaggerated. "
Absolutely right. Garnett is leading this team to a championship. They won 66 games. They've played more games than any other team. Everyone expected the big three to wilt by the late rounds. Instead, they beat Detroit in 6 and they've got a chance to beat LA in 5. He's wilting all the way to the bank.
Tired, sure? To eager to pass sometimes or to "settle" for the reliable outside jumper and not eager enough to drive to the hoop? Sure.
But I don't think we see any character issues here. What we see is a string bean who plays harder defense than anyone the whole time he's on the court. He can't out muscle most of the big guys, he's just smarter and more tenacious.
And whoever said LeBron could take the Celtics to a championship in Garnett's place is wrong too. LeBron is great, I came to respect him as a player and a person during the Cleveland-Boston series. But Garnett's presence took the Celtics to the finals.
And whoever said LeBron could take the Celtics to a championship in Garnett's place is wrong too. LeBron is great, I came to respect him as a player and a person during the Cleveland-Boston series. But Garnett's presence took the Celtics to the finals.
Well, this is certainly an interesting opinion. But, yeah, I really disagree. One problem is that LeBron is not really a good fit for Boston, but just looking at it from the other angle, I think with KG on the Cavs they do about as well as KG's old Wolves teams. And I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
"Kobe mostly played on good teams, with another strong offensive option. The team as a whole scored a lot; the presence of Shaq helped Kobe get open.
Kobe could take a lot of shots *and* Shaq could still get the ball."
You implied that Pierce's offensive stats were similar to Kobe's because Pierce was the #1 option on bad teams. That's been true of most of his career, but the fact that Kobe has shot the ball far more than Pierce disproves the idea that Pierce's stats are somehow inflated.
I'm not necessarily arguing that Pierce is equal to or better than Kobe, but if Pierce had won three titles with Shaq he's be a lot higher on the all-time great list, while if Kobe had been stuck in Boston all those years, NO ONE would be comparing him to Jordan.
Kobe was Shaq's sidekick on those title teams. He was Pippen to Shaq's Jordan. Yet, Kobe has a rep as a great player and a great winner than hasn't been justified by his post-Shaq performance.
Is Paul Pierce an all-time great? Well, he's going to end up one of the greatest scorers in the history of the Celtics franchise and he's going to likely be the Finals MVP of a championship winning team. That's certainly got to put him in the conversation.
Mike
I looked at the stats some more (adjusted plus/minus, etc.) and, yeah, KG does have a claim as the best player in the league since ~2002. I still think I'd prefer Duncan because the two are so close (offensively and defensively) but the ability to post up Duncan at the end of games is huge. KG's jumper isn't nearly good enough to rely on at the end of the game. On the other hand, he showed some nice posts moves last night, just not quite on Duncan's level.
I think that in 20 years, we'll look back on the current period in the NBA as sort of a lull between the Shaq Era and the LeBron Era. Duncan and KG are clearly the top two players of that time, with Kobe a little behind them.
Actually, I think the LeBron Era started a couple years ago, and we just don't know it yet.
"You implied that Pierce's offensive stats were similar to Kobe's because Pierce was the #1 option on bad teams. That's been true of most of his career, but the fact that Kobe has shot the ball far more than Pierce disproves the idea that Pierce's stats are somehow inflated."
I guess the root of my objection is that Pierce has
amassed his points in a whole lot of games that didn't really matter much; and mostly in losing efforts, even against weaker opposition in the East.
The last 4 or 5 years, if you were playing the
Celtics you could let Pierce score 25 points and
still usually win by a healthy margin.
Maybe it's unfair, but when there are guys around like Duncan and Kobe, who make the highlight-reel plays *and* get the stats *and* have won several championships, I just don't see Pierce as being quite on the same level. And his performance this
postseason has been inconsistent as well - he didn't do much in game 3.
Again, I don't mean to disrespect him: you have to terrific to be in the NBA at all; to be a top-10 player is phenomenal; but LeBron/Kobe/Duncan are something else.
“This Celtics team is very good. The only thing that can stop them from repeating is if Thibideau gets a well-deserved offer to be a head coach. He'd be ideal for the Bulls opening, an interesting one for the Suns.”
There are no current openings for head coach in the NBA. The Suns hired Terry Porter and the Bulls went with Vinny Del Negro. Thibideau probably isn’t going anywhere until this time next season.
“Mo, I tend to view the DPOY as a bit of a joke, usually going to whomever blocked the most shots. Mark Eaton is a perfect example, he was 7'4", never left the lane, and blocked anything within his considerable wingspan without appreciably moving his feet. If Manute Bol could've held up well enough to play 35 minutes a game for 5 years, I have no doubt he would've won a couple DPOYs, too.”
Well, Eaton’s nickname was the “Human Detour”. So you just go around him, that’s what you do with detours.
I do remember reading Wilt’s ‘90’s era autobiography, he despised the way guys like Eaton and Bol actual got playing time as starting centers, much less any respect as decent players. He also thought giving a guy credit for getting a double-double was equivalent to “giving him an award for not having to take a piss in the middle of the game”.
“I'd bet that the Lakers having Bynum to look forward to next year, along with the big three of the Celts knowing this is the best chance they'll ever have, helps to explain how something like last night's comeback was possible.”
The question has been raised by the way so many so-called “experts” picked the Lakers over the Celtics. Is the West weaker than conventional wisdom has recently held and is so, what does that say about the Lakers? And if not, is it a given that LA will get this far next year?
If I was a Laker or a Laker fan, I wouldn’t place too many bets on the future. I take nothing from what they have accomplished this year. But the team that they have now is nowhere near the team of the 1980’s that made going to the Finals routine. (The same can be said for the Celtics but that’s another story.) Will Kobe stick around when his contact comes up or will we see him start to bitch in the media before next season even starts? Will Jackson stick around if he thinks topping Red isn’t going to happen in LA? Will Bynum end up like so many other once-promising big men felled by injuries? What will they do with their stock of weak-ass European players? Are the Suns, Spurs and Mavericks all going to go the way of the Sacramento Kings of several years ago? And what about that talented team with that young center named Oden?
Comments closed June 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I must say as a Laker fan on the night before game 1 I felt like the French the night before Agincourt in Henry V. And admit it, Celtics fans: You wouldn't have enjoyed it quite as much if everyone hadn't picked the Lakers. It was your year, your team earned it, enjoy it.
Posted by Robert Fiore | June 13, 2008 2:47 AM