Re: NBA Playoffs

[ELCABALLO45]

Kevin Garnett winning over any of those other 3 is laughable. He has been far less productive than LBJ or CP3 (check out that gap in PER). He isn't as "valuable" as the other 3 (take the other 3 off their team and they're - at best - eeking into the playoffs; take Garnett off the Celtics and they still have homecourt advantage in the first round).

 

I guess the voting is usually the best player on the best team. And that's Kevin Garnett

So you are for Kobe then? Cause the Celtics are the best team only in record.

 

Nope, I belive the Celtics are the better team.

[Exile on Waveland]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

 

C'mon now, let's be honest here. There isn't a single rational person that would take Jefferson over Garnett at this stage, regardless of what those numbers say. Plenty of players have put up big numbers for bad teams. This also isn't baseball; defense matters a great deal (as, to a lesser extent, do intangibles). Garnett is a much better player at this time than Jefferson. The above poster was correct, Garnett will be in the Hall of Fame and it's not likely Jefferson will join him.

[Exile on Waveland]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

Plus didn't the Wolves win about the same number of games with Jefferson? Garnett is a good player, but so is Jefferson.

 

They won 10 less games this year.

[illiniguy]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

Plus didn't the Wolves win about the same number of games with Jefferson? Garnett is a good player, but so is Jefferson.

 

They won 10 less games this year.

Ok so they did better with Garnett than I thought. But, they are also in a much tougher West this year. I really think Jefferson is almost, almost as good as Garnett. But, that isn't meant as an insult to KG rather a compliment to Al.

[ELCABALLO45]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

Plus didn't the Wolves win about the same number of games with Jefferson? Garnett is a good player, but so is Jefferson.

 

They won 10 less games this year.

Ok so they did better with Garnett than I thought. But, they are also in a much tougher West this year. I really think Jefferson is almost, almost as good as Garnett. But, that isn't meant as an insult to KG rather a compliment to Al.

 

I don't like Jefferson at all, I think he is overrated. I don't think you can build around him at all

[ELCABALLO45]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

 

C'mon now, let's be honest here. There isn't a single rational person that would take Jefferson over Garnett at this stage, regardless of what those numbers say. Plenty of players have put up big numbers for bad teams. This also isn't baseball; defense matters a great deal (as, to a lesser extent, do intangibles). Garnett is a much better player at this time than Jefferson. The above poster was correct, Garnett will be in the Hall of Fame and it's not likely Jefferson will join him.

 

Thank you

[Exile on Waveland]

This reminds me of 2000, when Shareef Abdur-Rahim (20.3 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.3 apg) was basically as good as Tim Duncan (23.2 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.2 apg). It's also reminiscent of 2001 (20.5, 9.1, 3.1 to 22.2, 12.2, 3.0).

[illiniguy]

This reminds me of 2000, when Shareef Abdur-Rahim (20.3 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.3 apg) was basically as good as Tim Duncan (23.2 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.2 apg). It's also reminiscent of 2001 (20.5, 9.1, 3.1 to 22.2, 12.2, 3.0).

Yeah except those numbers aren't even all that close.

[Andy]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

 

C'mon now, let's be honest here. There isn't a single rational person that would take Jefferson over Garnett at this stage, regardless of what those numbers say. Plenty of players have put up big numbers for bad teams. This also isn't baseball; defense matters a great deal (as, to a lesser extent, do intangibles). Garnett is a much better player at this time than Jefferson. The above poster was correct, Garnett will be in the Hall of Fame and it's not likely Jefferson will join him.

I'm not arguing for Jefferson being as good as KG, I'm just giving one example of KG not being the most valuable player in the league this year. KG had a wonderful season for a great team, and I'm sure he did in fact have some intangible impact on the team too, but there is simply no way I can justify voting KG the MVP, especially in a season with three otherworldly candidates the caliber of Kobe, CP, and LeBron.

[Guest]

It's not necessarily that Al Jefferson is better than Garnett, it's that if the Celtics didn't make that trade and had a trio of Pierce, Allen and Jefferson, not much would have changed. The Celtics won their division this year by 25 games, they were 14 games better than No. 3 Orlando and 21 games better than No. 4 Cleveland. I don't think they would have had the best record in the league and probably wouldn't have been No. 1 in the East, but Boston would have won their division and would have been at least the No. 3 seed in the East, if not the No. 2 ahead of Orlando.

 

As far as LeBron, I discount him a bit because he's in the East and any team with a pulse could have made the playoffs in the East. I also hold this against Garnett. The West was far and away the tougher conference this year and when determining MVP candidates, that has to be in consideration. I wouldn't take LeBron out of the discussion, but I'd put him a solid third behind Kobe and Chris Paul and easily ahead of Garnett.

 

And even though I'm a Lakers fan and my choice of Kobe for MVP is a semi-homer pick, I won't be disappointed at all if Paul wins it because he's been ridiculous this year as well.

 

Wait, are you being serious? Al Jefferson can't hold KG's jock. Its not even close. Take KG off the Celtics and they are probably a 6 or 7 seed, not top 5. Al Jefferson is a okay player FOR THE LAST PLACE TIMBERWOLVES.

 

My MVP Ballot

 

1. Kevin Garnett

2. Kobe Bryant

3. Chris Paul

4. LeBron James

 

Its so damn close

 

You do realize that what your saying is that Garnett is worth around 25 wins more than Jefferson is, right? You also realize that what you're explaining is completely absurd, right?

 

Boston was 66-16 this year while No. 6 Toronto was 41-41, No. 7 Philly was 40-42 and No. 8 Atlanta was 37-45. So for Boston to fall that far, they would have to be 25 to 29 games worse. Even if you replaced Garnett with a league average starting power forward, Boston still would have won their division by 10 games over Toronto. Removing Garnett and adding Jefferson probably costs them 10 games, maybe 15 at the most. That would put them, at worst, as the No. 3 seed.

[Guest]

This reminds me of 2000, when Shareef Abdur-Rahim (20.3 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.3 apg) was basically as good as Tim Duncan (23.2 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.2 apg). It's also reminiscent of 2001 (20.5, 9.1, 3.1 to 22.2, 12.2, 3.0).

 

San Antonio still would have been really, really good if you would have swapped those two players in the two years. Would they have been as good as they actually were? Probably not. But they wouldn't have sucked, which is what ElCaballo45 is suggesting with his Garnett-Jefferson argument.

[ELCABALLO45]

It's not necessarily that Al Jefferson is better than Garnett, it's that if the Celtics didn't make that trade and had a trio of Pierce, Allen and Jefferson, not much would have changed. The Celtics won their division this year by 25 games, they were 14 games better than No. 3 Orlando and 21 games better than No. 4 Cleveland. I don't think they would have had the best record in the league and probably wouldn't have been No. 1 in the East, but Boston would have won their division and would have been at least the No. 3 seed in the East, if not the No. 2 ahead of Orlando.

 

As far as LeBron, I discount him a bit because he's in the East and any team with a pulse could have made the playoffs in the East. I also hold this against Garnett. The West was far and away the tougher conference this year and when determining MVP candidates, that has to be in consideration. I wouldn't take LeBron out of the discussion, but I'd put him a solid third behind Kobe and Chris Paul and easily ahead of Garnett.

 

And even though I'm a Lakers fan and my choice of Kobe for MVP is a semi-homer pick, I won't be disappointed at all if Paul wins it because he's been ridiculous this year as well.

 

Wait, are you being serious? Al Jefferson can't hold KG's jock. Its not even close. Take KG off the Celtics and they are probably a 6 or 7 seed, not top 5. Al Jefferson is a okay player FOR THE LAST PLACE TIMBERWOLVES.

 

My MVP Ballot

 

1. Kevin Garnett

2. Kobe Bryant

3. Chris Paul

4. LeBron James

 

Its so damn close

 

You do realize that what your saying is that Garnett is worth around 25 wins more than Jefferson is, right? You also realize that what you're explaining is completely absurd, right?

 

Boston was 66-16 this year while No. 6 Toronto was 41-41, No. 7 Philly was 40-42 and No. 8 Atlanta was 37-45. So for Boston to fall that far, they would have to be 25 to 29 games worse. Even if you replaced Garnett with a league average starting power forward, Boston still would have won their division by 10 games over Toronto. Removing Garnett and adding Jefferson probably costs them 10 games, maybe 15 at the most. That would put them, at worst, as the No. 3 seed.

 

Al Jefferson is not that good, thats all im saying. He put up good numbers on a bad team. You can't just say "well, the Celtics would of won x amount of games with Jefferson and would of still won the divison". It doesn't work that way. Last year the Celtics had Jefferson and Pierce and won 24 games. So just adding Ray Allen makes them a number 2 seed? Maybe they still win the Divison but that doesn't make them an elite team. And if Bosh doesn't get hurt and Jefferson stays on the Celtics, I still see the Raptors better then them

[Guest]

It's not necessarily that Al Jefferson is better than Garnett, it's that if the Celtics didn't make that trade and had a trio of Pierce, Allen and Jefferson, not much would have changed. The Celtics won their division this year by 25 games, they were 14 games better than No. 3 Orlando and 21 games better than No. 4 Cleveland. I don't think they would have had the best record in the league and probably wouldn't have been No. 1 in the East, but Boston would have won their division and would have been at least the No. 3 seed in the East, if not the No. 2 ahead of Orlando.

 

As far as LeBron, I discount him a bit because he's in the East and any team with a pulse could have made the playoffs in the East. I also hold this against Garnett. The West was far and away the tougher conference this year and when determining MVP candidates, that has to be in consideration. I wouldn't take LeBron out of the discussion, but I'd put him a solid third behind Kobe and Chris Paul and easily ahead of Garnett.

 

And even though I'm a Lakers fan and my choice of Kobe for MVP is a semi-homer pick, I won't be disappointed at all if Paul wins it because he's been ridiculous this year as well.

 

Wait, are you being serious? Al Jefferson can't hold KG's jock. Its not even close. Take KG off the Celtics and they are probably a 6 or 7 seed, not top 5. Al Jefferson is a okay player FOR THE LAST PLACE TIMBERWOLVES.

 

My MVP Ballot

 

1. Kevin Garnett

2. Kobe Bryant

3. Chris Paul

4. LeBron James

 

Its so damn close

 

You do realize that what your saying is that Garnett is worth around 25 wins more than Jefferson is, right? You also realize that what you're explaining is completely absurd, right?

 

Boston was 66-16 this year while No. 6 Toronto was 41-41, No. 7 Philly was 40-42 and No. 8 Atlanta was 37-45. So for Boston to fall that far, they would have to be 25 to 29 games worse. Even if you replaced Garnett with a league average starting power forward, Boston still would have won their division by 10 games over Toronto. Removing Garnett and adding Jefferson probably costs them 10 games, maybe 15 at the most. That would put them, at worst, as the No. 3 seed.

 

Al Jefferson is not that good, thats all im saying. He put up good numbers on a bad team. You can't just say "well, the Celtics would of won x amount of games with Jefferson and would of still won the divison". It doesn't work that way. Last year the Celtics had Jefferson and Pierce and won 24 games. So just adding Ray Allen makes them a number 2 seed? Maybe they still win the Divison but that doesn't make them an elite team. And if Bosh doesn't get hurt and Jefferson stays on the Celtics, I still see the Raptors better then them

 

Paul Pierce only played 47 games last year so you're adding Allen and Paul Pierce for half of a season. And Jefferson missed 13 games as well. Jefferson was also only 21 when he started last season and is now 23 which means he's still getting better. Look at his monthly splits for scoring last year: Nov - 9.3, Dec - 15.4, Jan - 14.6, Feb - 16.1, Mar - 19.7, Apr - 22.3 (though only 4 games) which also happened to be his first year as a regular starter.

 

In addition to Pierce and Jefferson missing time, Wally Szczerbiak (15 ppg) only played 32 games, Tony Allen (11.5 ppg) played 33. Rajon Rondo was only a rookie. There are plenty of reason why the Celtics sucked last year and plenty of reason why they are so much improved this year. Garnett is one of them but he is not the only one.

[SpongeWorthy]

There are some people putting way too much emphasis on PER. It's a nice stat but numbers are a long way (at least the ones we know about) from having the same explanatory power in basketball as they do in baseball. The league has been littered with players who have put up good numbers on bad teams (Stephon Marbury and Zach Randolph being prominent examples from the same team).

 

Garnett's counting stats aren't great but he's arguably the best defender on the planet. He absolutely erases the pick and roll. I don't think he's MVP but he's close. He has completely remade the Boston Celtics. Al Jefferson is nowhere close.

[SpongeWorthy]

This reminds me of 2000, when Shareef Abdur-Rahim (20.3 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.3 apg) was basically as good as Tim Duncan (23.2 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.2 apg). It's also reminiscent of 2001 (20.5, 9.1, 3.1 to 22.2, 12.2, 3.0).

 

San Antonio still would have been really, really good if you would have swapped those two players in the two years. Would they have been as good as they actually were? Probably not. But they wouldn't have sucked, which is what ElCaballo45 is suggesting with his Garnett-Jefferson argument.

 

So the Bulls would have been nearly as good with Clyde or Dominique? I sincerely, sincerely doubt that.

 

The intangibles that people get (correctly for the most part) up in arms about when talking heads use them for baseball (clutch play, heart, chemistry, etc.) actually do matter in basketball.

 

And let's not forget that defensive metrics in basketball are still a long way away from being strong. I mean, I've seen enough basketball to realize that Garnett is fantastic on defense while Camby is largely a compiler of blocks and rebounds.

[Guest]

This reminds me of 2000, when Shareef Abdur-Rahim (20.3 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.3 apg) was basically as good as Tim Duncan (23.2 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.2 apg). It's also reminiscent of 2001 (20.5, 9.1, 3.1 to 22.2, 12.2, 3.0).

 

San Antonio still would have been really, really good if you would have swapped those two players in the two years. Would they have been as good as they actually were? Probably not. But they wouldn't have sucked, which is what ElCaballo45 is suggesting with his Garnett-Jefferson argument.

 

So the Bulls would have been nearly as good with Clyde or Dominique? I sincerely, sincerely doubt that.

 

The intangibles that people get (correctly for the most part) up in arms about when talking heads use them for baseball (clutch play, heart, chemistry, etc.) actually do matter in basketball.

 

And let's not forget that defensive metrics in basketball are still a long way away from being strong. I mean, I've seen enough basketball to realize that Garnett is fantastic on defense while Camby is largely a compiler of blocks and rebounds.

 

If given the choice, I'd take Garnett over Jefferson every day and twice on Sunday and I don't think anybody would disagree with that or is saying they wouldn't. But there is no way you can make a serious and logical case that replacing Garnett with Jefferson would cost the Celtics more than maybe 15 games in the standings especially considering they are in the East. I mean, we're not replacing Garnett with Kwame Brown. Jefferson is a solid power forward who would be a good player on any NBA team. You're kidding yourself if you think that a trio of Pierce, Allen and Jefferson wouldn't be good enough to win a division in the East.

 

Oh, and if your Bulls with Clyde or Dominique thing is replacing Jordan with one of them well, that's no good. Garnett isn't even close to Michael Jordan in terms of how good they are/were as NBA players. Garnett isn't even the clear-cut best power forward of this generation whereas Jordan is arguably the best player ever.

[rawaction]

LeBron hasn't done anything this year that Kobe hasn't done in past years.

 

LeBron had 58 more assists, 28 more rebounds, and 14 more blocks than any season Kobe has ever had.

 

LeBron also handles the ball more and is a good 2-3 inches taller. Better stats doesn't mean he's the better player. Heck, compare this season with Jordan's best assist, rebound and block season and I'm sure the numbers are at least similar.

[SouthSideRyan]

I played probably the best game of pick-up in my life last night in my KG jersey. Pretty sure that settles it.

 

I think it's really difficult to give the MVP to a player in the east because of how bad it is. When you have the majority of top teams in one conference, it seems off to me to give the award to a guy who played against the weak competition twice as much as the strong. I'm a believer in the Celtics, and think they'd have a decent chance in the Finals should they get there. It's also not KG's fault that he's playing 2/3 of his games against weak competition. But it's hard to take his stats at face value compared to what Kobe or Duncan or whoever are doing against clearly better competition.

Edited April 22, 2008 by SouthSideRyan

[CuseCubFan69]

I played probably the best game of pick-up in my life last night in my KG jersey. Pretty sure that settles it.

 

Chucker.

[Exile on Waveland]

This reminds me of 2000, when Shareef Abdur-Rahim (20.3 ppg, 10.1 rpg, 3.3 apg) was basically as good as Tim Duncan (23.2 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.2 apg). It's also reminiscent of 2001 (20.5, 9.1, 3.1 to 22.2, 12.2, 3.0).

Yeah except those numbers aren't even all that close.

 

I'd say those stats are pretty damned close, especially considering the difference between the two players. Also, give me some leeway as those were the first two names I searched.

[Exile on Waveland]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

 

C'mon now, let's be honest here. There isn't a single rational person that would take Jefferson over Garnett at this stage, regardless of what those numbers say. Plenty of players have put up big numbers for bad teams. This also isn't baseball; defense matters a great deal (as, to a lesser extent, do intangibles). Garnett is a much better player at this time than Jefferson. The above poster was correct, Garnett will be in the Hall of Fame and it's not likely Jefferson will join him.

I'm not arguing for Jefferson being as good as KG, I'm just giving one example of KG not being the most valuable player in the league this year. KG had a wonderful season for a great team, and I'm sure he did in fact have some intangible impact on the team too, but there is simply no way I can justify voting KG the MVP, especially in a season with three otherworldly candidates the caliber of Kobe, CP, and LeBron.

 

I'm not supporting KG as MVP; you can see an earlier post I think it should be LeBron. KG would be fourth on my ballot. However, in arguing against him, posters have totally discredited how good he is. He's a great, great player.

 

This isn't baseball. Numbers mean a lot, but they're not everything. Defense matters a great deal and KG is a phenomenal player on that end of the court. Intangibles also come into play and KG thrives here, too. Amassing stats on bad teams is one thing (Abdur-Rahim, Randolph, etc), doing it while leading a 67-win team is different (though KG had been on poor teams the last two years).

[Guest]

I played probably the best game of pick-up in my life last night in my KG jersey. Pretty sure that settles it.

 

Ran out of Eddy Curry jerseys?

[Warpticon]

He is a decent player, not Garnett type tho. Garnett is a HOF player.

Garnett: 18.8 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 3.4 APG, 1.2 BPG

 

Jefferson: 21.0 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 1.4 APG, 1.5 BPG

 

C'mon now, let's be honest here. There isn't a single rational person that would take Jefferson over Garnett at this stage, regardless of what those numbers say. Plenty of players have put up big numbers for bad teams. This also isn't baseball; defense matters a great deal (as, to a lesser extent, do intangibles). Garnett is a much better player at this time than Jefferson. The above poster was correct, Garnett will be in the Hall of Fame and it's not likely Jefferson will join him.

I'm not arguing for Jefferson being as good as KG, I'm just giving one example of KG not being the most valuable player in the league this year. KG had a wonderful season for a great team, and I'm sure he did in fact have some intangible impact on the team too, but there is simply no way I can justify voting KG the MVP, especially in a season with three otherworldly candidates the caliber of Kobe, CP, and LeBron.

 

I'm not supporting KG as MVP; you can see an earlier post I think it should be LeBron. KG would be fourth on my ballot. However, in arguing against him, posters have totally discredited how good he is. He's a great, great player.

 

This isn't baseball. Numbers mean a lot, but they're not everything. Defense matters a great deal and KG is a phenomenal player on that end of the court. Intangibles also come into play and KG thrives here, too. Amassing stats on bad teams is one thing (Abdur-Rahim, Randolph, etc), doing it while leading a 67-win team is different (though KG had been on poor teams the last two years).

 

Right. Did he start being a great, great player this season? Because his numbers are down almost across the board this season versus last (including perhaps the most MVP relevant ones: games played and minutes per game). Garnett missed 11 games this season; in those games, the Celtics went 9-2. Garnett is a fantastic player, and has had a very positive influence on his team. But let's be serious here; what we're talking about is rewarding a player for the quality of his teammates. (And yes, the same could be said about Kobe.) Any arguments in Garnett's favor should be redirected toward Dwight Howard, for whom the same arguments can be much more competently made.

[SouthSideRyan]

I played probably the best game of pick-up in my life last night in my KG jersey. Pretty sure that settles it.

 

Ran out of Eddy Curry jerseys?

 

I like playing defense. And have range beyond 2 feet. And am not 350 pounds.

 

My boss owns an Eddy Curry Knicks jersey. In addition to the Knicks, she's a University of Texas, Packers, and Cardinals fan.

 

She's a horrible human being.

[Guest]

Despite not being playoff related, I'm surprised there are no comments on Scott Skiles returning to the Central to coach the Bucks.