Contrary to popular belief: The most instrumental player on the Celtics is

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Yes, the folk that make up the majority love Garnett. Have you ever heard a negative word about Garnett from ESPN, TNT or NBA TV? He's had a positive reputation since the Minny days. His antics have always been looked upon as playing hard and being savvy/a veteran playing mind games to throw off the other team's concentration.

How exactly are ESPN, TNT or NBA TV the majority opinion? How are NBA-related mediums the audience/public?

Yes, the Celtics are a defensive team and rely on consistency on that end. When it comes to importance, a 26 yr old Rondo is more important to the Celtics than a 36 yr old Garnett who it wasn't sure was even returning to the team this season when they got bounced last season.

Re-read the thread title + the opening statement =

Garnett was the most important player for the Celtics in the '11/'12 season - Gil Scott-Heroin.

What you're arguing is all subjective-projecting of what MIGHT happen this season - where exactly do you see me arguing what may occur/vice versa this upcoming season?

We don't know who's gonna be the most important/instrumental player for the Celtics this season - all we know is who was the most important player last season.

Garnett brings a lot to the table defensively as far as leadership and on court performance, but defense is the philosophy under Rivers regardless of Garnett's presence or not. Who is going to run that offense if you take Rondo out? They lose a ton if you take either away, but the loss of Rondo would be more detrimental imo.

Celtics defense in the regular season: #1 ranked defense rating, #1 ranked in opposition FG% in the paint and #2 ranked in opposition points per game.

Celtics defense in the playoffs: Celtics' defense allowed 90.65 points per 100 possessions - Garnett on court; ranked #1 in the league.

Celtics' defense allowed 123.28 points per 100 possessions - Garnett off court; ranked last in the league.

Top ranked Celtic players:

Kevin Garnett +32.63 points
Avery Bradley +11.1 points
Marquis Daniels +4.0 points
Mickeal Pietrus +2.4 points
Player(s) gap
Rajon Rondo -2.1 points

He was the difference between the Celtics being the BEST defensive team in the playoffs and being the WORST.

+ KG had added-responsibility in the front court with O'Neal only playing a small portion of the season - forcing him to move to C.

You may say that statistics are only part of the picture; context and eye-test(s) need to be taken into account. Context/eye test = in over 16 seasons, Garnett has proven he's ONE of the greatest defenders of all time and since he's joined the Celtics, they've been a top 5 ranked defense every single year (before Garnett the Celtics were defensively-ranked 16th, 20th, 14th since Rivers has been head coach). The statistics are just there as evidential proof to say he's still performing at an elite level on the defensive end; even though he's lost x-amount of athleticism.

You say Celtics would have a defensive philosophy/mentality regardless of Garnett being on the team, but would they still have had the same production and effectiveness on defense without Garnett?

You say who would run that offense if you took Rondo out + saying his loss would be more detrimental -

Celtics offense in the regular season: #26th ranked in points per game, #21st ranked in pace, #27th in offensive rating.

Celtics offense in the playoffs: #10th out of 16 ranked in points per game, #11th out of 16 ranked offense in pace; #10th ranked out of 16 in offensive rating.

You may say they're slower paced due to the age of the big three, then you also have to apply that reasoning to their defense, afterall defenses need to adjust and play (+ manipulate) to the pace of the opposition offenses' as well. Translation = old legs have an impact on the offensive end just like they do on the defensive end. A major part of their lowly-ranked/inefficient offense was that Rondo crippled the fluidity of the offense by not creating his own offense (21st ranked PG for drawing fouls in the league) and teams not being threatened by his shooting ability (therefore focussing on other players on the floor - team's help-defensive schemes had one less player to account for). He was too reliant on spacing and players finding openings, which halted the pace and momentum (therefore defenses would have a higher % of being set) rather than creating and capitalising on miss-matchups and attempting his own shot. He still hasn't consistently figured out how to run a fluid offense; balancing when to shoot/when to pass.

On the other side of the court - KG was the most offensively-productive PF/C in the playoffs and he also was the most productive scoring-threat for the Celtics in the playoffs too - leading the team with 19 PPG on 50% shooting. Both Allen and Pierce scored less and both shot 38%/39% in the playoffs.

Point is - KG had a larger-bearing on the Celtics winning% than Rondo did in the entire '11/'12 season, it's not an opinion - it's a fact.

 

[d o L o b]

Spoiler

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

nikka I don't even support the Celtics.

 

[Black]

Won't win a thing though

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Won't win a thing though

 

[obarth]

How exactly are ESPN, TNT or NBA TV the majority opinion? How are NBA-related mediums the audience/public?


Re-read the thread title + the opening statement =

Garnett was the most important player for the Celtics in the '11/'12 season - Gil Scott-Heroin.

What you're arguing is all subjective-projecting of what MIGHT happen this season - where exactly do you see me arguing what may occur/vice versa this upcoming season?

We don't know who's gonna be the most important/instrumental player for the Celtics this season - all we know is who was the most important player last season.



+ KG had added-responsibility in the front court with O'Neal only playing a small portion of the season - forcing him to move to C.

You may say that statistics are only part of the picture; context and eye-test(s) need to be taken into account. Context/eye test = in over 16 seasons, Garnett has proven he's ONE of the greatest defenders of all time and the since he's joined the Celtics, they've been a top 5 ranked defense every single year (before Garnett the Celtics were defensively-ranked 16th, 20th, 14th since Rivers has been head coach). The statistics are just there as evidential proof to say he's still performing at an elite level on the defensive end; even though he's lost x-amount of athleticism.

You say Celtics would have a defensive philosophy/mentality regardless of Garnett being on the team, but would they still have had the same production and effectiveness on defense without Garnett?

You say who would run that offense if you took Rondo out + saying his loss would be more detrimental -


You may say they're slower paced because of the age of the big three, then you also have to apply that reasoning to their defense, afterall defenses need to adjust and play (+ manipulate) to the pace of the opposition offenses' as well. Translation = old legs have an impact on the offensive end just like they do on the defensive end. A major part of their lowly-ranked/inefficient offense was that Rondo crippled the fluidity of the offense by not creating his own offense (21st ranked PG for drawing fouls in the league) and teams not being threatened by his shooting ability (therefore focussing on other players on the floor - team's help-defensive schemes had one less player to account for). He was too reliant on spacing and players finding openings, which halted the pace and momentum (therefore defenses would have a higher % of being set) rather than creating and capitalising on miss-matchups and attempting his own shot. He still hasn't consistently figured out how to run a fluid offense; balancing when to shoot/when to pass.

On the other side of the court - KG was the most offensively-productive PF/C in the playoffs and he also was the most productive scoring-threat for the Celtics in the playoffs too - leading the team with 19 PPG on 50% shooting. Both Allen and Pierce scored less and both shot 38%/39% in the playoffs.

Point is - KG had a larger-bearing on the Celtics winning% than Rondo did in the entire '11/'12 season, it's not an opinion - it's a fact.

I don't ever use that "didn't read" line, but it's kind of appropriate here. Your thread title is

Contrary to popular belief: The most instrumental player on the Celtics is

followed by a pic of Garnett. That comment deals with the present. Then you make a statement about the past season. Then you rebut my point by saying you only meant the last season, but use arguments for KG that factor in his whole career/since he joined the Celtics. The thread title clearly is about right now. Pointing out that Rondo is 10 yrs younger than Garnett is a perfectly valid point in how much more instrumental he is in the fortunes of the Celtics. The future of that team revolves much more around Rondo than Garnett whether Rondo ends up being trade bait or not. If you want to change the thread to be merely about who contributed more to the success of the team last season then cool, even though I'd still disagree, but that's not the statement the thread is currently making but just a direction you'd like it to go.

As for the part about the media: who else would you say makes up the majority opinion otherwise and how would you prove that? The media always has been what created the public reputations and opinions of figures of note.

 

[SwagKingKong]

Good thread and yes, obviously he's their most impactful player. Bostons whole defense falls apart without Garnett on the floor.

Top 13 player of all-time and a top three defensive player of all-time

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I don't ever use that "didn't read" line, but it's kind of appropriate here. Your thread title is followed by a pic of Garnett. That comment deals with the present. Then you make a statement about the past season. Then you rebut my point by saying you only meant the last season, but use arguments for KG that factor in his whole career/since he joined the Celtics. The thread title clearly is about right now. Pointing out that Rondo is 10 yrs younger than Garnett is a perfectly valid point in how much more instrumental he is in the fortunes of the Celtics. The future of that team revolves much more around Rondo than Garnett whether Rondo ends up being trade bait or not. If you want to change the thread to be merely about who contributed more to the success of the team last season then cool, even though I'd still disagree, but that's not the statement the thread is currently making but just a direction you'd like it to go.

The thread title and the original statement are all ONE.

Thread title: The most instrumental player on the Celtics is

Followed by a picture of Garnett saying "Garnett was the most important player for the Celtics in the '11/'12 season."

How more obvious could I be? Where did I allude to the future of the Celtics in the original post? Why are you the only one that didn't understand what I was saying?

I used arguments that factor in his career, because I was weighing in defensive-context based on the past season = I said ever since KG has been at the Celtics, they've been a top 5 defense in the league; an area they were no where near beforehand. Basically saying he's still capable of being an elite defender and that this season is not just a one off; there's a historical-trend that weighs in his favor.

DON'T JUST READ THE THREAD TITLE - READ THE OPENING STATEMENT AS WELL. THE STATEMENT THAT THE THREAD TITLE IS MAKING, IS IN THE ORIGINAL POST.

This makes you look like you're just deflecting the topic at hand because you can't provide a valid argument to what I posted.

If you disagree with what I said why didn't you bother talking on that, rather than basing your post on what is initially...... NOTHING.

As for the part about the media: who else would you say makes up the majority opinion otherwise and how would you prove that? The media always has been what created the public reputations and opinions of figures of note.

The audience/public make up the majority opinion (and I'm directing it to the the-coli public, because obviously the outsiders can't respond to me), not the media (yes they have influence on opinion but aren't the public/audience). Plus I can't prove that, it's based on an educated/estimated guess - polls/articles/columns I've read from third-parties and 'fans'; abusive remarks to players in the league; Garnett's demeanor/physicality on the court; opposition team-fans' jeering; players talking about their dis-like for him.

The story goes that on May 9, 1999 (Mother's Day), Tim Duncan's Spurs played Kevin Garnett's Timberwolves in the first round of the NBA playoffs. During that game, Garnett, who is known for his incessant need to trash talk and intense dislike for any sort of decency did what he does best. He went too far.

Just as Tim Duncan was going to take two free throws, Garnett barked at him:"Happy Mother's day motherfukker".

Tim Duncan's mother famously died of breast cancer the day before his 14th birthday.

If that's true, Kevin Garnett is an evil dude.

On a player scale - 1 being ABSOLUTE HATRED and 10 being unconditionally loved, he's certainly more closer to 1 than he is to 10, on a NBA-public level. We just going over common knowledge now, c'mon.....

STOP DEFLECTING.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Is there anybody else that couldn't comprehend what I was saying in my OP?

 

[Taadow]

Instrumental?

Does the nicca play the trumpet or something?

 

[Street Knowledge]

Yes, the folk that make up the majority love Garnett. Have you ever heard a negative word about Garnett from ESPN, TNT or NBA TV? He's had a positive reputation since the Minny days. His antics have always been looked upon as playing hard and being savvy/a veteran playing mind games to throw off the other team's concentration.

Yes, the Celtics are a defensive team and rely on consistency on that end. When it comes to importance, a 26 yr old Rondo is more important to the Celtics than a 36 yr old Garnett who it wasn't sure was even returning to the team this season when they got bounced last season. Garnett brings a lot to the table defensively as far as leadership and on court performance, but defense is the philosophy under Rivers regardless of Garnett's presence or not. Who is going to run that offense if you take Rondo out? They lose a ton if you take either away, but the loss of Rondo would be more detrimental imo.

The offense has been garbage WITH rondo(27th out of 30). That team wins with their defense

 

[Ohms Law]

Nothings changed in the past decade. Garnetts still the best PF in the game.

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

almost like the heat and....bosh?

 

[Black]

stop livin in the past

 

[obarth]

The thread title and the original statement are all ONE.

Thread title: The most instrumental player on the Celtics is

Followed by a picture of Garnett saying "Garnett was the most important player for the Celtics in the '11/'12 season."

How more obvious could I be? Where did I allude to the future of the Celtics in the original post? Why are you the only one that didn't understand what I was saying?

I used arguments that factor in his career, because I was weighing in defensive-context based on the past season = I said ever since KG has been at the Celtics, they've been a top 5 defense in the league; an area they were no where near beforehand. Basically saying he's still capable of being an elite defender and that this season is not just a one off; there's a historical-trend that weighs in his favor.

DON'T JUST READ THE THREAD TITLE - READ THE OPENING STATEMENT AS WELL. THE STATEMENT THAT THE THREAD TITLE IS MAKING, IS IN THE ORIGINAL POST.

This makes you look like you're just deflecting the topic at hand because you can't provide a valid argument to what I posted.

If you disagree with what I said why didn't you bother talking on that, rather than basing your post on what is initially...... NOTHING.





The audience/public make up the majority opinion (and I'm directing it to the the-coli public, because obviously the outsiders can't respond to me), not the media (yes they have influence on opinion but aren't the public/audience). Plus I can't prove that, it's based on an educated/estimated guess - polls/articles/columns I've read from third-parties and 'fans'; abusive remarks to players in the league; Garnett's demeanor/physicality on the court; opposition team-fans' jeering; players talking about their dis-like for him.

On a player scale - 1 being ABSOLUTE HATRED and 10 being unconditionally loved, he's certainly more closer to 1 than he is to 10, on a NBA-public level. We just going over common knowledge now, c'mon.....

STOP DEFLECTING.

You keep writing these dissertations that are not needed. Your intent doesn't jive with the thread you created. It's simple grammar, sentence construction and making a point. "The most instrumental player is"..."Garnett was" you're making two different statements. All you have to say is "I messed up with my wording" yet you're trying to act like I'm the one missing something. The way you worded it is that Garnett is the most instrumental player on the team now and you used last season, especially the playoffs, to prove that. I disagreed and brought up their value to the team going forward. You keep saying where did you allude to their future as if you had a paragraph dedicated to last season. There's one sentence about last season following a sentence about right now. You're saying don't just read the thread title as if that's all I did. At this point you might as well just say "pretend there isn't a thread title". There's no deflecting going on as you're making posts rebutting a point different than I ever even responded to.

And you continue to move the goal posts with every post. Your first post clearly says the folk that make up the majority opinion, then it turns into you were talking about the-coli public, then it goes back to the NBA public and then a tweet from Villanueva and an unsourced story about him saying messed up shyt to Tim Duncan. Your argument is all types of confused on that point. Garnett is respected and has been respected/liked by the media and public throughout his career. His antics get labeled as being veteran savvy and inspirational to his teammates as opposed to being dirty. The media frames the majority public opinion. A player's rep amongst his peers does not necessarily equal his rep in general. Not to mention he's one of those players who everyone says you love playing with and hate playing against. Yes, on a forum like the-coli with a contingent of hardcore bball fans there's a difference of opinion, but that's in no way the majority opinion as the-coli is in no way the majority.

But you're just going to say I'm deflecting, so here goes: in the '11/12 season the Celtics defense was the most important facet of the team and led them as far as they got. Garnett was the heart of the defense. His performance in the playoffs was enormous, even though Rondo came through with tremendous games of his own.

The offense has been garbage WITH rondo(27th out of 30). That team wins with their defense

Like I said, I wasn't talking about last year, but as far as who is more instrumental/valuable to the team right now which is what the thread says.