2009 Celticsblog Draft: Voting Analysis : Team of the Future

[Fafnir]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ESF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

[Roy Hobbs]

Portland.
I still don't get how that team got so deep.

A vote for Portland is a vote for a strong bench.  Not to mention, truth, justice, and the American way.

[KCattheStripe]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ECF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

He actually never did that in game 7, here's the log:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=280617002

But that game is not even what I'm talking about, when this team needs offense, they never go to Garnett, they put the ball in Paul's hands and let him go to work. Couple that with his emergence as a defensive force ( for which I credit KG's defense with giving him the back stop he needs) and I don't think its unreasonable to say that right now Paul is better than KG, and is more important to this teams success.

[Fafnir]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ECF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

He actually never did that in game 7, here's the log:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=280617002

But that game is not even what I'm talking about, when this team needs offense, they never go to Garnett, they put the ball in Paul's hands and let him go to work. Couple that with his emergence as a defensive force ( for which I credit KG's defense with giving him the back stop he needs) and I don't think its unreasonable to say that right now Paul is better than KG, and is more important to this teams success.

I thought he had three buckets late in a row, only two.

You're wrong about what the team does when it needs a bucket. They also put Garnett in the post and throw it to him a high percentage of the time.

I do think its pretty unreasonable, because your argument comes down to "crunch-time" offense. The rest of the game matters too. As does defense. Its very unreasonable when you consider Garnett scores at roughly the same rate with better efficiency.

[KCattheStripe]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ECF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

He actually never did that in game 7, here's the log:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=280617002

But that game is not even what I'm talking about, when this team needs offense, they never go to Garnett, they put the ball in Paul's hands and let him go to work. Couple that with his emergence as a defensive force ( for which I credit KG's defense with giving him the back stop he needs) and I don't think its unreasonable to say that right now Paul is better than KG, and is more important to this teams success.

I thought he had three buckets late in a row, only two.

You're wrong about what the team does when it needs a bucket. They also put Garnett in the post and throw it to him a high percentage of the time.

I do think its pretty unreasonable, because your argument comes down to "crunch-time" offense. The rest of the game matters too. As does defense. Its very unreasonable when you consider Garnett scores at roughly the same rate with better efficiency.

They do that occasionally but even KG admits that when the team needs a bucket the plan is "Give the ball to Paul Pierce and get out the way". And I think when Pierce has become our perimeter stopper and our go to scorer, he is more important to this team than KG and is a better player as last years numbers would suggest also.

[Fafnir]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ECF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

He actually never did that in game 7, here's the log:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=280617002

But that game is not even what I'm talking about, when this team needs offense, they never go to Garnett, they put the ball in Paul's hands and let him go to work. Couple that with his emergence as a defensive force ( for which I credit KG's defense with giving him the back stop he needs) and I don't think its unreasonable to say that right now Paul is better than KG, and is more important to this teams success.

I thought he had three buckets late in a row, only two.

You're wrong about what the team does when it needs a bucket. They also put Garnett in the post and throw it to him a high percentage of the time.

I do think its pretty unreasonable, because your argument comes down to "crunch-time" offense. The rest of the game matters too. As does defense. Its very unreasonable when you consider Garnett scores at roughly the same rate with better efficiency.

They do that occasionally but even KG admits that when the team needs a bucket the plan is "Give the ball to Paul Pierce and get out the way". And I think when Pierce has become our perimeter stopper and our go to scorer, he is more important to this team than KG and is a better player as last years numbers would suggest also.

What numbers?

[Roy Hobbs]

Interesting debate.  I'd say Pierce and KG were co-#1s on that team, with Ray right behind.  It's hard to have a definitive answer on who was most important.

I think we'd all agree that KG would struggle as a primary scoring option if his team was confronted by Shaq, Rashard Lewis, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili, Mike Bibby, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Ronny Turiaf, and Brad Miller, though, right?

[Rondo2287]

Ya especially since in Portlands mind all those guys get to play at once.  Typical portland behavior, they play 6 guys once against the celts this year and keep trying to push the limits

[Fafnir]

Interesting debate.  I'd say Pierce and KG were co-#1s on that team, with Ray right behind.  It's hard to have a definitive answer on who was most important.

I think we'd all agree that KG would struggle as a primary scoring option if his team was confronted by Shaq, Rashard Lewis, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili, Mike Bibby, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Ronny Turiaf, and Brad Miller, though, right?

It is getting pretty OT.

[KCattheStripe]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ECF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

He actually never did that in game 7, here's the log:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=280617002

But that game is not even what I'm talking about, when this team needs offense, they never go to Garnett, they put the ball in Paul's hands and let him go to work. Couple that with his emergence as a defensive force ( for which I credit KG's defense with giving him the back stop he needs) and I don't think its unreasonable to say that right now Paul is better than KG, and is more important to this teams success.

I thought he had three buckets late in a row, only two.

You're wrong about what the team does when it needs a bucket. They also put Garnett in the post and throw it to him a high percentage of the time.

I do think its pretty unreasonable, because your argument comes down to "crunch-time" offense. The rest of the game matters too. As does defense. Its very unreasonable when you consider Garnett scores at roughly the same rate with better efficiency.

They do that occasionally but even KG admits that when the team needs a bucket the plan is "Give the ball to Paul Pierce and get out the way". And I think when Pierce has become our perimeter stopper and our go to scorer, he is more important to this team than KG and is a better player as last years numbers would suggest also.

What numbers?

Paul
20 ppg, 5.6 boards, 3.6 assts, 1 steal, .3 blocks.

KG
15.8 ppg, 8.5 boards, 2.5 assts, 1.1 steals, 1.2 blocks

[KCattheStripe]

Ya especially since in Portlands mind all those guys get to play at once.  Typical portland behavior, they play 6 guys once against the celts this year and keep trying to push the limits

TP, if only you had made this joke sooner...

[Fafnir]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ECF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

He actually never did that in game 7, here's the log:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=280617002

But that game is not even what I'm talking about, when this team needs offense, they never go to Garnett, they put the ball in Paul's hands and let him go to work. Couple that with his emergence as a defensive force ( for which I credit KG's defense with giving him the back stop he needs) and I don't think its unreasonable to say that right now Paul is better than KG, and is more important to this teams success.

I thought he had three buckets late in a row, only two.

You're wrong about what the team does when it needs a bucket. They also put Garnett in the post and throw it to him a high percentage of the time.

I do think its pretty unreasonable, because your argument comes down to "crunch-time" offense. The rest of the game matters too. As does defense. Its very unreasonable when you consider Garnett scores at roughly the same rate with better efficiency.

They do that occasionally but even KG admits that when the team needs a bucket the plan is "Give the ball to Paul Pierce and get out the way". And I think when Pierce has become our perimeter stopper and our go to scorer, he is more important to this team than KG and is a better player as last years numbers would suggest also.

What numbers?

Paul
20 ppg, 5.6 boards, 3.6 assts, 1 steal, .3 blocks.

KG
15.8 ppg, 8.5 boards, 2.5 assts, 1.1 steals, 1.2 blocks

Their Per/36 numbers are much closer. Also you need to consider that Pierce upped his minutes a lot after KG went out.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=garneke01&y1=2009&p2=piercpa01&y2=2009

You need to look at more than PPG. Efficiency matters, as does defense, and so do blocks and turnovers.

[KCattheStripe]

OK KC but I dont really get your argument.  Our biggest flaw last year was that we had NOBODY to back up Paul Pierce.  Granted big baby surprised us but he played great.  If we had somebody that could fill in for pierce with the quality that big baby did for KG then I think we would have gotten by without Paul.  I think the difference there isnt that Pierce is better than KG but that Big Baby is better than tony allen

No, my point was that against Chicago last year, KG's defense wouldn't have made up for the lack of Pierce's scoring. Which is the problem I see with your team, I don't see anyone who can take over a game.

KG scores at roughly the same rate and with greater efficiency than Pierce though. I don't buy it.

I agree that Toronto doesn't have enough to overcome their bench's disadvantage.

At a per game or per minute rate, but what that stat doesn't take into account is scoring flurries. When was the last time you can remember KG putting the team on his back on Ripping off ten in a row? KG does his offensive damage a little bit in each quarter, which is fine. But I think everyone here has gone a little defense happy here and is forgetting the importance of having an offensive leader.

I remember him doing it in Game 6 of the Finals. He also did it in Game 7 of the ECF. I remember him doing it several times in both of his Boston seasons.

I think your selective memory of this is just a reflection of your opinion. You think Pierce is a better player, I disagree.

He actually never did that in game 7, here's the log:http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=280617002

But that game is not even what I'm talking about, when this team needs offense, they never go to Garnett, they put the ball in Paul's hands and let him go to work. Couple that with his emergence as a defensive force ( for which I credit KG's defense with giving him the back stop he needs) and I don't think its unreasonable to say that right now Paul is better than KG, and is more important to this teams success.

I thought he had three buckets late in a row, only two.

You're wrong about what the team does when it needs a bucket. They also put Garnett in the post and throw it to him a high percentage of the time.

I do think its pretty unreasonable, because your argument comes down to "crunch-time" offense. The rest of the game matters too. As does defense. Its very unreasonable when you consider Garnett scores at roughly the same rate with better efficiency.

They do that occasionally but even KG admits that when the team needs a bucket the plan is "Give the ball to Paul Pierce and get out the way". And I think when Pierce has become our perimeter stopper and our go to scorer, he is more important to this team than KG and is a better player as last years numbers would suggest also.

What numbers?

Paul
20 ppg, 5.6 boards, 3.6 assts, 1 steal, .3 blocks.

KG
15.8 ppg, 8.5 boards, 2.5 assts, 1.1 steals, 1.2 blocks

Their Per/36 numbers are much closer. Also you need to consider that Pierce upped his minutes a lot after KG went out.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=garneke01&y1=2009&p2=piercpa01&y2=2009

You need to look at more than PPG. Efficiency matters, as does defense, and so do blocks and turnovers.

I think per 36 numbers are worthless when the player doesn't play 36 minutes a game. Don't tell me what he could do, tell me what he does. Per 36 and PER overrate the production of players like Leon Powe and distract from what players like KG actually did. I think they're useful if one player plays 37 and the other plays 42 to see what they would produce on an even playing field. KG played 6 less minutes than Paul, who is to say if he played another six minutes he might have had another turnover? Also, Pauls minutes weren't dramatically impacted by KG's departure.

[bucknersrevenge]

Whether it has been due to injury history, old age or both the guys Portland has lost something offensively and defensively there was never much there. As nick would say: defense and rebounding

That's how Boston won a title. That's how it gets done. Tronto has that. Portland has guys that USED to play defense and USED to rebound. You don't win titles outscoring teams 130-127.

[Edgar]

To mgent

thank u for your depth comment
I am sure u  always knew depth win championships


we appreciatte your comment and your vote



We sacrifice our first rounder but trade to not having a single roster spot
over 12th round
that help us to build this machine of a team without a first rounder
some people tend to forget that

portland is the team of the poor, the team of the masses the peoples team


VOTE PORTLAND!!!!!!