2009 Celticsblog Draft: Voting Analysis : Team of the Future

[indeedproceed]

Honest question: If I told you Garnett led the Celtics in scoring this year would you be confident it was a good year?

I couldn't give an answer.  I mean, if you told me that he led the league in scoring, and that all five of our starters were healthy, I'd say it would be a very good year.

I mean, I don't know, IP.  Maybe you, Jsaad, and Charlie Rosen could get a room.

Oh Roy...poor poor Roy. You do NOT compare me to Charlie Rosen! Not ever!

And basically after I go grab some numbers and throw some theory at you, your answer is "I don't know" and "Well if he led the league in scoring and all 5 of our scorers were healthy I'd say it was a very good year."

ummm...Yeah? And if Glen Davis spouted wings I'd call him a chicken.

Garnett is a great player no, I'm not debating it. I am only saying he's not an ace scorer anymore, and on Rondo's team I don't think he needs to be for them to be successful. How is that A) not probably correct considering Garnett's recent trend in play and B) Anything like Charlie Rosen?

Just answer the question, Senator!

[JSD]

Well, so long as we completely ignore the 2004 and 2008 seasons, I guess the "KG can't be a leading scorer" argument holds up.

I'm pretty surprised by how little respect our superstar big man gets.  You'd think he was Ben Wallace, by the way folks talk about him.

Roy you are going to far with "I'm pretty surprised by how little respect our superstar big man gets." I'm not going over the general perceptive (of most outside of Boston) again. I have a love for KG's game I can barely describe, but he's not a #1 scoring option. And in 2008 he wasn't the #1 scoring option despite playoff PPG.

[Roy Hobbs]

Honest question: If I told you Garnett led the Celtics in scoring this year would you be confident it was a good year?

I couldn't give an answer.  I mean, if you told me that he led the league in scoring, and that all five of our starters were healthy, I'd say it would be a very good year.

I mean, I don't know, IP.  Maybe you, Jsaad, and Charlie Rosen could get a room.

Oh Roy...poor poor Roy. You do NOT compare me to Charlie Rosen! Not ever!

And basically after I go grab some numbers and throw some theory at you, your answer is "I don't know" and "Well if he led the league in scoring and all 5 of our scorers were healthy I'd say it was a very good year."

ummm...Yeah? And if Glen Davis spouted wings I'd call him a chicken.

Garnett is a great player no, I'm not debating it. I am only saying he's not an ace scorer anymore, and on Rondo's team I don't think he needs to be for them to be successful. How is that A) not probably correct considering Garnett's recent trend in play and B) Anything like Charlie Rosen?

Just answer the question, Senator!

I just don't understand your argument.

In 2008, the scoring averages were:

1. Pierce 19.6 ppg
2. KG 18.8 ppg
3. 17.4 ppg

So, Pierce, the "ace scorer" averaged 0.8 more points than KG during the regular season, and KG outscored Pierce in the playoffs.  Yet...  you're arguing that KG can't be the #1 scoring option.

Do those 0.8 points per game make that huge of a difference to you, to prove that Pierce can be an elite scorer and KG can't?

[JSD]

I don't think he can be either, but I don't think he needs to be in Toronto.

Wow.  I guess I'm out of touch with the thinking of Celtics fans.

KG was the leading playoff scorer on our championship team.  He was also the leading scorer in the fourth quarter of our playoff games during that run.  How can he not be the best scorer on a good team, then?  He's already proven that he can be.

I'm so confused.

I am just as confused?

A player that showed to be a solid 20+ scorer takes a stat hit to play with other scorers suddenly isn't a top offensive weapon?

Based on the facts, KG teams are more effective when he's not the #1 guy offensively.
(That isn't to say he's not a solid offensive player)<--- How many times do I have to say that?

This is not an original idea, thought or statement folks. Hobbs mentioned the 2004 season (5 years ago while in his prime mind you) where he was MVP and led his team to the WCF. But what about the 8 times he couldn't get his team out of the first round or how he was the leader of a lottery team come 2007? Also, look at the fact that once he was paired with 2 elite scoring weapons (making him #3) he won a title.

I love KG like everyone else here I promise.

But he lead them in scoring in  the playoffs.  

Paul Pierce has been the #1 scoring option for Celtics for ten years now.

[Roy Hobbs]

I ask you, folks:  If we can't trust IP's judgment on a player he has allegedly watched closely the past two seasons, how can we trust his talent evaluation regarding players on other teams?

I think this calls his fitness to be Phoenix's GM into question.

[wdleehi]

I ask you, folks:  If we can't trust IP's judgment on a player he has allegedly watched closely the past two seasons, how can we trust his talent evaluation regarding players on other teams?

I think this calls his fitness to be Phoenix's GM into question.

bad idea.  If he can't be trusted as a GM, then how can you trust him as a Commish? 

[Roy Hobbs]

I ask you, folks:  If we can't trust IP's judgment on a player he has allegedly watched closely the past two seasons, how can we trust his talent evaluation regarding players on other teams?

I think this calls his fitness to be Phoenix's GM into question.

bad idea.  If he can't be trusted as a GM, then how can you trust him as a Commish? 

I don't trust him as Commish, either.

He clearly has an anti-KG bias.

[wdleehi]

I ask you, folks:  If we can't trust IP's judgment on a player he has allegedly watched closely the past two seasons, how can we trust his talent evaluation regarding players on other teams?

I think this calls his fitness to be Phoenix's GM into question.

bad idea.  If he can't be trusted as a GM, then how can you trust him as a Commish? 

I don't trust him as Commish, either.

He clearly has an anti-KG bias.

I guess that means you want the job next year.   

[indeedproceed]

Honest question: If I told you Garnett led the Celtics in scoring this year would you be confident it was a good year?

I couldn't give an answer.  I mean, if you told me that he led the league in scoring, and that all five of our starters were healthy, I'd say it would be a very good year.

I mean, I don't know, IP.  Maybe you, Jsaad, and Charlie Rosen could get a room.

Oh Roy...poor poor Roy. You do NOT compare me to Charlie Rosen! Not ever!

And basically after I go grab some numbers and throw some theory at you, your answer is "I don't know" and "Well if he led the league in scoring and all 5 of our scorers were healthy I'd say it was a very good year."

ummm...Yeah? And if Glen Davis spouted wings I'd call him a chicken.

Garnett is a great player no, I'm not debating it. I am only saying he's not an ace scorer anymore, and on Rondo's team I don't think he needs to be for them to be successful. How is that A) not probably correct considering Garnett's recent trend in play and B) Anything like Charlie Rosen?

Just answer the question, Senator!

I just don't understand your argument.

In 2008, the scoring averages were:

1. Pierce 19.6 ppg
2. KG 18.8 ppg
3. 17.4 ppg

So, Pierce, the "ace scorer" averaged 0.8 more points than KG during the regular season, and KG outscored Pierce in the playoffs.  Yet...  you're arguing that KG can't be the #1 scoring option.

Do those 0.8 points per game make that huge of a difference to you, to prove that Pierce can be an elite scorer and KG can't?

Well, Id ask about the 15 ppg last season, and I'd also say that Garnett was a different player in 2004. For one, he was 5 years and hundreds of games younger.

Do you think Kevin Garnett as presently constituted can be a 20ppg scorer for an elite to championship level team? That would mean he is their best scoring option.

[JSD]

Honest question: If I told you Garnett led the Celtics in scoring this year would you be confident it was a good year?

I couldn't give an answer.  I mean, if you told me that he led the league in scoring, and that all five of our starters were healthy, I'd say it would be a very good year.

I mean, I don't know, IP.  Maybe you, Jsaad, and Charlie Rosen could get a room.

Oh Roy...poor poor Roy. You do NOT compare me to Charlie Rosen! Not ever!

And basically after I go grab some numbers and throw some theory at you, your answer is "I don't know" and "Well if he led the league in scoring and all 5 of our scorers were healthy I'd say it was a very good year."

ummm...Yeah? And if Glen Davis spouted wings I'd call him a chicken.

Garnett is a great player no, I'm not debating it. I am only saying he's not an ace scorer anymore, and on Rondo's team I don't think he needs to be for them to be successful. How is that A) not probably correct considering Garnett's recent trend in play and B) Anything like Charlie Rosen?

Just answer the question, Senator!

I just don't understand your argument.

In 2008, the scoring averages were:

1. Pierce 19.6 ppg
2. KG 18.8 ppg
3. 17.4 ppg

So, Pierce, the "ace scorer" averaged 0.8 more points than KG during the regular season, and KG outscored Pierce in the playoffs.  Yet...  you're arguing that KG can't be the #1 scoring option.

Do those 0.8 points per game make that huge of a difference to you, to prove that Pierce can be an elite scorer and KG can't?

What was the result of KG's team the last time he didn't have Pierce or Ray beside him and he was clearly #1?

Toronto's team does not have anything close to what PP and RA bring.

[JSD]

Do you think Kevin Garnett as presently constituted can be a 20ppg scorer for an elite to championship level team? That would mean he is their best scoring option.

Absolutly not, and based on recent history (without RA and PP) he's not even on a playoff team.

[wdleehi]

Honest question: If I told you Garnett led the Celtics in scoring this year would you be confident it was a good year?

I couldn't give an answer.  I mean, if you told me that he led the league in scoring, and that all five of our starters were healthy, I'd say it would be a very good year.

I mean, I don't know, IP.  Maybe you, Jsaad, and Charlie Rosen could get a room.

Oh Roy...poor poor Roy. You do NOT compare me to Charlie Rosen! Not ever!

And basically after I go grab some numbers and throw some theory at you, your answer is "I don't know" and "Well if he led the league in scoring and all 5 of our scorers were healthy I'd say it was a very good year."

ummm...Yeah? And if Glen Davis spouted wings I'd call him a chicken.

Garnett is a great player no, I'm not debating it. I am only saying he's not an ace scorer anymore, and on Rondo's team I don't think he needs to be for them to be successful. How is that A) not probably correct considering Garnett's recent trend in play and B) Anything like Charlie Rosen?

Just answer the question, Senator!

I just don't understand your argument.

In 2008, the scoring averages were:

1. Pierce 19.6 ppg
2. KG 18.8 ppg
3. 17.4 ppg

So, Pierce, the "ace scorer" averaged 0.8 more points than KG during the regular season, and KG outscored Pierce in the playoffs.  Yet...  you're arguing that KG can't be the #1 scoring option.

Do those 0.8 points per game make that huge of a difference to you, to prove that Pierce can be an elite scorer and KG can't?

What was the result of KG's team the last time he didn't have Pierce or Ray beside him and he was clearly #1?

Toronto's team does not have anything close to what PP and RA bring.

If that's the logic, how far has Wade gotten without Shaq?

[Roy Hobbs]

What was the result of KG's team the last time he didn't have Pierce or Ray beside him and he was clearly #1?

Toronto's team does not have anything close to what PP and RA bring.

Great.  What was the result of *any* player's last season when he didn't have a competent scorer or two beside him?

I wouldn't make too much of this argument, unless you want folks pointing out that Wade led his team to some pretty terrible records without Shaq.

[Roy Hobbs]

Do you think Kevin Garnett as presently constituted can be a 20ppg scorer for an elite to championship level team? That would mean he is their best scoring option.

Why couldn't he be?  He averaged over 20 ppg in the playoffs on a championship team.  He averaged 18.8 ppg in the regular season during a championship season.

Wow.  I'm going to post this on the main board.

[JSD]

What was the result of KG's team the last time he didn't have Pierce or Ray beside him and he was clearly #1?

Toronto's team does not have anything close to what PP and RA bring.

Great.  What was the result of *any* player's last season when he didn't have a competent scorer or two beside him?

I wouldn't make too much of this argument, unless you want folks pointing out that Wade led his team to some pretty terrible records without Shaq.

Really? When? 2008 when he was out on injury all season long? Wade is on your all-time team Roy, and he might be the best scorer in the league.