Most of what you've said.
But the KG thing is definitely not an excuse, and the numbers are there to prove it.
Win-loss record don't tell you the whole story. Last year with Garnett our point differential was +9.7, without him 3.8. In other words, him alone was responsible for a 5.9 point swing n games. But even that doesn't tell you everything: we went 18-7 without him, but only 8-5 against playoff teams, and that includes a meaningless game against the wizards, a buzzer beater against the sixers and an OT win against Miami.
This season, our point differential with KG was 9.5. In the games that we were missing only KG (and not pierce) the point differential is -0.6. But, again, that doesnt tell the whole story: in the games we were only missing KG from the starting line up we are 3-5. But that includes games against 7 games against current playoff teams, and only 2 against non playoff teams. That is, we are facing much tougher opponents now than we were last year without KG.
In other words, yes, we are worse than last year without KG, but only negligibly so. Our point differential without KG this year is only 4 points worse than last year, despite a much tougher schedule, Pierce recovering from an injury, and 3 games without Sheed in the bench.
So missing KG is certainly a huge issue, and not an excuse. A much bigger issue than we realized last year because we were playing a much easier schedule without him.
Which is why, at this point, I am not panicking. If in mid february we are still struggling or KG is still out, then Ill panic.
TP. I've been considering a Vegas analogy for the Celtics without KG, and how some have reacted to how the team does without him.
2007-08: KG misses 11 games, team goes 9 - 2. This was like the guy that goes to Vegas for the very first time, sits down at a blackjack table for and gets a few hot chutes, then leaves an hour later up a few hundred bucks. This guy goes away thinking "this gambling thing is easy", never considering that he only played for a very short time and may have just been lucky (7 of those 9 wins were against teams that averaged
less than 25 wins that year).
2008-09: KG essentially misses a third of the season, team wins about 2/3 of its regular season games without him (but score margin drops from ~10 (elite) to ~4 (just-above-average), then team goes 7 - 7 in playoffs with a score margin of 0 and loses in the 2nd round. This is that same guy going back to Vegas a year later, playing a marathon game of blackjack for 10 hours with some ups and downs before eventually losing his money. Instead of focusing on the loss, he keeps telling his friends how he
almost won some money and still believes that ultimately he can still beat the blackjack odds the next time. (A lot like I keep reading people on here saying "we almost beat the Magic" without really focusing on the fact that it was in the second round...and we didn't win...against a team that got donkey-kicked in the Finals...by a team that we had donkey-kicked the year before...)
2009-10: KG misses 10 games at a time when some other players are also ouchy and the schedule is fairly rough. The team looks like garbage and has currently lost 4 of their last 6 games (and 7 of last 11). This is the Vegas guy finally getting slapped by the downside of blackjack, he sits down confident and the cards just shred him. He loses hand after hand, and gets up venting about how awful things are, how he must have been cheated, how he's never playing blackjack again. He can't understand why this is happening, because after all in the last two years when he gambled he either did well or at least well enough to convince himself that he had the game mastered...how could it be so bad this time around?
All along, the guy just didn't consider that Blackjack odds favor the house...just slightly, not so much that the house will win EVERY hand. Sometimes, if you play short periods and get lucky, you can actually take the house. But if you keep playing, eventually the house wins. And sometimes, the house wins VICIOUSLY to make up for those previous hot spells.
Same way, Celtics without KG are just playing with bad odds. Not awful odds...they don't turn into the Nets without him, but in the end they are just a slightly-above-average team without him. And just like they had some success, they're also going to have some failures. But the great thing is, knock on wood, he comes back this week. When he's on the court, suddenly the odds are stacked back in our favor. Suddenly we're winning more than 80% of the time, and it's not a fluke because we've seen it for 3 straight years now. Just like before, even with our full team together you will have some cold spells or bad hands every so often, but this time we'd be the ones with the odds in our favor. If our whole starting 5 is healthy, then WE'RE the house.
And of course, the house wins in the end.
