KG's impact on defense (ESPN article)

[Drucci]

A great article on ESPN who basically studies our efficiency (and mostly defensive efficiency)  with and without KG. Here it is : http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=4846419

And the intro (but you have to read the whole article to see the stats and KG's impact) :

Just in case last season was not evidence enough, the past 10 games have only reinforced what was already obvious: The Celtics need Kevin Garnett. Badly.

Last season with Garnett in the fold, the Celtics were 44-13 and seemingly destined to repeat. Without him, they stumbled to an 18-7 record, 25-14 if you include the postseason.

This season, the Celtics are once again winning about 75 percent of the games in which Garnett has played (22-7). Without him, they are reeling, with losses in six of their past 10.

So yes, the Celtics are better off with the future Hall of Famer on the court. That goes without saying. His expected return Friday is a welcome momentum shift for a Celtics team that hasn't used its regular starting lineup since Dec. 20.

But why? What is it about Garnett that's so valuable? Why, despite having added Rasheed Wallace, are the Celtics unable to survive without him?

One word: defense.

I'm not saying it's an excuse for the last two games because we definitely should have won without KG because it's our lack of effort that killed us (although had KG been defending Nowitzki he wouldn't have had 37 points), but our defense really drops off without the Big Ticket. And our offense too, because we miss his jumpshot which is a consistent and dangerous weapon.

[CbrewEra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtZ9I12SNJQ



Its true, we need KG clearly.  Stay healthy!

[drza44]

A great article on ESPN who basically studies our efficiency (and mostly defensive efficiency)  with and without KG. Here it is : http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=4846419

And the intro (but you have to read the whole article to see the stats and KG's impact) :

Just in case last season was not evidence enough, the past 10 games have only reinforced what was already obvious: The Celtics need Kevin Garnett. Badly.

Last season with Garnett in the fold, the Celtics were 44-13 and seemingly destined to repeat. Without him, they stumbled to an 18-7 record, 25-14 if you include the postseason.

This season, the Celtics are once again winning about 75 percent of the games in which Garnett has played (22-7). Without him, they are reeling, with losses in six of their past 10.

So yes, the Celtics are better off with the future Hall of Famer on the court. That goes without saying. His expected return Friday is a welcome momentum shift for a Celtics team that hasn't used its regular starting lineup since Dec. 20.

But why? What is it about Garnett that's so valuable? Why, despite having added Rasheed Wallace, are the Celtics unable to survive without him?

One word: defense.

I'm not saying it's an excuse for the last two games because we definitely should have won without KG because it's our lack of effort that killed us (although had KG been defending Nowitzki he wouldn't have had 37 points), but our defense really drops off without the Big Ticket. And our offense too, because we miss his jumpshot which is a consistent and dangerous weapon.

TP for the find, as it summarizes a lot of the numbers that I've compiled/used around here.  Garnett and his role on the Celtics is fascinating, because it is the only time that I've ever seen in any sport a situation where a legendary player is marginalized the way that KG is in Boston. 

There are a perfect storm of reasons why, but not the least is that defensive and "impact" stats are so underdeveloped/underutilized when compared to their offensive counterparts and the box scores.  KG's defensive impact is similar to the impact that a 30-point scorer like Kobe or a 20-10 point guard like Nash or Paul has on an offense.  The fact that many consider KG to now be at least a notch below those other superstars because they're putting up the big box scores while KG's impact is primarily felt in on-court impact and team scoring trends...it's kind of a shame (at least to me).  So again, thanks for the nice find on the article that attempts to shine some light on that.

[More Banners]

Thanks for the article.  Nicely broken down.  Many reasons to love KG.

Still, and maybe I'm going overboard, but I think that even without KG in the lineup, we should still be much better than we are.

Many folks, myself included, seem to think the other 4 starters are either all-star or near all-star caliber players.  Rondo, Perk, and PP are supposed to be superior defenders in this league in their own right.  Thibs is still supposed to be a defensive whiz on the coaching staff.

Granted, the bench doesn't have what it takes to be strong defensively, especially any time House plays instead of TA (like against Jason Terry).

KG:  take your vitamins, dude.  We need you.

[drza44]

Thanks for the article.  Nicely broken down.  Many reasons to love KG.

Still, and maybe I'm going overboard, but I think that even without KG in the lineup, we should still be much better than we are.

Many folks, myself included, seem to think the other 4 starters are either all-star or near all-star caliber players.  Rondo, Perk, and PP are supposed to be superior defenders in this league in their own right.  Thibs is still supposed to be a defensive whiz on the coaching staff.

Granted, the bench doesn't have what it takes to be strong defensively, especially any time House plays instead of TA (like against Jason Terry).

KG:  take your vitamins, dude.  We need you.

With respect, I think that we have now seen enough evidence over the last three years to make a more informed judgment about the source of the Celtics' defense.  In 07-08 a large majority of people credited KG as the source of the Celtics' historic D, and it resulted in him winning the DPoY award.  But there was also a pretty solid and growing push-back opinion that it wasn't actually just KG, but it was instead Thibs' defensive scheme and other strong defenders such as Perk, Rondo and Pierce that had as much or more to do with the great Celtics defense than Garnett did.

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

I thought that should have been proof pretty positive that Garnett was by-far the biggest reason for the Celts' D, but there is still a pretty vocal segment that don't agree.  I've seen posts and articles in many different places suggesting that Perk is now the anchor of the defense, that Garnett is still good but the injuries slowed him to the point that now he's just another cog instead of the lead dog, etc.  But...

Yet again, when KG has been hurt the defense has fallen through the floor.  It's like clockwork.  And it's not a short-term effect either, because as I (and the article in the OP) pointed out it happens every year when KG is absent.  As such, I think it's high-past time to recognize that Perk, Rondo, Pierce, Sheed, etc. are not defensive impact player.  They can be solid defenders, good defensive role players, but they aren't good enough defenders to actually form a good defense even when working in tandem.  Likewise, Thibs' system is good but it only works if KG is here.

It's no disrespect to any of the Celtics players or coaches to say that the Celtics defense just isn't going to be good with Garnett, anymore than it'd be disrespectful to Gasol, Odom, Artest, Bynum and Phil Jackson to say that the Lakers' offense wouldn't be as good if Kobe were out.  It's more of an indication that KG's impact is really that big, on the order of what many people consider to be the MVP-level players of the league, despite that his box score numbers don't look like they used to.  Even among Celtics fans these days...perhaps ESPECIALLY among Celtics fans, I think Garnett has become dramatically undervalued as very few seem to acknowledge or realize that we still have one of the top handful of players in the NBA on our team...at least when he's healthy. 

[BballTim]

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

  This isn't really true. We finished the season 2nd in defense even though KG missed much of the season. With him on the bench we were still top 8 or so. We were also among the best defenses in the playoffs last year, I believe.

  Not as good as with KG, but still well above average.

[dlpin]

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

  This isn't really true. We finished the season 2nd in defense even though KG missed much of the season. With him on the bench we were still top 8 or so. We were also among the best defenses in the playoffs last year, I believe.

  Not as good as with KG, but still well above average.

Well, considering how he "only" missed a 3rd of the season, we still finished near the top because of that.

But if you look at our ppg allowed with and without him last year, we went from ~90 to ~99 ppg allowed. 99ppg allowed would put us very close to the league average of 100 points per game.

[PierceMVP08]

Thanks for the article.  Nicely broken down.  Many reasons to love KG.

Still, and maybe I'm going overboard, but I think that even without KG in the lineup, we should still be much better than we are.

Many folks, myself included, seem to think the other 4 starters are either all-star or near all-star caliber players.  Rondo, Perk, and PP are supposed to be superior defenders in this league in their own right.  Thibs is still supposed to be a defensive whiz on the coaching staff.

Granted, the bench doesn't have what it takes to be strong defensively, especially any time House plays instead of TA (like against Jason Terry).

KG:  take your vitamins, dude.  We need you.

With respect, I think that we have now seen enough evidence over the last three years to make a more informed judgment about the source of the Celtics' defense.  In 07-08 a large majority of people credited KG as the source of the Celtics' historic D, and it resulted in him winning the DPoY award.  But there was also a pretty solid and growing push-back opinion that it wasn't actually just KG, but it was instead Thibs' defensive scheme and other strong defenders such as Perk, Rondo and Pierce that had as much or more to do with the great Celtics defense than Garnett did.

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

I thought that should have been proof pretty positive that Garnett was by-far the biggest reason for the Celts' D, but there is still a pretty vocal segment that don't agree.  I've seen posts and articles in many different places suggesting that Perk is now the anchor of the defense, that Garnett is still good but the injuries slowed him to the point that now he's just another cog instead of the lead dog, etc.  But...

Yet again, when KG has been hurt the defense has fallen through the floor.  It's like clockwork.  And it's not a short-term effect either, because as I (and the article in the OP) pointed out it happens every year when KG is absent.  As such, I think it's high-past time to recognize that Perk, Rondo, Pierce, Sheed, etc. are not defensive impact player.  They can be solid defenders, good defensive role players, but they aren't good enough defenders to actually form a good defense even when working in tandem.  Likewise, Thibs' system is good but it only works if KG is here.

It's no disrespect to any of the Celtics players or coaches to say that the Celtics defense just isn't going to be good with Garnett, anymore than it'd be disrespectful to Gasol, Odom, Artest, Bynum and Phil Jackson to say that the Lakers' offense wouldn't be as good if Kobe were out.  It's more of an indication that KG's impact is really that big, on the order of what many people consider to be the MVP-level players of the league, despite that his box score numbers don't look like they used to.  Even among Celtics fans these days...perhaps ESPECIALLY among Celtics fans, I think Garnett has become dramatically undervalued as very few seem to acknowledge or realize that we still have one of the top handful of players in the NBA on our team...at least when he's healthy. 

I think you're overstating what's going on and by saying that KG is the reason those other guys play good defense you are definitely knocking them.  First of all with Pierce and Rondo they're not supposed to anchor a defense.  You cannot expect them to have the same impact on defense as Garnett does because theyre asked to do different things.  KG wouldnt have the same impact either if he was playing on the perimeter.  In regards to Perk, its also unfair to compare the team D while Garnett is out because he is now holding down the fort without a big guy that can protect the paint.  If KG were guarding the paint with Big Baby or Scalabrine with him, the team defense would also be down.

In a similar sense, KG wouldnt be the offensive player he is without the other guys.  Rondo finds KG a lot for open layups, dunks and jump shots.  Pierce demands respect and therefor guys can't crowd KG.  Perk has become a low post threat in his own right which also opens up the game for KG.  This is a TEAM and it isn't Garnett alone that makes them go.  If you're expecting that to be the case, you're in for a rude awakening.  Just look at the time Paul was out.  How did the team fare during that time?

[More Banners]

Thanks for the article.  Nicely broken down.  Many reasons to love KG.

Still, and maybe I'm going overboard, but I think that even without KG in the lineup, we should still be much better than we are.

Many folks, myself included, seem to think the other 4 starters are either all-star or near all-star caliber players.  Rondo, Perk, and PP are supposed to be superior defenders in this league in their own right.  Thibs is still supposed to be a defensive whiz on the coaching staff.

Granted, the bench doesn't have what it takes to be strong defensively, especially any time House plays instead of TA (like against Jason Terry).

KG:  take your vitamins, dude.  We need you.

With respect, I think that we have now seen enough evidence over the last three years to make a more informed judgment about the source of the Celtics' defense.  In 07-08 a large majority of people credited KG as the source of the Celtics' historic D, and it resulted in him winning the DPoY award.  But there was also a pretty solid and growing push-back opinion that it wasn't actually just KG, but it was instead Thibs' defensive scheme and other strong defenders such as Perk, Rondo and Pierce that had as much or more to do with the great Celtics defense than Garnett did.

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

I thought that should have been proof pretty positive that Garnett was by-far the biggest reason for the Celts' D, but there is still a pretty vocal segment that don't agree.  I've seen posts and articles in many different places suggesting that Perk is now the anchor of the defense, that Garnett is still good but the injuries slowed him to the point that now he's just another cog instead of the lead dog, etc.  But...

Yet again, when KG has been hurt the defense has fallen through the floor.  It's like clockwork.  And it's not a short-term effect either, because as I (and the article in the OP) pointed out it happens every year when KG is absent.  As such, I think it's high-past time to recognize that Perk, Rondo, Pierce, Sheed, etc. are not defensive impact player.  They can be solid defenders, good defensive role players, but they aren't good enough defenders to actually form a good defense even when working in tandem.  Likewise, Thibs' system is good but it only works if KG is here.

It's no disrespect to any of the Celtics players or coaches to say that the Celtics defense just isn't going to be good with Garnett, anymore than it'd be disrespectful to Gasol, Odom, Artest, Bynum and Phil Jackson to say that the Lakers' offense wouldn't be as good if Kobe were out.  It's more of an indication that KG's impact is really that big, on the order of what many people consider to be the MVP-level players of the league, despite that his box score numbers don't look like they used to.  Even among Celtics fans these days...perhaps ESPECIALLY among Celtics fans, I think Garnett has become dramatically undervalued as very few seem to acknowledge or realize that we still have one of the top handful of players in the NBA on our team...at least when he's healthy. 

TP.

Thinking this through: 

Are we really more like a .500 team without KG, and, if so, should the rest of the starting 5 (except, perhaps, Pierce) be on the table if the right deal should come along?  Perhaps we're overestimating the value of the rest of the guys?  Are they all just very, very good role players around KG, getting a boost by playing with him?  Are we like the Piston's title team:  very good players playing well together?
 

[drza44]

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

  This isn't really true. We finished the season 2nd in defense even though KG missed much of the season. With him on the bench we were still top 8 or so. We were also among the best defenses in the playoffs last year, I believe.

  Not as good as with KG, but still well above average.

Well, considering how he "only" missed a 3rd of the season, we still finished near the top because of that.

But if you look at our ppg allowed with and without him last year, we went from ~90 to ~99 ppg allowed. 99ppg allowed would put us very close to the league average of 100 points per game.

To add to what dlpin pointed out, last season the Celts gave up 107 pts/48 minutes when KG wasn't on the court.  This includes both the time that KG missed injured and the time he just wasn't on the court while healthy.  107 pts/game would have ranked 5th from last in the NBA last season.  I'm sure some of that is pace, but there's no way to spin 107 pts/game as anywhere near top-8 in the league.

Playoff team stats are limited by the fact that you play the same team over-and-over as opposed to getting a cross section of teams.  But even still, it seems hard to me to argue that the Celts were a top playoff defense in the postseason last year.  The 102 points/game they gave up in the playoffs ranked 12th among the 16 teams that made the postseason, and even if you account for the overtimes the 98 pts/game they gave up in regulation would have ranked 11th out of the 16 teams.

Another gauge of our postseason defense is how the Celtics did against the Bulls and Magic with and without Garnett last year.

In 2 games against the Bulls with Garnett the Cs gave up 94 points/game on 40% FG, while in the other 8 games without Garnett the Bulls scored 102 points/game on 45% FG.

In 3 games against the Magic with Garnett the Cs gave up 84 points/game on 39% FG, while in the other 8 games without Garnett the Magic scored 95 points/game on 45% FG.

Overall, I really just don't think there's a case to be made that the Cs defense was still a top, or even above-average unit without Garnett last year.  No matter how you look at it, the difference without him was joltingly large.

[2short]

Thibs defensive scheme is great but what it needs is fleet footed/agile bigs to jump out on drivers.  Our ONLY big who can do this is KG.  Davis to a point can with his very good foot work for a big fella but (in order) scal, wallace, perk and williams can't do this.  I might have sheldon low on list, they all try to do it but we pick up a lot of fouls and/or our bigs can't get back into posistion for rebounds etc.

Not sure if the footage they put on tv the other night of kg practicing was current.........if so he is not 100%.
When running he did not have full extension on his knee

[BballTim]

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

  This isn't really true. We finished the season 2nd in defense even though KG missed much of the season. With him on the bench we were still top 8 or so. We were also among the best defenses in the playoffs last year, I believe.

  Not as good as with KG, but still well above average.

Well, considering how he "only" missed a 3rd of the season, we still finished near the top because of that.

But if you look at our ppg allowed with and without him last year, we went from ~90 to ~99 ppg allowed. 99ppg allowed would put us very close to the league average of 100 points per game.

  When KG was out I'm pretty sure that we played at a faster pace. Part of the ppg allowed increase was due to more possessions per game and part of it was due to us allowing more points per possession.  The number of points per 100 posessions we allowed when KG wasn't on the court (both after his injury and the time he was out of games before his injury) would put us 8th best in the league.

  Just consider the fact that he missed about 1/3 of the season and we still finished the season with the 2nd best defense in the league. We'd have had to have been miles better than everyone else to finish 2nd if we were 15th or so for a full 1/3 of the season.

[drza44]

I think you're overstating what's going on and by saying that KG is the reason those other guys play good defense you are definitely knocking them.  First of all with Pierce and Rondo they're not supposed to anchor a defense.  You cannot expect them to have the same impact on defense as Garnett does because theyre asked to do different things.  KG wouldnt have the same impact either if he was playing on the perimeter. 

In some ways we are saying similar things, here, so perhaps I didn't express my point the best.  I'm not saying that KG is the reason that the other guys play good defense.  What I'm saying is that their individual defense doesn't change much whether KG plays or not.  What changes is that when KG is there, their lacks are hidden in a way that allows the team defense to be excellent.  Without him their individual defense can be similar, but they aren't good enough as defenders for that to translate to a strong team defense.  Just like Artest or Odom or Bynum have solid offensive skills whether they play with Kobe or not, if you have JUST them without Kobe the team offense isn't going to be very good because they aren't good enough to do it without having the central engine (or anchor, as you put it).  Defensively, that is analogous to the Celtics defenders when Garnett isn't around.

In regards to Perk, its also unfair to compare the team D while Garnett is out because he is now holding down the fort without a big guy that can protect the paint.  If KG were guarding the paint with Big Baby or Scalabrine with him, the team defense would also be down.

I've had this discussion before in several places, and to me the numbers are pretty conclusive.  You may disagree, but here is what last year's defense units looks like in a nutshell when Rondo, Allen, Pierce, and at least one other starting big man were on the court (and thus likely playing against the best players on the other squad as well):

KG + Perk: 98 points allowed/100 possessions in 1074 minutes

Perk + any-big-but-KG: 111 points allowed/100 possessions in 554 minutes

KG + any-big-but-Perk: 94 points allowed/100 possessions in 254 minutes

Stats always become more reliable over time so I don't think there is enough there to say statistically that the the no-Perk units were any better than the KG and Perk units, but this is at least highly suggestive that the Celtics' defense unit featuring Rondo/Allen/Pierce with KG performed at a fairly dramatically higher level than without him no matter who the other big man defender was.

In a similar sense, KG wouldnt be the offensive player he is without the other guys.  Rondo finds KG a lot for open layups, dunks and jump shots.  Pierce demands respect and therefor guys can't crowd KG.  Perk has become a low post threat in his own right which also opens up the game for KG.  This is a TEAM and it isn't Garnett alone that makes them go.  If you're expecting that to be the case, you're in for a rude awakening.  Just look at the time Paul was out.  How did the team fare during that time?

The offense is a much different story than the defense.  There is more offensive talent on the Celtics than there is defensive talent, and as you point out they all make life easier for each other.  There's a reason that all of the big 3 started scoring much more efficiently once all came together than they did apart, even if their volume had to go down.  On offense, removing KG doesn't have nearly as dramatic an effect.  There is still an affect to his absence...the team scores less efficiently with fewer assists on lower percentages, but it is a much smaller effect and the team is still able to stay strong offensively without him. 

But the OP of this thread was mainly talking about defense, and my point is that when you combine a small but noticeable offensive effect with a huge defensive effect, on the whole you get a star-level impact overall.

[drza44]

Then last season happened, and KG got hurt, and when he did the defense absolutely fell through the floor.  It went from elite-best-in-league to average-or-worse for a good third of the season as well as the postseason.  All of the other elements were still in place...Thibs still coached, Perk/Rondo/Pierce were still on the court, but the defense stunk. 

  This isn't really true. We finished the season 2nd in defense even though KG missed much of the season. With him on the bench we were still top 8 or so. We were also among the best defenses in the playoffs last year, I believe.

  Not as good as with KG, but still well above average.

Well, considering how he "only" missed a 3rd of the season, we still finished near the top because of that.

But if you look at our ppg allowed with and without him last year, we went from ~90 to ~99 ppg allowed. 99ppg allowed would put us very close to the league average of 100 points per game.

  When KG was out I'm pretty sure that we played at a faster pace. Part of the ppg allowed increase was due to more possessions per game and part of it was due to us allowing more points per possession.  The number of points per 100 posessions we allowed when KG wasn't on the court (both after his injury and the time he was out of games before his injury) would put us 8th best in the league.

  Just consider the fact that he missed about 1/3 of the season and we still finished the season with the 2nd best defense in the league. We'd have had to have been miles better than everyone else to finish 2nd if we were 15th or so for a full 1/3 of the season.

Last point first, I do think the Cs had a pretty big lead in defensive efficiency against most of the league when Garnett was in there, and that helped them to hold onto that 2nd spot.  As for defensive efficiency, I'm familiar with points/100 possessions stats but it is a bit easier to find the composite numbers with and without KG using totals and percentages as opposed to the efficiencies.  And based on the numbers that I have seen, if our team really did rank 8th in defensive efficiency without Garnett it would really surprise me.

As I pointed out in my previous post, for 3 other starters + KG the Celts defense allowed 97 points/100 possessions while the other 4 starters without Garnett gave up 111 points/100 possessions.  I'm not sure how 111 points/100 possessions would match up with the league, and again those numbers are probably centralized to starters-vs-starters so with the benches involved the total team defense may have been better than 111 points/possession (I don't know).  But the point is...that's a pretty wonking big difference, and regardless of where it ranks in the league I'd say that those numbers would suggest the team D was average at best without Garnett.

[drza44]

TP.

Thinking this through: 

Are we really more like a .500 team without KG, and, if so, should the rest of the starting 5 (except, perhaps, Pierce) be on the table if the right deal should come along?  Perhaps we're overestimating the value of the rest of the guys?  Are they all just very, very good role players around KG, getting a boost by playing with him?  Are we like the Piston's title team:  very good players playing well together?
 

The Cs performance without KG over the last 3 years would suggest they'd be better than .500 without him, more like low 50s in wins with a scoring margin around +3 or +4.  That'd make them probably a 4-seed, a bit better than the low seeds and a bit worse than the high seeds...essentially what we saw play-out last postseason. 

I think that is very good for a team without their best player, probably similar to what the Lakers would look like without Kobe, so no, I definitely don't see the point in making some sort of fire sale trade.  Defensively I do think they are mainly good role players surrounding Garnett, but offensively as others have pointed out the Celtics have some fire with Pierce especially as one of the best offensive players in the league.  And the pieces to this team fit together great when everyone is healthy, with great chemistry as it seems like most of our guys genuinely like each other...what would be the point of trying to break that up?