bump, big bump.
i wanted to bring back the days of the "love love" versus "love hate" debates in the light of an article i read today.
no doubt love can score and rebound, we all knew that. indeed this season teamed with lebron, love is putting in 16.5 points/g and pulling down 9.9 rebounds per game.
yet, as some posters pointed out, does his poor defense negate a goodly portion of these stats? that is, when we look at love's offense contribution, then subtract the points his defense allows, does he really impact a team as an elite player?
the article below discusses the cavs defense in general, but points out that love's lack of interior defense is an important key to their poor start. (and yes, the writer does say the cavs record will improve.)
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/cleveland-cavaliers-interior-defense-kevin-love/"They’ve been an absolute sieve in the paint, ranking 28th in the league with opponents converting 61 percent of attempts inside of eight feet. Simply put, if this doesn’t improve, the Cavaliers won’t win the championship."
the opposite end of the debate could argue "olly aint no good on defense, so love would still be better." and i would agree. but i wanted to revisit this debate once more with this eye:
as good as love is and will be, would he really have been a player that would have pushed the celtics from a lottery team beyond being marginal and made the celtics a good team capable of going past the second round of the playoffs? or put another way, given the price ainge was willing to pay, would love have been worth it?
discuss.