Kevin Garnett an undeserved All-Star
We haven't seen Garnett soar through the air too often. Not like the old days.
Not a T-Mac-level travesty – which was narrowly avoided – or an Allen Iverson-level travesty – which, sadly, couldn’t be avoided – but a travesty in its own right nonetheless.
KG has missed 11 games, people. Out of only 40. That’s more than a quarter of the season. For somebody to miss that kind of time and still be named an All-Star starter, it’s for one of two reasons. 1) He was having a transcendent season during his time on the floor, and should be justly rewarded for it despite missing some time with injury, or 2) It’s a fan-voted mockery. And I’ll just say Garnett’s season has been far from transcendent.
KG is actually having one of the most pedestrian seasons of his career. Not only are his numbers down pretty much across the board (his scoring and rebounding averages are the second-lowest of his career), but his once-unmatched defense has even slipped.
Gone are the days when Garnett had the quickness to defend shorter players on the perimeter; he simply doesn’t have the lateral quickness to do it any more. Gone are the days when he would snuff out plays before they even began; he now has enough trouble focusing on his own man. He’s still very good defensively, just not great.
Quickly, Garnett has gone from perhaps the single most valuable player in the league to just another piece in the puzzle. And “just another piece in the puzzle’s” don’t deserve All-Star berths. At least not when they’ve missed over a quarter of the season.
Garnett’s field goal percentage is the highest of his career, but he’s done it as a role player. Rarely, if ever, does Garnett create his own shot anymore. Remember in Minnesota, when they used to just dump it on the blocks to KG and let him go to work, waiting for whatever miraculous concoction of a post move he’d come up with next?
Not anymore. Now he’s a seven-foot catch-and-shoot guy. He’s a glorified Mark Blount. (Very glorified, admittedly.)
And role players don’t deserve a spot on the All-Star team. Not when they’ve missed over a quarter of the season.
Don’t get me wrong. Garnett’s absence has proven his profound effect on whether the Celtics win basketball games. I know they are an infinitely better basketball team with KG in the lineup, even the oft-hobbling version, than they are without him. Garnett’s return to the lineup should solidify the C’s rotation, bolster its starting lineup and boost its bench. His presence should help shore up Boston’s defense and return its ‘Ubuntu’ offensive philosophy.
But to call him an All-Star? In a season that has seen him miss more than a quarter of the games? In a season that has seen him be far from dominant on either end of the basketball? In a season that has had more people wondering what the hell is wrong with KG than thinking about how well he’s played?
No, that shouldn’t have happened. Regardless of how much I wish Garnett deserved his All-Star berth, I can’t. I just can’t.
I’d be lying.
Related posts:
Celtics Columns, Featured | Jay King | January 22, 2010
Boston Celtics, Kevin Garnett, NBA All-Star, NBA All-Star Game
You make a lot of claims, but you don't do much to support them. The only numbers that you use in this article are "11" and "40", pointing out that he has missed a quarter of the season. That's fine. And you're right that role players don't deserve spots on All Star teams. The thing is, if you actually look in-depth Garnett is pretty clearly still the best player on one of the best teams in the league. He still leads the team in just about every advanced stat I can find, the team's effectiveness still suffers visibly and dramatically without him even now that we have a brand-named back-up for him, and the team still visibly plays DRAMATICALLY different when he's on the court in both style and productiveness. Garnett's return isn't the case of a "role player" coming back to "shore up" a defense…it's that of a team desperate for their best player to return so that they can get back to playing at the level and tenor that they're used to. Garnett is still an obvious All Star, even in his attenuated state, because quite frankly the best player on the best team in the league deserves to make the All Star game…even if he misses a quarter of the season (enough time for it to be abundantly clear what his importance is to that squad)…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You make the claim that he's been the C's best player this season? Why, because his +/- stats are better than other players?
To me, Rondo's been the best Celtic and Pierce has been second. Garnett third, even when he was healthy. You can dispute that with your advanced stats, but I'm using the eye test. Garnett means a whole lot to the defense, and he clearly makes everyone's job easier just by being on the court. But, when the Celtics are playing their best, it's when Rondo is making plays every time down the floor. And when they need a big bucket, they're probably going to go to Paul Pierce. Garnett just doesn't have what it takes to put a team on his back, not anymore.
I'm not saying he's not a great player. I agree that he is. I'm not saying he doesn't help his team out a ton. He does. What I am saying is if Kevin Garnett played every game this season, he would have deserved to be an All-Star… barely. But as a borderline All-Star who was injured for more than a quarter of his team's games, he doesn't deserve to be on the team.
Period.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You say that you are using the eye test…the problem with that is that everyone has different eyes, so that means that there's no such thing as "the eye test", that's just another name for your opinion. And that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to pass off your opinion as "truth" or "proof" isn't a good way to support an argument.
You scoff at my use of advanced stats, but in reality all I'm using them for is to support my "eye test". My eye test tells me that Garnett , even in his injury-returning state, completely transforms our defense from "average-or-below" to "best in the league". That isn't something you mention as an aside or minimize. Considering that defense is THE focal point of this team, that the only reason this team has championship aspirations is because of their defense, then being the key and focal point to said defense alone would make Garnett probably the most important player on the team.
And that's not even considering offense, where again Garnett's impact is obvious to my eye test. By far the most successful offensive sets that the Celtics run are 2-man sets featuring KG. The out-top pick-and-roll with Pierce that is almost guaranteed to get one of them a good shot, the side pick-and-roll with Rondo that either results in an open shot for them or a teammate as it collapses the defense, the pin-down pick that KG sets that either opens up Allen/House for wide-open wing/elbow treys or leaves Garnett in favorable position to score down low. These aren't "small" parts of the offense…when the team is playing well, they are the STAPLE of the offense. And despite Perk's improvements and Sheed's shooting/passing abilities, they are things that just can't be replicated when Garnett isn't in the game.
That's what MY eyeball test tells me. And as mentioned before, the advanced stats just support my opinion. It's why KG has the highest PER or win shares/min on the team, it's why his +/- is so good, it's why the team's scoring differential is 9 points better when he's on the court than when he's off. It's why the team was 21-5 when he first got hurt and is 6-8 since then. He is the best player, the straw that stirs the drink, on what is the best team in the league when he's healthy. He pretty clearly deserves to be an All Star.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Z-
Kevin Garnett is my favorite basketball player since Larry Bird, and even I don't think he's the best player on this season's Celtics team.
As far as advanced statistics go, they MAY be an upgrade over traditional stats, but either way, there are too many intangibles in the game of basketball and advanced statistics are often counter-intuitive and too DON"T support the eye test. The eye test, or watching the games is really the only way to make judgements. You may not agree with Jay's assesment, but his comes from watching every Boston Celtics game this season, and not some arbitrary stats some mathematician concocted.
I agree with Jay; KG is NOT deserving of an All-star birth. Offensively, he truly has become a role players. Though he averages over 15 ppg, his offensive role really isn't much different from that of Kendrick Perkins. Other players, such as Rondo or Pierce, have to make plays for KG to get him open shots, because he has lost the ability to create his own offense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again, the stats that I used were only to support my own "eyeball test", and I also watch every Celtics game. If it just comes down to a "this is what I think", "no this is what I think" contest that's fine, but it just seems more productive to me to have some quantitative facts that we can point to and use as support.
As for the stats being arbitrary or concocted, again, we don't have to use any that you have a beef with. You don't like PER? That's fine. Win shares doesn't float your boat? Cool. Same with Roland rating, or whatever else one you can think of. But I do think it's worth noting that all of them tell the same story…even in the counter-intuitive situations that you point out, rarely do you have a case where just about all of the advanced stats across the board say the same thing and have it really be shocking or difficult to support.
But even if you leave those stats out, things like the defense giving up 91.8 points/game on 43.8% shooting with Garnett and 98.9 points on 46.2% without him…those aren't stats that you need a mathematician for. And again, if something shows up pretty clearly on my eye-test, shows up in even the most rudimentary numerical analysis, and ALSO is supported by the more advanced stuff…to me that's a lot stronger than just saying, "well my eye test disagrees" and leaving it at that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
See, where we disagree on is KG being the best player. In my eyes, it's not even close.. Garnett is no longer the team's best player. No matter how many advanced statistics you throw at me, I can't believe Garnett is the C's best player. I can't do it.
Rondo's the leader of the offense, and a disruptive force defensively. I agree with you that having Garnett on the court changes everything, but the same goes for having Pierce, and for having Rondo.
You talk about Garnett being a focal point of the offense, and he is. He's one of the main cogs. But to watch the games and say that Garnett has been the Celtics best player this season is, to me, a fallacy. When fully healthy, he's their best. But, too often, he's been hobbling around on his damaged wheels…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
… Garnett is still a great player, and some of the things he does are irreplaceable. On those points, you are correct. But to watch the games and say Garnett is the C's best player is, to me, a mockery.
By +/-, Anderson Varejao is better than Lebron James. Does that make it so? If you watch the games, you know that Lebron is a far superior basketball player than Varejao could ever dream of.
And the same thing goes for the 2009/2010 Celtics. If Garnett is their leader in +/-, or PER, or whatever other stats you threw at me but didn't actually take the time to post the real stat, I could care less.
To watch the games and say that Garnett is still Boston's best player is, to me, blasphemy. It's wrong. Simply wrong.
And there isn't an advanced statistic in the world that can make me think otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
KG, is a far superior shooter than Perkins, so he gets more pick and pops, but the rest of his offense comes from fast break buckets, putbacks, alley-oops and dump-down layups. As far as the screens and pin downs go, Perkins does all of the same things, the only reason KG might be SLIGHTLY more adept at is because he has the respect of the officials who won't call moving screens on him like they will on Perkins.
Defensively, KG is by far the best team and help defender, but his 1-on-1 D has noticeably slipped this season. At this point, Perkins is unquestionably our best 1-on-1 post defender.
Of course, that's not to say Perkins is as important as KG. KG is clearly a team leader who forces everyone to play at a higher level. BUT, that doesn't mean personally he is still playing at such a high level and deserves an All-star bid. In my mind, Perkins, Rondo, and Pierce are all far more deserving of all-star spots than KG.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Once again, the dreaded numbers that you hate don't support your assertion. I agree that KG is doing a lot of scoring on pick-and-pops…in fact, that was exactly my point before, that when KG is healthy the pick-and-pop is a staple of the Celtics offense. But 70% of KG's shots are jumpers, so he is doing much more of that than he is getting fast break buckets or dump-down layups. My point was never that Garnett's offensive contributions were him alone…merely that his contributions can't be replicated by anyone else on the team. Just like Rondo's offense can't, and Pierce's offense can't…offensively, all 3 of them have done the most damage this year while playing off of each other.
Defensively, this isn't a contest even with Garnett slowed from what he used to be. I would rather have Perk guard Howard, or Shaq, or any other huge/explosive scoring center…a population that includes at most 10% of the big men in the league. The other 90% of the bigs, which includes just about every power forward and a good chunk of the centers in the league, I'd rather have Garnett on in 1-on-1 situations. And team-wise, as you point out, Garnett is still by far the best defender that we have and the only reason that Thibs' defensive scheme works.
On the whole, when both offense and defense are factored in, there aren't any other Celtics that have meant more to the team's wins than Garnett. I have no problem with Pierce and Rondo also being on the team, in fact I hope that's how it works out. But to say that Garnett doesn't deserve to be an All Star or that he's a role player now, despite all of the quantitative and observational evidence to the contrary, that's what I don't agree with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Z- Thanks for all the comments, I love talking shop and I could argue sports all day! Clearly, you are a well-informed fan and know your stuff when it comes to the Boston Celtics.
Still, I tend to disagree with your conclusion, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I will say I think the stat you said about 70% of KG's shots being jumpshots supports our argument. KG shoots so many jumpers now because, for whatever reason, he's not as efficient or productive down low as he used to be. He shoots so many jumpers because he doesn't create offense anymore, but shoots off the pass far more often.
Perhaps out argument just comes down to semantics, anyway. You are arguing for his inclusion to the all-star team based on his VALUE to the Celtics, which can't be disputed, while we are arguing for his exclusion from the team because of his PRODUCTION for the Celtics this season. Depending on what your definition of an "all-star" is, inevitably you'll come up with a different roster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It's been fun, thanks to both of you for letting me talk basketball. Almost nothing I like better than that. As for your post, KG shooting 70% jumpers doesn't support your argument. KG ALWAYS shoots about 70% jumpers or more. Last year 72% of his shots were jumpers, the year before 73%, the year before that 77%, etc.
One difference this year is that could support your point is that a slightly higher percentage of KG's shots are assisted than before (82% this year, vs 74% last year, vs 68% in '08). But as I said to Jay above, that could easily be an effect of the team wanting him to be a finisher as opposed to an initiator as Rondo has come into his own to handle a larger amount of the offense initiation. There's a difference between DOESN'T create as much and CAN'T create as much individually. Seems to me that the pick-and-pops/pin downs lead to high percentage shots for a larger number of people than anyone going iso…so it's hard for me to find fault in something that leads to high percentage scoring for the team.
As for the value vs production argument, I would say that Garnett has been (at the least) a key member of the Celtics for 23 of their 28 wins this year. Not only is that the vast majority of their wins, it is also more wins than all but 3 other teams in the NBA. If he's produced enough to contribute in such a strong way to such a large number of wins, I don't see how # of games played can really be used as an argument against him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again, your counterexample is a straw man because it fails the most basic test: is it consistent. Varejao has a higher +/- than LeBron, but his PER is hugely less. His win shares are hugely less. His Roland Rating is hugely less. Any one stat, in a vacuum, can (as has been pointed out) give counterintuitive results that upon further analysis can likely be easily explained.
But that isn't the case for the Celtics. Garnett has a small lead in PER. Garnett has the lead in win shares/minute. Garnett has the lead in +/-. Etc. All of these stats, that all come from different angles, all come to the same result.
And again, it doesn't have to rely sole-ly (or even primarily) upon composite advanced stats. Basic team stats also support the huge difference Garnett makes. The eyeball test is cool, but we both have described what our eyeballs tell us and our eyeballs don't agree. Failing that, I would think quantitative analysis would be a logical second step. If you don't like my numbers, give me something else to work with besides just "my opinion is different than yours, and there isn't anything in the world that can make me think otherwise." I mean, how the heck are we supposed to have a constructive discussion like that? Unless "agree to disagree" is just the outcome that you prefer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can Kevin Garnett create his own offense anymore? Not very well. Can he create opportunities for other players? Yes, but not as well as he used to. Has he lost a step, or two even? Yes.
Has he missed a quarter of the season? Yes. At this point in his career, is he as fragile as NBA superstars come? Yes. Do smaller offensive players routinely drive by him? Yes. Did they ever used to? No.
Does Kevin Garnett get relied upon by Doc Rivers to score in crunch time? Not often, even when he's healthy.
The Celtics are certainly better of with Kevin Garnett, but to say he's their best player when he can't even create a lot of his own offense anymore and can't stay on the court just doesn't make sense to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can Garnett create his own offense anymore? We don't know. He isn't asked to. It has been decided that the team offense works best with him as a finisher instead of an initiator, and he's done that job very well.
Is he the same right now as he used to be? Of course not. But he used to be the best player in the league. That's too high of a standard to be used for criterion for an All Star game. Even as he is, he still has a huge qualitative effect that is very well supported by quantitative evidence. That is much more relevant to the discussion than what Garnett used to be able to do. What he currently is able to do still makes him an All Star.
And actually, yeah, Garnett does get relied upon to score in crunch time when healthy. I know you hate numbers, but again there's a website that keeps track of how players do in the last 5 minutes of games that are within 5 points. In those situations, in the last 3 years Pierce, Garnett and Allen all split the scoring fairly evenly. This year, Rondo has joined them as a 4th option that does a lot of crunch time scoring.
The Celtics are championship contenders primarily because of their defense, and Garnett is by-far the best defensive player on the team. They round that out with a strong offense as well, and Garnett is also one of the key offensive performers on a similar order to the other key guys. Put that together, and he's still the best player on the team. Or at the very least, he deserves to be an All Star. As I said, I hope he has several of his teammates there with him, and if you think they're better more power to you. KG still deserves to be an All Star, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look, if KG were healthy all season long, I think he'd warrant inclusion on the All-Star team. But considering he hasn't been dominant and has missed a big chunk of the schedule, I don't think he should be on the team.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I just pointed out to Thomas, KG has been a huge part of 23 of the Celtics' 28 wins. This isn't like Iverson or Tmac barely being on the court, this is KG as a key member in more than 82% of the teams' wins. Only 3 other teams in the East even HAVE 23 wins. I just can't see how that can be enough to disqualify him from being an All Star, or make it worth a Celtics fan calling him out publicly as being unworthy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great read, well-written. The problem I think is that when visitors hover watch their mouse into your name and see that url directing to a blogger profile in watch their status bar, its more likely that they won
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey! Good thought, but will this really perform?
TAMESHA
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When you look for eye doctors in Indianapolis, Center for Sight has the latest technology in Lasik eye surgery. Located in Greenwood Indiana, Center for Sight specializes in cataracts, deluxe lens implants, laser vision correction, and various medical eye problems. Give us a call today at 1 (888) 482-3759!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0