Sometimes I think people try too hard to find new angles or new analyses to use to break down a situation, when it often is much simpler than that. With a healthy Kevin Garnett, the Celtics have a strong claim to be the best team in the NBA. Without him, they don't. It's just that simple.
Do Cleveland and the Lakers look great? Yes, about as good as we looked when KG was healthy. Does yesterday's loss make me feel good? No, because you never want to get blown out by the competition at the end of the season. But did yesterday's loss shock me? Not in the least. 30 points was a bit more than I expected, but I would have been surprised if it was less than 15. The fact is that the Cs could have come out with every healthy player at optimum capacity yesterday, completely focused, and still lost by 20. Because the Cavs were also at optimum capacity, completely focused, supremely motivated to make a statement, and (when KG is out) Cleveland is just a significantly better basketball team than the Celtics. It is what it is.
Let's look at this season as a whole. When KG went down the Cs were 41 - 11, virtua-tie for best record in NBA. They started the season a blistering 27 - 2, lost focus on a road trip in the dead part of the year and wobbled (2 - 7), then got focused and corrected the ship. They had won 15 of their last 17 games with the only 2 losses being last-second either-way games against the Lakers and the full-strength Spurs. The team identity was defense and teamwork, the same as last season, and they were clearly one of the best teams in the league.
The team is now 60 - 20, as they've gone 19 - 9 since the injury. Without KG the team identity has blurred to a more offensive focus, and the team relies much more on big individual efforts to win. See, here's the thing. The Celtics now, without KG are still a good team. They have 3 very strong perimeter players, a solid defensive center, good and experienced role players and championship swagger. I see many people on here use the logic that since the Celtics can win (and have won) games without Garnett, then therefore his absence shouldn't be used as an excuse when the team comes up short.
But this isn't rocket science, nor is it a case of putting the individual above the team. It is simply true that removing KG from this team is a huge, wonkingly glaring bullet to be taken out of the gun. Without him this team could still win games, but it goes from super-elite to simply good. A similar historic example is the '93 and '94 Bulls. The '93 Bulls won 57 games and their third straight title, then Jordan retired. The '94 Bulls won 55 games without Jordan (only 2 fewer wins), but they couldn't make it out of the second round. Without Jordan a crew of Pippen and a bunch of solid playoff-tested vets were still a very good team, but no longer super elite. To me, that is what this year's Cs remind me of.
Perhaps there is getting to be some fatigue among posters, simply tired of writing "but KG is out" or "if KG comes back" or whatever, but whether it's repetitive or not to say it, the fall of the Celtics from "best-of-the-best" to at least a notch down from that is tied directly to the absence of Garnett. If he comes back anywhere near full speed I think the Cs win the title. If he doesn't, I'm (a lot) less confident. I honestly don't think the analysis of our team and the hopes for 18 has to go much further than that.
Topic: Analyzing current Cs is not rocket science (Read 1537 times)