Game #65 - Recap: Celtics @ Bucks

by Jim Weeks on Mar 16, 2008 1:36 PM EDT in Green Bandwagon

Ray Allen and Andrew Bogut did not play. Mo Williams and Desmond Mason did.
The Bucks got a lot of rebounds, particularly on the offensive end. Usually that's a bad thing. However, it was only possible because Milwaukee missed so many shots. I mean they really missed a ton. I'm talking about you Charlie Villanueva.
It was an April game in Milwaukee and Kevin Garnett hit himself in the head with the ball from the free throw line, picked up a technical foul and was so on edge that Doc Rivers had to sit him down. It's nights like that where you hope he has something left in the spring.
Speaking of KG. I heard a few hosts on WEEI arguing that KG is the second best Celtic of all time behind Bill Russell. They went on to say that anyone would choose Garnett over Larry Bird if they had the option between the two. Let's ignore Bird's 3 MVPs and 3 championship rings. 10 seconds left your team needs to hit a shot to win. Who do you want to take it - Bird or Garnett?
Sam Cassell looked like Sam Cassell for the first time, knocking down his first 4 shots of the game.
It was a nice bounce back win for the Celtics but not one to get excited about. This just in - Milwaukee is bad.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

KG/Bird

You asked "10 seconds left your team needs to hit a shot to win. Who do you want to take it - Bird or Garnett?". With the logical answer being Bird, do you ask this to point out that Bird is better than KG? If I were to ask the question "10 seconds left your team needs to hit a shot to win. Who do you want to take it - Bird or Russell?" the answer would still be Bird, but does that make Bird better than Russell (or Garnett)? Not in my opinion.

by dajubo on Mar 16, 2008 4:20 PM EDT reply actions

lol @ the KG vs Larry Legend argument

Talk about a dumb argument in any way. Larry nearly averaged a triple double for several seasons in the mid 80's. People piss themselves talking about KG's 20 10 & 5 seasons (which Larry more than did many times over his career). Statistically speaking the 2 aren't similar. From a playing standpoing it's not an argument worth having. KG is a fabulous player, but thre's a reason Larry has "Legend" when mentioned as part of his name.

P.S. This is not an argument against KG. It's just pointing out the argument is entirely worthless on any number of levels.

The parquet, cigars, Tommy's mouth, and championships. Gotta love those Boston Celtics....

by pookeyguru on Mar 17, 2008 6:10 AM EDT reply actions

Great Point

About needing a last shot and going to Bird over Russell as well. I would never bring Russell into any argument because he was the ultimate winner. His defense and rebounding so dramatically influenced the Celtics throughout his career.

Back to Bird and KG. KG is a phenomenal player and he has never played with anyone like McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson just to name a few. And once again I like your point about the big shot. Vernon Maxwell is not a better player than a lot of guys but he was clutch. I just find the KG/Bird talk premature. And there is a part of me that worries about the Celtics in crunch time. I am intrigued by the arguments made by Bill Simmons and others that KG is more McHale than Bird.

Thanks for stopping by. And I wish I knew the program on WEEI that I was referencing. It was relatively new as far as I could tell and far more interesting than say the Big Show. I'll work on figuring that out.

Green Bandwagon: Celtics '08 or bust. Are you on the bandwagon?

by Jim Weeks on Mar 17, 2008 5:54 PM EDT reply actions