|
I'm considering his defense and rebounding, which have had a major effect. If they hadn't, I wouldn't be saying he's just as important as Pierce is to the team.
It isn't just those two games -- those are the continuation of a pattern. Look at all his years in Minnesota, what he did in close games there. Look at his history in close playoff games. There's a pattern there. It's the pattern of a player who is an outstanding complementary player, but who is not a truly elite superstar. That doesn't mean he isn't a damn fine player and a damn fine person and a damn fine competitor. It does mean that he isn't likely to lead the Celtics to a championship. If they win one, it will be because somebody, most likely Pierce, is able to take over and make plays at the end of close games -- because Garnett has demonstrated that isn't his forte and it doesn't matter if Boston sets a record for regular-season point differential, they'll have at least a couple of playoff series where they have to win multiple close games to advance. That's when they prove their mettle ... or possibly fail to prove it.
|