Most of you who read this probably know that I have a love/hate relationship with the NBA.So when the ABC "Game of the Week" features the Suns and Celtics, two teams who have lost their best player in the last few days, you'd probably assume there's no way I'd watch this.
Actually, I find it more compelling now.
Sure, it would be better to watch Kevin Garnett, who's out two to three weeks with a knee strain, and Amar'e Stoudemire, who's out for the season with a detached retina. But it will be more interesting to see how good both these teams are without their fallen big men, particularly the Celtics.
The Suns have had to live with Stoudemire missing time before. When they run their fast-paced, run-and-gun system, they can usually survive without Amar'e, but they're obviously worse. We haven't seen what the Celtics look like without KG with the way the team is currently structured.
Last year's champions face their first road block today- a good team without their best defender, and the man most consider the team's "glue guy". He's the man credited with Boston's renewed commitment to defense, and the man who keyed the Celtics turnaround from worst to first last year.
Now, without him, how good is Boston really? And if they're not good, how many games do they lose in the two to three week span he's sidelined? Does it drop them in the standings to the 3-seed in the East, which would change the playoff landscape? If they're fine without him, does it devalue KG? He is having his worst statistical year since the 96-97 season, averaging just 16.3 points and 8.8 boards. Is he overrated if they string together a bunch of wins without him?
These are all questions I'll be trying to answer as I watch today. Who said I hate the NBA? I'm fascinated by it!
No comments:
Post a Comment