Kevin Love isn't the answer -- Celtics can find a better building block

WEEI

Kevin Love (right) has had trouble scoring against Andre Iguodala and the Warriors. (Cary Edmondson/USA Today Sports)Twenty-four players took the floor in Game 5 of the NBA Finals on Monday night. Twenty-three of them were better than Kevin Love.

With Warriors jack-of-all-trades Draymond Green sidelined, the Cavaliers avoided elimination in spite of the flimsiest spoke of their Big Three. LeBron James delivered his best I'm-not-going-anywhere performance since Game 6 of the 2012 Eastern Conference Finals against the Celtics. Kyrie Irving took the most difficult shots imaginable and basically didn't miss in an ode to the original Isiah Thomas.

And then there was Love. If you put over-the-hill former Cav Anderson Varejao in his uniform, no one would've noticed. He scored two points on five shots, grabbed three rebounds, committed four fouls, and embodied the limitations of plus-minus by posting a plus-18 -- accumulated mostly while standing in a corner watching James and Irving explode.

Love looked tentative on offense, a step slow on defense, and like the ultimate JAG. If you didn't know he was due $113 million, you'd think he was on a 10-day contract.

And so I ask: This is the player who's going to save the Celtics?

The more I see of Love, the more convinced I become that trading even Jae Crowder to get him would be a mistake. Love is quickly becoming an anachronism in today's NBA, a post scorer who's not quick enough to defend on the perimeter against smaller lineups and who's not big enough or agile enough to protect the rim.

He's better than he looked on Monday night, but he's not max-contract better. He's not worth trading multiple Brooklyn picks and the players like Crowder it would take to get him. He has been exposed in Cleveland as a third wheel instead of a building block.

Love had his chance to lead Minnesota as an All-Star and never made the playoffs or even compiled a winning record in six seasons. He then joined James and Irving in Cleveland as a member of basketball's newest Big Three, but he has been outplayed by 35-year-old journeyman Richard Jefferson in the Finals.

So Love hasn't won by himself and he hasn't won as part of a constellation. If you're a free agent like Kevin Durant, would you race to Boston to join him? Me, neither. I'm not convinced he'd make the Celtics any better, particularly if acquiring him meant losing the defensive core of Avery Bradley and Crowder.

And good luck making the argument that he'll improve as he ages. Only 27, Love is already playing like he's 35. Two years from now, it would be easy to see him jacking up six 3's a game, making about 34 percent of them, and punching the clock. On many nights, the Celtics should get that from Kelly Olynyk.

Love is the ultimate target of opportunity over desire. Celtics fans don't necessarily want him because he's a game changer, but they see an opening because the Cavs could be willing to part ways in order to find a better fit alongside James and Irving.

I'm absolutely serious when I say the Cavs would be better off with a healthy Crowder acting as a glue guy on defense, making enough shots on offense, and always being willing to set aside his own ego for the good of the team. Don't be fooled by the playoff bricklayer fighting a high ankle sprain against the Hawks.

Love, conversely, is exactly what the Celtics under Brad Stevens don't need -- a defensive liability who's not a dominating scorer or rim protector. His most valuable skill might be defensive rebounding and throwing outlet passes, which definitely isn't worth $22.5 million annually. Yes, he can step out and make 3-pointers, and I'd rather see him with the ball than Olynyk, but the bar should probably be set a little higher for a player once considered top 10 in the game.

It's impossible to make that argument now. Love might not even be a top-10 player in the Finals: I'd take Irving, LeBron, Steph Curry, Green, Klay Thompson, Andre Iguodala, Shaun Livingston and Tristan Thompson first, with Jefferson and Harrison Barnes borderline.

So here's hoping the Celtics stay away. I've advocated for acquiring Love before, but after getting an extended look at him this postseason, it has become clear that he's not the answer.

112288

only thing I got out of this is how useless the +/- stat really is......Love was plus 18

cowens/oldschool wrote:only thing I got out of this is how useless the +/- stat really is......Love was plus 18

For over a year I've been explaining on this board the fact that its basically a useless stat. It is a team stat and only reflects the point margin, plus or minus, of the players on the floor as a group.

swish

swish wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:only thing I got out of this is how useless the +/- stat really is......Love was plus 18

For over a year I've been explaining on this board the fact that its basically a useless stat. It is a team stat and only reflects the point margin, plus or minus,  of the players on the floor as a group.

 swish

Have to agree with you both. I ignore it.

got that rambone?

cowens/oldschool wrote:got that rambone?

Cow,

Arambone's position, as I understand it, is that the +/- stat is meaningless (or, at least, mostly meaningless) on a game-by-game basis but accumulates weight and reliability over the course of a season, and certainly over the course of multiple seasons, much like a player going off for 25 points in a game doesn't mean he is a 25 ppg scorer.  It means that, or at least strongly suggests that, only if he is averaging 25ppg heading into the end of the season and certainly if he has averaged 25ppg over several seasons.

I am not a fan of the +/- myself but I recognize the value of additional data points to substantiating an argument.  It's like the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.  They are both logical explanations of events with the primary difference being that a theory has proven itself to be true with far more evidence and consistency.  Similar, in essence, the theory has just gone through much more rigorous testing.  

That is why I attach no importance or weight to the +/- for a player for a particular game.  In fact, it might even be said that if, say, Kevin Love had a +18 plus-minus in this game but averaged +24 over the season, that he had a bad game (which he did).  That +18 is a super-duper number takes it out of context and context is always essential.



bob


.

I can find a place for the +/- stat much more than i can for Kevin Love in Boston unless he wants to meet up with Rondo and take in another Sox game when the NBA playoffs end. I can handle him being a Red Sox fan, but will not be happy with him ever in a Cs uniform.

This guy is far too costly regarding salary and also regarding what Cleveland would want for him in players and draft picks. He was never able to make Minnesota an even decent team and now has not fit in well with Cleveland. I would much prefer waiting until next year to get the "star" player that Ainge is looking for if Love is to be that "star" player.

We will improve again this next season with pretty much the same roster and the #3 pick getting ready for the 2018 season just as much as if we have to trade for Kevin Love.

bobheckler wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:got that rambone?

Cow,

Arambone's position, as I understand it, is that the +/- stat is meaningless (or, at least, mostly meaningless) on a game-by-game basis but accumulates weight and reliability over the course of a season, and certainly over the course of multiple seasons, much like a player going off for 25 points in a game doesn't mean he is a 25 ppg scorer.  It means that, or at least strongly suggests that, only if he is averaging 25ppg heading into the end of the season and certainly if he has averaged 25ppg over several seasons.

I am not a fan of the +/- myself but I recognize the value of additional data points to substantiating an argument.  It's like the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.  They are both logical explanations of events with the primary difference being that a theory has proven itself to be true with far more evidence and consistency.  Similar, in essence, the theory has just gone through much more rigorous testing.  

That is why I attach no importance or weight to the +/- for a player for a particular game.  In fact, it might even be said that if, say, Kevin Love had a +18 plus-minus in this game but averaged +24 over the season, that he had a bad game (which he did).  That +18 is a super-duper number takes it out of context and context is always essential.



bob


.

so now your speaking for rambone? I'll make it real simple for you, Kevin Love sucked and has no game.

Ted Williams went 0-5 one game. 0.00%. Batting average is a useless stat.

Got that arambone?

but Love was plus 18, that stat says hes great, got it?

cowens/oldschool wrote:but Love was plus 18, that stat says hes great, got it?

Because a one game sample is enough to discredit any stat.

sure was in this situation