re: Kenny

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: GuyClinch@xxxxxxx
> Actually if you ask me Kenny played his best ball when he first came 
> over.
> He was averaging 6.3 assists then. Last year he was on a good team, 
> but he
> was just the same old Kenny. If you rule out his injury year his stats 
> are
> always pretty similiar.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  This "same old Kenny" 
actually played some D, and seemed, for once, to accept a 
third-scorer's role.  When someone such as I -- someone who saw Kenny 
play for the Blazers live, up close and in person, and saw what a great 
disappoint he was -- can admit that Kenny had a good year, I think that 
speaks much more for a change, rather than the status quo.

Kenny *did* play best when he first came over -- for about seven games 
or so.  Then it was same old same old.  After his injury-rattled 
season, though, it was easy to write him off, and I did, but, to his 
credit, he played well.  That quite a bit different than saying he 
always did.


> Anyway..sorry for the diatribe...but point is if you believe Kenny had 
> a good
> year last year then he MUST have had a good year in 99-00 as well.
Um, that's pretty ridiculous.  Though the stats may be similar, having 
watched both seasons in question, I feel confident in saying they were 
vastly different.  Just because numbers are the same, doesn't mean a 
guy went about playing in the same way.

I'm just glad October's almost done.  I've had to look at Kenny for a 
whole month, because he's "Mr. October" on my Celtics calendar.  He's 
gone.  We can stop apologizing for him now.

Bird