Re: is there...

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/8/03 4:11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> The big deal with Pierce playing the last 2nd half is he was beat, 
> evidently physically and mentally. Comparing his minutes to Kidd's is unfair. Kidd's 
> a
> much better ball handler and sees the court for what it is, even tired.


On the contrary, Dan, comparing Kidd's 41 minutes played last night to 
Pierce's 43 minutes last night is very apt. The point is 43 minutes for Pierce, 
while maybe not ideal, was also not tremendously out of the range of the norm, 
either. O'Brien had few other options with the injury to EWill. Kedrick played 35 
minutes himself; and as I already noted O'Brien played Jiri for 10 minutes 
and Jumaine for 8 minutes coming back early from two injured hammys in only his 
second game with the team and no preseason action. Who else was O'Brien going 
to play to give Pierce another 5 minutes of rest?

What is not an apt comparison is saying that Kidd's 41 minutes is somehow 
more reasonable than Paul's 43 minutes because he (JKidd) is a better ball 
handler and sees the floor better. Yeah, so?  We all already know and agree to that. 
We also know that JKidd expends every bit as much energy (if not more) 
handling the ball for the entire 41 minutes he's in the game and creating tempo for 
his team that Paul does. I don't understand your point.                  
    
CeltsSteve