Defending Garnett from Bloggers, If Not The Fine People of Detroit

In a blogpost that begins with the history of Egypt under various occupying forces and continues through a discussion on the invention and uses of the cotton gin, a meditation on grammy interrupting performance artists, the transformative effects sports can have on San Francisco, and some other bullshit about the author's personal relationship to sports and how much Beth Shoals has helped him (I may have skimmed this), Jay from freedarko concludes about Kevin Garnett, "Why can’t we just call an asshole an asshole every time he acts like an asshole? What the fuck do we owe Kevin Garnett?"

For those who don't know, according to Charlie Villanueva's twitter feed, Kevin Garnett called him a cancer patient during a recent Celtics Pistons game. For those of you who further don't know (as I didn't until this time) Villanueva has Alopecia Universalis. Its a good thing our Dinosaur concept is dead. This guy was going to be our 4 and I feel like its kind of a cheap shot to make fun of someone's looks if they suffer from a look affecting disease (its probably only slightly less unfair to make fun of someone's looks if they have weird cheekbones or whatever, but you gotta make fun of someone -- if you don't, they'll make fun of you). For the same reason, that such a disease is likely to be a really sore spot and off limits to mockery, Kevin Garnett, if he said what CV says he said, crossed a line. But is he an asshole? And should we call him an asshole when he acts like an asshole? And, if so, should we do it once, or every time? Also, I'm a little confused as to what we owe Garnett. Fornication?

Beth Shoals also gets in on the discussion a little bit himself, rending his hair and lamenting that this callous beast and the beloved Garnett of yore are one and the same. This means, he reluctantly concludes, he'll have to reexamine his love for the old Garnett (and one can only assume based on the seriousness of his tone, his religion, career, and entire life philosophy).

This guy I've never heard of (what a wonderful basketball blogging community member I am) has a pretty good take-down of Jay's argument. To which I don't have all that much to add. I think its definitely true that Garnett is owed some deference for his genuineness with Bill Russell and his painful, frustrated, end-of-his-rope, somewhat self-serving, but weirdly touching interview with John Thompson (those things, to me, speak very highly of his character and his genuine feelings for history and team, respectively). Similarly, it seems silly to deny that his spirit and abilities have radically rejuvenated Boston's defense and made it a perrenial contender for best team in the NBA. But even ignoring all that, Garnett is just plain fun. Going beyond any personal qualities or feelings towards his teams, there is just something awesome about watching him play. Its similar to what's awesome about that Soy Bomb guy: you are highly entertained, on the edge of your seat, unsure of what exactly you're seeing, and nervous that the crazy behavior is about to escalate to something dangerous. This is mixed with the kind of adrenaline rush I normally get when a good guy shoots a bad guy after delivering a badass line in a movie. But the difference between Garnett and Eastwood in Unforgiven is that its just basketball, never anything too serious; and the difference between Garnett and SOY BOMB is that its basketball: instead of just dancing like a madman, Garnett is dancing like a madman (rhetorically, he's actually hitting himself, the floor, a pole, or rejecting a shot after the clock has run out) after having accomplished a very amazing physical feat, often when a basketball game is on the line.

I think this alone makes him fascinating and easily one of the most interesting guys in the league (I also think he's got a great personality, but that's beyond the point). Unfortunately all that insane swagger that leads him to talk trash, cry on tv, and inflict massive harm on himself and the basket, may lead him to cross the line against Charlie V (and likely others), for which he should, if guilty, apologize and say something about the heat of the game having gotten too intense (he shouldn't have denied it if it was true, never a good decision). Oddly, many have come out in Garnett's defense, but for the wrong reasons, saying basketball trash-talk is too sacred for twitter. This doesn't seem right. There should be a little public shame, perhaps, and then we should move on. We should not demand that Garnett strip himself of personality and antics. We already have a Tim Duncan, whose interviews I will watch as soon as this is posted to cure my insomnia. What the fuck do we owe Kevin Garnett? Appreciation for having entertained us, in more ways than one. Which is why I watch sports. On those merits I think Garnett is one of the best, if not the best, guy around.