In Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals Nate Robinson put on quite a show. He spelled Rajon Rondo for a while after Rondo fell awkwardly on his back. Nate Rob dropped 13 of the most exciting points you’ve ever seen. In the grand scheme of things, 13 points isn’t a whole lot, but you had to have seen the game to truly appreciate what that did for the team. He provided an emotional charge to not only the Celtics, but for the crowd as well.
In his days as a New York Knick, the knock on Nate was that he was too emotional. I never quite got how that’s a bad thing. Is an athlete not supposed to show emotion? Jeff Van Gundy called the game 6 clincher alongside Mark Jackson and Mike Breen. When Nate was inserted into game, he made a quick bucket and had a very nice assist to Kevin Garnett in traffic and naturally, he got fired up. Then we had to sit through Jeff Van Gundy complaining that Nate shows too much emotion. Mark Jackson disagreed with Van Gundy telling him that you need that spark off the bench. A few buckets later, Van Gundy (who is very good as an analyst, but spends too much time during telecasts complaining about rules in the league that he doesn’t agree with) changed his tune and said Nate had every right to celebrate. That same exuberance is what helped push Nate out of New York. Living in the New York market, I was able to see the whole thing unfold.
Nate’s fiery personality on the court rubbed his then coach, Mike D’Antoni the wrong way. It did so much that it found Nate on the bench for no apparent reason. Earlier this season, Nate was benched 14 straight games by D’Antoni. That’s right, 14 consecutive DPN-CDs (Did not play – coach’s decision). After sitting out an entire month, Coach D’Antoni called Nate’s number and brought him in with 3 minutes left in the first quarter, of a game in January against the Hawks in Atlanta, and the rest was history. Nate did what Nate does. He scored 41 points on 16/24 shooting and grabbed 8 boards in 38 minutes work – after not playing a single minute in the 14 games prior. That doesn’t even begin to tell the story though. The majority of his points were in the 4th quarter and in overtime, with the game on the line. He was absolutely unstoppable. No matter who the Hawks switched on him, it didn’t matter. Mike Bibby got some. Joe Johnson got some. Josh Smith got some, and Marvin Williams got some too.
The amazing thing about it is that at only 5’8”, Nate is capable of doing this as often as he’d like because I’ve seen him score 30+ many times. David Lee was the best player on the Knicks this past year (you could argue that Nate was but he didn’t play enough), but Nate was their best crunch time player. Believe it or not, he was their best perimeter option as a go-to-guy. Despite all of this, Mike D’Antoni insisted on benching him without ever giving a clear, credible reason why. Nate is a firecracker and that rubs some old-school basketball guys the wrong way, and that’s apparently what happened with D’Antoni. Nothing else would make sense.
But this is nothing new for D’Antoni. In 2 years in New York, he has become infamous for benching the best player on his team for no apparent reason. He inexplicably banished Stephon Marbury in his first season. Marbury had a solid preseason, then D’Antoni told him he wouldn’t be in the rotation when the season began, and Steph was eventually ordered to stay away from the team as the season progressed. And Stephwas the best player on the team last year. D’Antoni did the same thing this year with Nate. What does he have against the guy who is the best player on his team? In each instance his issue appears to be personal and that’s unfortunate because the number 1 objective of coaching is to add Ws to the win column. Personal matters shouldn’t get in the way of that and it clearly has in each case because you can’t tell me that D’Antoni really thought Chris Duhon (who I think is a solid pro) gave them a better chance of winning than Marbury did. I also say that it has to be personal because D’Antoni never gave a real reason why he benched either guy. He would say stuff like “I don’t really want to get into it.” What if the Knicks get LeBron next year and he’s their best player. Is he going to bench LeBron if he doesn’t like his pregame ritual? It would certainly follow suit.
Sorry, I went off an a tangent. Back to the Celtics. When Boston acquired Nate, I knew that he would pay dividends for them. He should be first off the bench to relieve Rondo, not Tony Allen. Nate is a free agent after this year and I’ll personally be interested in seeing where he lands, and more importantly, how he is used. I said it then and I’ll say it again. The Knicks should’ve and could’ve kept Nate. I know they’re clearing cap room, but Nate doesn’t warrant a huge salary, and that kind of spark off the bench cannot be measured.
If you’re looking for your everyday, predictable basketball talk, then go somewhere else, because Kevin Burke of The Kevin Burke Project brings provocative, thought provoking content about basketball as only he can. Kevin also hosts The Hoop Doctors weekly podcast show, which you can subscribe too for free on iTunes.
