Rosen has hated KG for years, so there's nothing new there. But the interesting thing is just how lazy that analysis was...I mean, it doesn't even make sense as a criticism point. In the two games that the Celtics lost, as Rosen pointed out, KG shot poorly...and did most everything else great. He averaged 13 points, 13 boards, 3 assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks in what Rosen is considering games to prove he is terrible.
Meanwhile, in the 4 wins, KG averaged 21 points, 13 boards, 3 assists, 2 steals and a block. Those are down-right dominant numbers.
So Rosen's argument, as far as I can tell, is that because KG played poorly (by his standards) in the two losses but played great in the 4 wins...he's overrated? And because he saved the best for last, putting his foot on the Lakers' throats to make the final game a blowout, he's...even worse?
I can't even wrap my head around this logic enough to get angry or try to put together a rebuttal. It just doesn't even make sense.