What is with all the KG hatred?

[Moranis]

22, 10, and 1.7 in his second year is a phenomenal stat line.

The guy averaged between 8 and 10 for 8 out of his first 9 years in the league. Garnet is obviously the better rebounder as we'd expect. But he averaged between 7.3 and 9 the last 4 years in a row.

Not when you're playing 40 minutes at the PF position, on teams that weren't exactly slow paced teams.

His rebound rate peaked in his second year at 15, which is solid for a PF. But after that it was going down nearly two points a year. Antoine played a lot of minutes, so his per game averages always made his rebounding skills look better than they were.

yeah but a lot of that was going from Travis Knight and Andrew DeClerq (in his second year) to Tony Battie and Vitaly Potapenko (with DeClerq now way down the rotation) in his third year.  The Celtics just added some much better rebounders which is of course going to hurt everyone's rate.  Toine was not a great rebounder, but he he certainly wasn't a bad rebounder either.

[Fafnir]

22, 10, and 1.7 in his second year is a phenomenal stat line.

The guy averaged between 8 and 10 for 8 out of his first 9 years in the league. Garnet is obviously the better rebounder as we'd expect. But he averaged between 7.3 and 9 the last 4 years in a row.

Not when you're playing 40 minutes at the PF position, on teams that weren't exactly slow paced teams.

His rebound rate peaked in his second year at 15, which is solid for a PF. But after that it was going down nearly two points a year. Antoine played a lot of minutes, so his per game averages always made his rebounding skills look better than they were.

yeah but a lot of that was going from Travis Knight and Andrew DeClerq (in his second year) to Tony Battie and Vitaly Potapenko (with DeClerq now way down the rotation) in his third year.  The Celtics just added some much better rebounders which is of course going to hurt everyone's rate.  Toine was not a great rebounder, but he he certainly wasn't a bad rebounder either.

He was a bad one after his first two years. His rebound rates hovered around Glend Davis's after that.

[Assassin70]

If you cant see why people love or hate KG then you haven't really been paying attention to him.

Watching KG play is all you need to know to answer the question.

As many other have said in this thread...if he wasn't ours I wouldn't like him as much...but for my money I would still like him...somewhat.

[Onslaught]

With the amount of negative comments made against KG on here (amazing), sometimes I think I've accidentally wondered onto a Lakers message board. 

Hold on now. I can't speak for everyone here but I'm happy we've got him. I like 95% of what he brings to the Celtics and I want him to do well. But I won't go around and act like he can't do things I don't like sometimes. If I did that I'd be no better then a Lakers fan gushing over Artest or Kobe.

Not that I'm even trying to say that KG is near as bad as those two.

[vinnie]

^^^^^^^

This. If KG was on another good team, we would despise him. I love the guy, and know that the Celts cannot win 18 without him, but you have to have permanently green colored glasses if you don't think some of his antics are over the top. I have to give him credit for yesterday, however, as he could have lost it when hedo gave him a two-handed shove out of bounds.

[Celtics4ever]

In the old days, they were called hatchet men and their job was to retaliate against the other teams.  Sometimes they were called goons.  

In the 60's we had a reputation for it.  Red once hit the owner of the St.  Louis Hawks, Bill Kerner in the jaw over the height of the rim.  Their forward, Alex Hannum called us
"hatchet men".  I read somewhere that Tommy would grab a guy on a charge to make it look good and pull him down on top of him. In 70's we had Dave Cowens who once elbowed Mike Newlin in the face to illustrate what a foul was to a ref and told him "Now that is a xxxxing foul."  in the 80's we had McHale clotheslining Rambus.  Out of the 50 dirtiest NBA players ever,  Dave Cowens, Kendrick Perkins, Paul Pierce, Shaquille O'Neal, Xavier McDaniel, Danny Ainge, Kevin Garnett, Kevin McHale and Bruce Bowen all made a list by Bleecher Reports as the 50 Dirtiest players of all time.  That is almost 1/5 or 18% of the dirtiest players were Celtics.  We've always had a rep for it, folks.   I don't live in Boston nor have I ever but Celtics have always got the shaft in this regard.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/530978-the-50-dirtiest-players-in-nba-history#page/51

In any sport there are guys who will jack you up if they get a chance.   Big guys love knocking people senseless on picks when they can.  It happens all the time and yes its people trying to hurt people.   Not kill them mind you, but rack them up but its a freeshot to use your bulk/size on someone.  It's not done as well as it used to be in the game because peeps really do not know how to set a good pick.  Should be shoulder to shoulder with the pickee and the picker is not supposed to be moving when he sets the screen.  But you can hit a defender as hard as you like as long as its his momentum providing the impetus, legally.  

Guys also push peeps and elbow routinely all the time.  It's a reality of the low post.   Your elbows are your protection and early warning system to tell the other guys to back down. Both are fouls and should be.  But it happens all the time.

Certain contact like holding off a defender when driving or dribbling happens routinely.  Its not designed to hurt peeps but get an advantage.   It should be a foul under strict interpretation of the rules.  Jordan did this all the time.

That being said the unwritten rule is that you don't submarine people or undercut them when they are in the air.  Picks are fair game as they happen the flow of the game.   Its the actions outside the game flow that peeps get mad about basketball.  It's never ok to slide under a guy.

But basketball has always had a physical element.   KG doesn't even play that physical really folks.  But its called PF which means Power Forward not Prissy Forward.  What KG did was not even that bad folks.

[Eja117]

I like KG. He's probably my 4th favorite Celtic or so.

  Funny. I'd hate to see what you'd post about him if you *didn't* like him.

That's more of my Brett Farve posts

[Eja117]

I don't hate Kevin Garnet.  I just don't have man love for him.  I don't think he's Superman or the Chosen One or something.

This is my point about never having bought into him being an intense player.

I got very very used to this dynamic in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnet get ready to play a playoff game.

Kevin Garnet slaps some powder. Makes some faces.

Tim Duncan doesn't.

Kevin Garnet takes a jump shot. Duncan slams it in his face. Duncan outplays Garnet is every phase of the game.  Everyone acts like Garnet has scrubs for teammates or something while Duncan is on Dream Team 2.  I'm scratching my head.

The Spurs win easily.

Kevin Garnet cries or something.

Duncan acts like this is routine for him.

People say "Oh man isn't Garnet so intense?"

And I'm sitting here like "I'm not seeing it"

I guess that makes me a hater.  I guess maybe it makes me hypocritical. I always thought of Karl Malone as intense. I don't know what to say.

I just place KG firmly in the Peyton Manning category. Yes. He was very good. But there were others clearly better or just as good so why do we always talk about him? 

[Roy H.]

I just place KG firmly in the Peyton Manning category. Yes. He was very good. But there were others clearly better or just as good so why do we always talk about him? 

Slightly off topic, but I don't think there were any PFs in his era who were clearly better than KG.  I think Duncan was better, but I think it's arguable.  Those two were clearly the two best PFs of their time, though, I think.

[BballTim]

I don't hate Kevin Garnet.  I just don't have man love for him.  I don't think he's Superman or the Chosen One or something.

This is my point about never having bought into him being an intense player.

I got very very used to this dynamic in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnet get ready to play a playoff game.

Kevin Garnet slaps some powder. Makes some faces.

Tim Duncan doesn't.

Kevin Garnet takes a jump shot. Duncan slams it in his face. Duncan outplays Garnet is every phase of the game.  Everyone acts like Garnet has scrubs for teammates or something while Duncan is on Dream Team 2.  I'm scratching my head.

The Spurs win easily.

Kevin Garnet cries or something.

Duncan acts like this is routine for him.

People say "Oh man isn't Garnet so intense?"

And I'm sitting here like "I'm not seeing it"

I guess that makes me a hater.  I guess maybe it makes me hypocritical. I always thought of Karl Malone as intense. I don't know what to say.

I just place KG firmly in the Peyton Manning category. Yes. He was very good. But there were others clearly better or just as good so why do we always talk about him? 

  KG and TD played 8 playoff games against each other. KG scored a few more points than TD, had a few more assists than TD and had about the same number of rebounds. I guess that's pretty good for someone who's "outplayed in every phase of the game". I personally think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that an 8 time all-nba defensive 1st team player wasn't intense because he didn't dunk the ball enough. If you're looking at someone who's better or just as good, I wouldn't look towards Karl Malone.

[Eja117]

I just place KG firmly in the Peyton Manning category. Yes. He was very good. But there were others clearly better or just as good so why do we always talk about him? 

Slightly off topic, but I don't think there were any PFs in his era who were clearly better than KG.  I think Duncan was better, but I think it's arguable.  Those two were clearly the two best PFs of their time, though, I think.

Rodman. Dirk. Webber. Having a hard time thinking of the spectacular supporting cast Jermaine O'Neal had back in the day other than Reggie. Obviously if you open it up to just big men in general you got Shaq and Zo.  When you open it to players in general you get Iverson, Lebron, Steve Nash, Kobe, Jason Kidd back in the day.

[Eja117]

I don't hate Kevin Garnet.  I just don't have man love for him.  I don't think he's Superman or the Chosen One or something.

This is my point about never having bought into him being an intense player.

I got very very used to this dynamic in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnet get ready to play a playoff game.

Kevin Garnet slaps some powder. Makes some faces.

Tim Duncan doesn't.

Kevin Garnet takes a jump shot. Duncan slams it in his face. Duncan outplays Garnet is every phase of the game.  Everyone acts like Garnet has scrubs for teammates or something while Duncan is on Dream Team 2.  I'm scratching my head.

The Spurs win easily.

Kevin Garnet cries or something.

Duncan acts like this is routine for him.

People say "Oh man isn't Garnet so intense?"

And I'm sitting here like "I'm not seeing it"

I guess that makes me a hater.  I guess maybe it makes me hypocritical. I always thought of Karl Malone as intense. I don't know what to say.

I just place KG firmly in the Peyton Manning category. Yes. He was very good. But there were others clearly better or just as good so why do we always talk about him? 

  KG and TD played 8 playoff games against each other. KG scored a few more points than TD, had a few more assists than TD and had about the same number of rebounds. I guess that's pretty good for someone who's "outplayed in every phase of the game". I personally think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that an 8 time all-nba defensive 1st team player wasn't intense because he didn't dunk the ball enough. If you're looking at someone who's better or just as good, I wouldn't look towards Karl Malone.

What was the field goal and free throw percentage? What was the tos and fouls?  Anyway this gets back to the whole thing about how Dan Marino was better than Joe Montana because he threw for more yards.

[Roy H.]

I just place KG firmly in the Peyton Manning category. Yes. He was very good. But there were others clearly better or just as good so why do we always talk about him? 

Slightly off topic, but I don't think there were any PFs in his era who were clearly better than KG.  I think Duncan was better, but I think it's arguable.  Those two were clearly the two best PFs of their time, though, I think.

Rodman. Dirk. Webber. Having a hard time thinking of the spectacular supporting cast Jermaine O'Neal had back in the day other than Reggie. Obviously if you open it up to just big men in general you got Shaq and Zo.  When you open it to players in general you get Iverson, Lebron, Steve Nash, Kobe, Jason Kidd back in the day.

KG is a much better all-around PF than Rodman, and I'm not sure that they played in the same era.

KG did everything Webber did on offense, and played much better defense.  Similarly, Dirk isn't in the conversation due to his lack of D.  JO had neither the peak nor the longevity.  Same thing with Zo. 

Shaq was better than KG.

[Eja117]

I just place KG firmly in the Peyton Manning category. Yes. He was very good. But there were others clearly better or just as good so why do we always talk about him? 

Slightly off topic, but I don't think there were any PFs in his era who were clearly better than KG.  I think Duncan was better, but I think it's arguable.  Those two were clearly the two best PFs of their time, though, I think.

Rodman. Dirk. Webber. Having a hard time thinking of the spectacular supporting cast Jermaine O'Neal had back in the day other than Reggie. Obviously if you open it up to just big men in general you got Shaq and Zo.  When you open it to players in general you get Iverson, Lebron, Steve Nash, Kobe, Jason Kidd back in the day.

KG is a much better all-around PF than Rodman, and I'm not sure that they played in the same era.

KG did everything Webber did on offense, and played much better defense.  Similarly, Dirk isn't in the conversation due to his lack of D.  JO had neither the peak nor the longevity.  Same thing with Zo. 

Shaq was better than KG.

Rodman was the only player I ever saw straight up defend Shaq. And he did a lot of dirty work. The kind that Perk does now.

Not saying JO was better. Just that some of the same excuses people give KG go for him too. Also JO's team went to the finals I think.

Webber took the Kings to the promised land and was within a very very very crooked series of winning.

Dirk took his team to a finals. So did Iverson. So did Lebron. Kidd did twice. Malone at least half did twice. Zo didn't have longevity?

Until KG came to the Celts for all his intensity he was nowhere near as accomplished as any of these guys

[ejk3489]

Not saying JO was better. Just that some of the same excuses people give KG go for him too. Also JO's team went to the finals I think.

JO never went to the finals, he came to the Pacers the year after they made it in 2000.

Webber took the Kings to the promised land and was within a very very very crooked series of winning.

He took his team exactly as far as Kevin has.

Dirk took his team to a finals. So did Iverson. So did Lebron. Kidd did twice. Malone at least half did twice. Zo didn't have longevity?

Until KG came to the Celts for all his intensity he was nowhere near as accomplished as any of these guys

KG never accomplished anything before coming to Boston? What?! He was the MVP in 2004, 7 or 8 time All-Star, got the T-Wolves to the WCF in 04' with no Cassel and almost pulled it off. No one is going to win without good teammates, it's impossible. Dirk didn't, Kidd didn't, Iverson didn't, Lebron hasn't, ect. ect.

And I don't think anyone is going to argue that Iverson or Kidd (and to a lesser extent Dirk) has had a better career than KG. He is without a doubt a top 5 PF all time right now.