Should KG's number be retired

[Donoghus]

I'm not even sure you have to touch on stats that much when it comes to KG.

The eyeball test, alone, worked pretty well. 

Especially, the '07-08 season when you contrasted it with the seasons before.  On the court, with the crowds, in the city of Boston off the court, etc....

[slamtheking]

If DJ played here long enough and was considered good enough to have his number retired, KG meets that criteria.

[ScoobyDoo]

For his heart: Yes
For his effort: Yes
For helping raise our first banner in 20+ years: Yes
For being a major piece of reinstating what Celtic pride means after a 20+ year walk in the woods: Yes

He's as much a Celtic as Russell, Cousy, Havlicek, Cowens Heinsohn, Bird, McHale, Parish, Ainge, DJ Pierce.

The way he plays the game is the definition of "Boston Celtic".

Yes - raise it.

 

[D.o.s.]

If DJ played here long enough and was considered good enough to have his number retired, KG meets that criteria.

KG wishes he had DJ's postseason success as a Celtic.

[D.o.s.]

No.than ray allen and perks numbers should go up also

What exactly would qualify Perk for having his number raised?

What qualifies kg to have his numbers up then? His stats were modest here vs what he did in minny. He helped us win but so did allen, perk.

I think putting up a number due to popularity and bc he is considered one of the best pfs of all time is not right.

Guys like bird, mchale, parish deserve their numbers to be retired. Can you really compare kgs career as a celtic compared to these guys?

Honestly, it's really not about the stats (for me, at least). KG brought heart, determination, and leadership to the celtics. He wasn't here as long as other players, but everything he did while he was here, was what it means to be a celtic. He had the Celtic pride in a league where people will ditch a team for a pay raise. He was loyal to us and gave us all he had, he deserved the tribute last night and he deserves to have his number retired. In my eyes, he will always be a Celtic.

... even though he totally skipped town for a pay raise.

[Fafnir]

KG played in twice as many games for the Timberwolves as for the Celtics. He may have shifted the culture of the Celtics more dramatically than any other player in history, but simple math disqualifies him.

Any reason he can't have his number retired with multiple franchises?

KG will have his number retired by both once he's retired.

[Enzzo]

No.than ray allen and perks numbers should go up also

What exactly would qualify Perk for having his number raised?

What qualifies kg to have his numbers up then? His stats were modest here vs what he did in minny. He helped us win but so did allen, perk.

I think putting up a number due to popularity and bc he is considered one of the best pfs of all time is not right.

Guys like bird, mchale, parish deserve their numbers to be retired. Can you really compare kgs career as a celtic compared to these guys?

Honestly, it's really not about the stats (for me, at least). KG brought heart, determination, and leadership to the celtics. He wasn't here as long as other players, but everything he did while he was here, was what it means to be a celtic. He had the Celtic pride in a league where people will ditch a team for a pay raise. He was loyal to us and gave us all he had, he deserved the tribute last night and he deserves to have his number retired. In my eyes, he will always be a Celtic.

... even though he totally skipped town for a pay raise.

It was best for both parties. They were going in different directions. He didn't "skip town"

[D.o.s.]

I know. He did waive his no trade clause and agreed to the trade on the condition that his contract be fully guaranteed, though.

[Moranis]

Boston has so many retired numbers that in a sense I think that it lowers the bar. So many of the Celtics up there didn't have the impact or strength of play that KG did. Can't leave him out.

Exactly.

Or you go the other way and make it more difficult to get up there.

It is harder, but KG meets the criteria.

You bemoan that he's equal to Ray and then push him nearer Perkins/Posey but was in a different class from all of those guys and sustained that high level of player longer as he stayed.

They're not taking numbers down, and since they're not doing that KG needs to go up. Otherwise its insulting when he was a better player and a better Celtic than many up there and retired.

KG was definitely a better player than a lot people with their numbers in the rafters (and that will someday include Pierce), but he was not a better Celtic.  6 years is not a long time, especially when you miss 17% or so of the games during that stretch.

The only Celtic stats he is even in the top ten of (aside from a few % type things) is blocks (8th in totals and 9th in blocks per game), which of course is skewed since they didn't keep blocks when Bill was playing and Defensive Rebounds (though not total rebounds).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/leaders_career.html


Kevin Garnett is one of the greatest PF's to ever play the game, but he is not an all time great Celtic and for that reason should not get his number retired.

[Tr1boy]

Boston has so many retired numbers that in a sense I think that it lowers the bar. So many of the Celtics up there didn't have the impact or strength of play that KG did. Can't leave him out.

Exactly.

Or you go the other way and make it more difficult to get up there.

It is harder, but KG meets the criteria.

You bemoan that he's equal to Ray and then push him nearer Perkins/Posey but was in a different class from all of those guys and sustained that high level of player longer as he stayed.

They're not taking numbers down, and since they're not doing that KG needs to go up. Otherwise its insulting when he was a better player and a better Celtic than many up there and retired.

KG was definitely a better player than a lot people with their numbers in the rafters (and that will someday include Pierce), but he was not a better Celtic.  6 years is not a long time, especially when you miss 17% or so of the games during that stretch.

The only Celtic stats he is even in the top ten of (aside from a few % type things) is blocks (8th in totals and 9th in blocks per game), which of course is skewed since they didn't keep blocks when Bill was playing and Defensive Rebounds (though not total rebounds).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/leaders_career.html


Kevin Garnett is one of the greatest PF's to ever play the game, but he is not an all time great Celtic and for that reason should not get his number retired.

+1.

[Fafnir]

Boston has so many retired numbers that in a sense I think that it lowers the bar. So many of the Celtics up there didn't have the impact or strength of play that KG did. Can't leave him out.

Exactly.

Or you go the other way and make it more difficult to get up there.

It is harder, but KG meets the criteria.

You bemoan that he's equal to Ray and then push him nearer Perkins/Posey but was in a different class from all of those guys and sustained that high level of player longer as he stayed.

They're not taking numbers down, and since they're not doing that KG needs to go up. Otherwise its insulting when he was a better player and a better Celtic than many up there and retired.

KG was definitely a better player than a lot people with their numbers in the rafters (and that will someday include Pierce), but he was not a better Celtic.  6 years is not a long time, especially when you miss 17% or so of the games during that stretch.

The only Celtic stats he is even in the top ten of (aside from a few % type things) is blocks (8th in totals and 9th in blocks per game), which of course is skewed since they didn't keep blocks when Bill was playing and Defensive Rebounds (though not total rebounds).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/leaders_career.html


Kevin Garnett is one of the greatest PF's to ever play the game, but he is not an all time great Celtic and for that reason should not get his number retired.

He contributed more on the court in those 6 years than many of those names mentioned for their entire careers, you really think that counting stats like Points/Rebounds/Stls/Blocks make your case that he shouldn't be?

Similar to Ed MaCauley he was there for 6 years and was a star player and produced like one. Unlike Easy Ed he brought home a title and came about as close as you can get to a second.

Cedric Maxwell was only a Celtic for 8 years.

Ed's up there, so are a bunch of nice but not great players on title teams. KG was an MVP caliber guy for 1.5 years leading us to a title and came back as still an all-star caliber player and was part of another Finals run and a ECF run.

I'll take 6 years of elite play over others and accumulating counting stats.

[D.o.s.]

Boston has so many retired numbers that in a sense I think that it lowers the bar. So many of the Celtics up there didn't have the impact or strength of play that KG did. Can't leave him out.

Exactly.

Or you go the other way and make it more difficult to get up there.

It is harder, but KG meets the criteria.

You bemoan that he's equal to Ray and then push him nearer Perkins/Posey but was in a different class from all of those guys and sustained that high level of player longer as he stayed.

They're not taking numbers down, and since they're not doing that KG needs to go up. Otherwise its insulting when he was a better player and a better Celtic than many up there and retired.

KG was definitely a better player than a lot people with their numbers in the rafters (and that will someday include Pierce), but he was not a better Celtic.  6 years is not a long time, especially when you miss 17% or so of the games during that stretch.

The only Celtic stats he is even in the top ten of (aside from a few % type things) is blocks (8th in totals and 9th in blocks per game), which of course is skewed since they didn't keep blocks when Bill was playing and Defensive Rebounds (though not total rebounds).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/leaders_career.html


Kevin Garnett is one of the greatest PF's to ever play the game, but he is not an all time great Celtic and for that reason should not get his number retired.

That is exactly the kind of reasoning that makes me want to dropkick Daryl Morey in the face and burn down the Sloan Conference.

[Interceptor]

I feel like this poll ought to be worded as "Should we insult KG's dedication by declining to raise his number after he retires?", and there should be both "No" and a "Heck no" options.

The stat-guys have their charts and websites to immortalize the great players; the rafters at the Garden are for people like KG.

[Enzzo]

I feel like this poll ought to be worded as "Should we insult KG's dedication by declining to raise his number after he retires?", and there should be both "No" and a "Heck no" options.

The stat-guys have their charts and websites to immortalize the great players; the rafters at the Garden are for people like KG.

Amen

[Section301]

Yes, his number should be retired.

and - Un-retire numbers?  Really?  who do you think doesn't belong and why? http://www.nba.com/celtics/history/RetiredNumbers.html

I mean the one that seemed most unworthy to me, at first glance, was Max, but...7 years, 2 titles and a Finals MVP really kind of make a compelling argument.  He told them "Jump on my back, boys" and delivered. 

Interestingly enough, Max is also an argument that would support the idea of retiring Ray's number. For the record, I wouldn't retire Ray's number, but Max was also a key contributor whose departure involved some bad blood.