Should KG's number be retired

[AidaCelt]

KG brought more than just his playing abilities to help with banner 17. He brought an intensity and hunger that helped to drag others along with him. He helped with the development of the young bigs. In my mind, his number should be raised for these reasons as well as him being such a big part of bringing that banner.

For RA, he didn't provide the X factor KG did. Was he a big part of the championship? Absolutely. In other organisations, that alone would have his number raised. For the C's, you need to provide that X factor and the 1%ers that KG did.

[Moranis]

This should not even be a question.

No KG = No Banner 17.

That and the impact and the way he changed the identity of this team, despite only staying for 6 years.

#5 should go up.

No Ray Allen = No Banner 17.  Should we put him up there as well?  And I know Pierce was the Finals MVP, but Ray Allen certainly could have been.  Allen was lights out against the Lakers.  I mean Allen shot over 52% from three point range, was second in points to Pierce and second in rebounds to Garnett, while leading the team in minutes by over 2 a game.  Allen was a monster against the Lakers.

[2short]

I've come to a decision from my earlier post
yes

odd thought on ray allen, will his number be retired anywhere? seattle?

[Moranis]

KG brought more than just his playing abilities to help with banner 17. He brought an intensity and hunger that helped to drag others along with him. He helped with the development of the young bigs. In my mind, his number should be raised for these reasons as well as him being such a big part of bringing that banner.

For RA, he didn't provide the X factor KG did. Was he a big part of the championship? Absolutely. In other organisations, that alone would have his number raised. For the C's, you need to provide that X factor and the 1%ers that KG did.

How do we know it was KG and not Allen?  Don't get me wrong, I get that KG is intense, but this notion that KG raised the level, blah blah is a bit silly and not really based on much since KG and Allen arrived for the same season.  How do you know it wasn't Allen's more quiet leadership that led to the change? 

[AidaCelt]

KG brought more than just his playing abilities to help with banner 17. He brought an intensity and hunger that helped to drag others along with him. He helped with the development of the young bigs. In my mind, his number should be raised for these reasons as well as him being such a big part of bringing that banner.

For RA, he didn't provide the X factor KG did. Was he a big part of the championship? Absolutely. In other organisations, that alone would have his number raised. For the C's, you need to provide that X factor and the 1%ers that KG did.

How do we know it was KG and not Allen?  Don't get me wrong, I get that KG is intense, but this notion that KG raised the level, blah blah is a bit silly and not really based on much since KG and Allen arrived for the same season.  How do you know it wasn't Allen's more quiet leadership that led to the change?

That's an even better question that the original... I don't have an answer to say which leadership style had more of an effect and either way it would be based on opinion anyway. What Allen brought may well have had a similar or even greater impact on the team as a whole. You'd have to be in the inner sanctum to say one way or another if this was the case.

I'll still keep my opinion that based on what I've seen, heard, read... KG's impact on the team was immense and without it, his p[laying abilities alone would not have been enough to carry us to the title. This is only my opinion though

[timpiker]

I really don't know.  I've wondered about this for 5 yrs

[BballTim]

KG brought more than just his playing abilities to help with banner 17. He brought an intensity and hunger that helped to drag others along with him. He helped with the development of the young bigs. In my mind, his number should be raised for these reasons as well as him being such a big part of bringing that banner.

For RA, he didn't provide the X factor KG did. Was he a big part of the championship? Absolutely. In other organisations, that alone would have his number raised. For the C's, you need to provide that X factor and the 1%ers that KG did.

How do we know it was KG and not Allen?  Don't get me wrong, I get that KG is intense, but this notion that KG raised the level, blah blah is a bit silly and not really based on much since KG and Allen arrived for the same season.  How do you know it wasn't Allen's more quiet leadership that led to the change?

  Maybe it was Allen's (not so) quiet petty jealousy that led to the change.

[Snakehead]

KG brought more than just his playing abilities to help with banner 17. He brought an intensity and hunger that helped to drag others along with him. He helped with the development of the young bigs. In my mind, his number should be raised for these reasons as well as him being such a big part of bringing that banner.

For RA, he didn't provide the X factor KG did. Was he a big part of the championship? Absolutely. In other organisations, that alone would have his number raised. For the C's, you need to provide that X factor and the 1%ers that KG did.

How do we know it was KG and not Allen?  Don't get me wrong, I get that KG is intense, but this notion that KG raised the level, blah blah is a bit silly and not really based on much since KG and Allen arrived for the same season.  How do you know it wasn't Allen's more quiet leadership that led to the change?

Come on man.  I don't know what you're basing that on.

And it's fine to me.  I've never heard anyone talk about Ray Allen as a leader and that's cool.  But KG does get that talk.  He anchors a defense like he's playing quarterback and the plays with a passion his teams have always had to carry.  That's clear if you ever watched KG.

Ray Allen was a team player, a rock in clutch time, and a great player for us.  There is no one I would choose over him to take a clutch jump shot. 

I don't need him to be a leader, we were fine without that.  I don't have any complaints about his time here.

[Interceptor]

odd thought on ray allen, will his number be retired anywhere? seattle?

Probably in Miami. They only have three retired numbers, and one of those is for someone that didn't even play for them. He did hit the biggest shot in their franchise history, after all.

[BballTim]

odd thought on ray allen, will his number be retired anywhere? seattle?

Probably in Miami. They only have three retired numbers, and one of those is for someone that didn't even play for them. He did hit the biggest shot in their franchise history, after all.

  He's hoping everyone remembers the big shot in game six and not the goose egg in game 7.

[Snakehead]

odd thought on ray allen, will his number be retired anywhere? seattle?

Probably in Miami. They only have three retired numbers, and one of those is for someone that didn't even play for them. He did hit the biggest shot in their franchise history, after all.

  He's hoping everyone remembers the big shot in game six and not the goose egg in game 7.

He was always oddly streaky in the playoffs but sometimes was just on fire.  And almost always clutch, to his credit.

[hwangjini_1]

let me unpopular. 

my answer is.............no.

this choice is not tied to KG's career performance, heart, abilities, and the like. the point here is not whether KG was great player. he clearly was. the question i ask is whether among the pantheon of celtics players, has KG accomplished enough as a celtic to be listed among the all time celtic greats.

ability, longevity, attitude, celtic-devotion....many of these are not measurable, yet i believe all of them may be used in making a decision about whether a player's number should be retired.

to have a number retired on the celtics is something that is exceptional and clearly out of the ordinary on many counts, and i agree that a high standard should be invoked. popularity alone is not enough.

one championship, in celtic folklore, does not mean greatness, it is expected. so on this point, KG passes but a single championship does not place him on a separate or elevated plateau above other celtic greats. being a celtic fan, i rejoice and an happy he helped the celtics win that championship, but, it does strike me that it is a single championship. if KG had been healthy and lead the celtics to multiple championships, then my answer might be "yes, retire #5 today."

but he wasnt and he didnt.

next, while in boston, KG was an outstanding player. but how long was he a celtic and of that time, how long was he injured, reducing his impact and play as a celtic? 

KG played only 396 games in 6 seasons for the celtics.

for reference purposes, player/games of the top ten celtics:
1.   John Havlicek*   1270
2.   Robert Parish*   1106
3.   Paul Pierce   1102
4.   Kevin McHale*   971
5.   Bill Russell*   963
6.   Bob Cousy*   917
7.   Tom Sanders   916
8.   Larry Bird*   897
9.   Don Nelson   872
10.   Sam Jones*   871

while a celtic (and only celtic numbers count for retiring a number) KG averaged roughly:
15.7 points a game
8.3 rebound a game
2.7 assists

all of these are well below his pre-celtic averages. these celtic numbers are good numbers, but not HOF, retire-that-number-now numbers. that is, as a celtic his stats were good, but not great.

but, as observed in this thread, his heart and desire and passion were always off the charts, numbers be [dang]ed. and i agree to a degree. but even if we allow that "heart" to be one determining factor and ignore the good numbers i still have a central reservation.

he wasnt a celtic for very long in his career.

longevity as a celtic is important to me. here is where KG is clearly lacking. six seasons out of a 19 season career means, to me, that for all his skill and heart and effort, 2/3 of his playing days were elsewhere, not in boston. to have your number retired, you should be a member of the boston celtics for the majority of your career. now i admit, winning a bundle of championships can serve as a substitute, but as discussed above he only won one championship with the celtics.

i loved KG as a celtic and he made a mistake early in his career by not leaving minnesota as a free agent to join the celtics. the two were almost fated to meet. but retire his number? no. as wonderful a player as he was, he does not meet the standards set for the celtics to have his number retired.

and by the way, this is an excellent thread and has raised a number of thoughtful and interesting posts. i extend my thanks to everyone.

[moiso]

This should not even be a question.

No KG = No Banner 17.

That and the impact and the way he changed the identity of this team, despite only staying for 6 years.

#5 should go up.

Gerald Green?  Oh... KG.  Definitely!

[Roy H.]

let me unpopular. 

my answer is.............no.

this choice is not tied to KG's career performance, heart, abilities, and the like. the point here is not whether KG was great player. he clearly was. the question i ask is whether among the pantheon of celtics players, has KG accomplished enough as a celtic to be listed among the all time celtic greats.

ability, longevity, attitude, celtic-devotion....many of these are not measurable, yet i believe all of them may be used in making a decision about whether a player's number should be retired.

to have a number retired on the celtics is something that is exceptional and clearly out of the ordinary on many counts, and i agree that a high standard should be invoked. popularity alone is not enough.

one championship, in celtic folklore, does not mean greatness, it is expected. so on this point, KG passes but a single championship does not place him on a separate or elevated plateau above other celtic greats. being a celtic fan, i rejoice and an happy he helped the celtics win that championship, but, it does strike me that it is a single championship. if KG had been healthy and lead the celtics to multiple championships, then my answer might be "yes, retire #5 today."

but he wasnt and he didnt.

next, while in boston, KG was an outstanding player. but how long was he a celtic and of that time, how long was he injured, reducing his impact and play as a celtic? 

KG played only 396 games in 6 seasons for the celtics.

for reference purposes, player/games of the top ten celtics:
1.   John Havlicek*   1270
2.   Robert Parish*   1106
3.   Paul Pierce   1102
4.   Kevin McHale*   971
5.   Bill Russell*   963
6.   Bob Cousy*   917
7.   Tom Sanders   916
8.   Larry Bird*   897
9.   Don Nelson   872
10.   Sam Jones*   871

while a celtic (and only celtic numbers count for retiring a number) KG averaged roughly:
15.7 points a game
8.3 rebound a game
2.7 assists

all of these are well below his pre-celtic averages. these celtic numbers are good numbers, but not HOF, retire-that-number-now numbers. that is, as a celtic his stats were good, but not great.

but, as observed in this thread, his heart and desire and passion were always off the charts, numbers be [dang]ed. and i agree to a degree. but even if we allow that "heart" to be one determining factor and ignore the good numbers i still have a central reservation.

he wasnt a celtic for very long in his career.

longevity as a celtic is important to me. here is where KG is clearly lacking. six seasons out of a 19 season career means, to me, that for all his skill and heart and effort, 2/3 of his playing days were elsewhere, not in boston. to have your number retired, you should be a member of the boston celtics for the majority of your career. now i admit, winning a bundle of championships can serve as a substitute, but as discussed above he only won one championship with the celtics.

i loved KG as a celtic and he made a mistake early in his career by not leaving minnesota as a free agent to join the celtics. the two were almost fated to meet. but retire his number? no. as wonderful a player as he was, he does not meet the standards set for the celtics to have his number retired.

and by the way, this is an excellent thread and has raised a number of thoughtful and interesting posts. i extend my thanks to everyone.

I understand your argument, and for most franchises, I think there would be precedent that his number shouldn't be retired.  I think you pegged the central dilemma, though:

as wonderful a player as he was, he does not meet the standards set for the celtics to have his number retired.

You have to judge KG by Celtics' standards, not those of other franchises.  By those standards, hasn't KG done as much as Ed Macauley (six seasons with the Celts, no championships), Cedric Maxwell, or any number of role players who got their numbers retired?

I think KG surpasses the internal criteria for number retirement that the franchise has shown.

[TitleMaster]

Ray Allen was not the Robert Parish of the '08 & '10 runs, with PP & KG as the McHale & Bird of the series.

Ray Allen was inconsistent, as an outside shooter, for much of the time, except for the Detroit/LA series in '08. I'd say that Ray was more a Scott Wedman, than a big three, for many of the playoff series.