Triple M wrote:Of course we Celtic fans can really appreciate what KG has to offer but I wonder why he get so much hatred placed upon him. Winning the Championship should have had more of a positive then it did on his resume.
.
.
.
What inspired me to post this thread is the people who think Dirk is better and the people who say Duncan is not even close to KG.
I have a pet theory on this, outside of random hate of success or his personality. Once people "know" something, and more importantly when they've spoken definitively on a subject, they do not want to back down from that. So not only will they not admit that they may have been wrong, they won't even acknowledge it to themselves until they are beaten over the head with it.
Garnett's game is not conventional, either historically or (especially) in the post-Jordan era. Historically, the "common knowledge" was that championships were won by big men playing in the post (Guys like Duncan or Shaq). In the Jordan era, it became "common knowledge" that basketball greatness was defined by being like Mike (most importantly the best scorer, and the guy who takes the last shot...much like Kobe, LeBron or Wade). Garnett doesn't fit into either mold. He's a 7-footer that can dominate inside but also has perimeter skills that he uses to advantage...not a "true" big man. On the other hand, though he's a great scorer that also isn't the focus of his game, as he (gasp) believes even more firmly in defense and setting up teammates than he does in his own point totals...i.e. not the perpetuated image of what made Jordan great.
When a player's style of game defies convention, the only way for him to attain legendary status is to have so much success that it can't be ignored. Russell would not be in the GOAT conversation based on his style of play, except that he won so ridiculously often that eventually people had to take note. Garnett, though, did not have any championship success. Though individually he produced at Duncan level for much of this decade, his teams never won. And here is where the "people set their opinion" part of my theory comes in.
In the early 2000s, Duncan vs Garnett was one of the most popular debates to have. Duncan had championship success, but Garnett was yearly carrying a much less talented team into the playoffs. Pro-Garnett people claimed that Garnett was just as good if not better, but his teammates were just so bad that they couldn't compete on the big stage. Pro-Duncan people said the opposite, that the reason that Duncan won more was because he was better. When no real advantage for Duncan could be found in the stats, those that favored him moved to intangibles. Duncan won because he played "like a true big man" instead of being a "soft jump-shooter like KG". Duncan won because he was just innately a winner whereas KG wasn't wired to be a champ. Duncan won because he was clutch, while KG didn't because he was not.
Meanwhile, Duncan's supporting cast just kept getting better after Robinson's decline/retirement as Parker/Ginobili matured and Garnett's cast kept getting worse as player moves and coaching changes went progressively in the wrong direction. By 2007 Duncan had 4 titles and 3 Finals MVPs while Garnett's teams had missed 3 straight playoffs, so the vast majority of the basketball watching world had decided that Duncan was clearly better and that it must be because of those differences in intangibles because they still couldn't find it in the stats (not even in the advanced stats, which supposedly help give more insight than traditional stats but continue to peskily insist that Garnett was at least as good as Duncan). More importantly, during that time, it was decided that Kobe was the "best basketball player on the planet".
Then, a funny thing happened. Garnett got traded to the Celtics and matched with the best teammates of his career...teammates very similar in caliber to what Duncan enjoyed during several of his title runs. And suddenly, Garnett's team started winning at a pace similar to Duncan's, and that team went on to win a title like Duncan's teams do. And not only did the Celtics win, they had the nerve to win with Garnett's style! They became a defensive-minded team-before-individual no-dominant-scorer champion...definitely not in the Jordan/early Lakers mold (more similar to the Spurs, in fact). But Garnett still led the team in scoring, despite continuing the inside/outside mix that is his trademark instead of becoming a "true big man" like others demand (and not like Duncan did it). Garnett even dared to lead the Celtics in FOURTH QUARTER SCORING during the playoffs run, a fact that would be a direct blow to his "non clutch" reputation.
In fact, all of the "intangible" reasons why Duncan's teams won titles and Garnett's didn't were really turned on their ear by last seasons championship. KG had a title now, so clearly the "he's just not a winner" line of thought wasn't right. The Celtics won with KG as their best big even though he didn't just live in the paint, so clearly the "gotta play only in the post" line of thought was compromised. And his 4th quarter play hurt the "he's not clutch" thought. As a matter of fact, the only premise from the original KG/Duncan arguments that was supported by last year's title was that of the pro-KG contingent...that the main difference in their success level was the supporting cast, and not any nebulous intangible thing that sets Duncan ahead.
But to admit any of that, the basketball media and public would have to admit that they'd been wrong for years to have "ended" the debate and summarily declare Duncan the best power forward in history bar none. And admitting to error is NOT something most want to do easily. So instead, many just refused to acknowledge KG's successes and emphasized every weakness while finding other alternatives for his success.
Everyone "knew" that KG was not clutch, and that was "confirmed" when his shot was off early in the Finals and more importantly when he missed those free throws in game 5 of the Finals. Those free throws got WAY more run on the airwaves and in print than KG's clutch play late in the historic Finals Game 4 comeback, the 2 huge free throws he hit with 3 seconds left to seal the deal in Game 5 against the Pistons, or the clutch game-tying and game-winning shots he hit in Game 1 against the Cavs COMBINED.
Other Celtics fans may not want to hear this (though I mean absolutely no offense to the Captain by saying it), but part of the reason that Pierce started getting SUCH a national reputation for being clutch was because people needed an explanation for the Celtics' strong play late that didn't involve admitting that KG was stepping up. Pierce had the huge, excellent Game 7 duel with LeBron and several other strong games, but if you didn't watch the games yourself and only relied upon media coverage you would think he was just carrying the team offensively with KG as a sidekick when the actual play on the court did not bear that out. And you would think that the Celtics' late-game offense in the playoffs was to run the Pierce clear-outs that have become popular this season, when instead it was Garnett and not Pierce that led the team in scoring late.
Plus, now that they've won, it was because the Celtics as a team were just SO talented that it was inevitable. Because worst of all, KG's Celtics had the temerity to go through Kobe, the "best player on the planet", on their way to the title despite the fact that the Laker's supporting cast led by Gasol was supposed to be as good as anyone's in the league. How is that possible, if Kobe's the best player on the planet? Hmm, it must be because his supporting cast really isn't that good, and the Celtics who had previously been belittled for not having any depth really had the much better team. Yeah, that's it. Kobe's still the best, his previously star-studded teammates now suck. (Whew, that was a close one). Never mind that only 1 ESPN "expert" picked the Celtics to win even the EAST during the preseason, and that two picked them to finish 5th or worse because of questions about depth and talent integration (
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... review0708). Never mind that only 1 ESPN "expert" picked the Celtics to beat the Lakers in last year's Final (
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2 ... ies=lalbos). After the fact, it became revisionist history to suggest that EVERYONE knew the Celtics were just too powerful to lose, so it's still not like the title can put KG on Duncan or, heaven forbid, Kobe's level despite him now having one of the best basketball resume's in history.
Hmmm. Never intended to write this much. Guess it's been bothering me for awhile. Anyway, in conclusion, I think that the reason that KG is catching so much hate this year and being belittled by so many is that otherwise people will have to revise their now long-held opinions that he isn't a worthy basketball legend because he doesn't fit the mold. Nobody wants to do that, so they would prefer instead for his success with the 08 Celtics to have been a fluke they can attribute to something else. So I'm EAGERLY awaiting this postseason, to see what happens if/when the Cs bring home #18. Will the hate continue, or will people finally start to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, they got this one wrong...
