Is Kevin Garnett a shell of the dominant force from 01-05?

[Levis107]

I kind of agree with the original post of this thread.  Garnett is not the player he was during his MVP reign with Minnesota.  I see Garnett slowly going into the mold of a more skilled Marcus Camby.  A guy who will get you 15 and 7 and anchor your defense and I think we start to see it this season.  A lot of people are sensitive on this subject but the fact is Garnett just doesn't rebound like he used to.  You could start to see it toward the end of last season and into the playoffs.  He isn't going to average a double-double anymore.  However, I don't think this affects the team that much and really that's all that matters.

[BballTim]

I kind of agree with the original post of this thread.  Garnett is not the player he was during his MVP reign with Minnesota.  I see Garnett slowly going into the mold of a more skilled Marcus Camby.  A guy who will get you 15 and 7 and anchor your defense and I think we start to see it this season.  A lot of people are sensitive on this subject but the fact is Garnett just doesn't rebound like he used to.  You could start to see it toward the end of last season and into the playoffs.  He isn't going to average a double-double anymore.  However, I don't think this affects the team that much and really that's all that matters.

  We were one of the best rebounding teams in the league last year. A lot of the drop was because of this, just like the big three's scoring averages dropped. If KG was still in Minny he'd still be putting up bigger numbers.

  That's why I don't think our window is as small as some people. KG will still be capable of putting up 19 and 9 in 3-4 years. And he's not the athlete he was 5 years ago, but he's a smarter and more experienced player.

[cordobes]

This really wasn't even worth responding to, but I find I couldn't resist.  Building on what a few others have said already:

Last year in the regular season, KG...

finished 3rd in the MVP vote

was the Defensive Player of the year

Finished in the top-5 in the NBA in every advanced stat going (PER, Roland Rating, Wins Produced, etc. etc.)

Last year in the playoffs, KG...

led the Celtics in points and rebounds

was among the league leaders in every advanced playoff stat measured (PER, Roland Rating, +/-, etc.)

Held every PF he faced well under their season numbers 1-on-1 (including 3 very good players in Josh Smith, Rasheed Wallace and Lamar Odom), while simultaneously giving a lot of help to slow down the LeBrons and Kobes of the world.

Led the Celtics in 4th quarter scoring (obliterating the "only plays 3 quarters myth").  And no matter how close the games were, he still led the team in scoring.  He led the Cs in 4th quarter scoring in games decided by 10 points or less, 7 points or less, or 4 points or less.

And all of that is just ON the court, not in any way touching on all of the intangibles and culture-changing impact that EVERYONE attributes to him.  Many argue that his off-court impact was as big as any on-court impact, and ON the court he was huge.

If KG has fallen off, as the OP suggests, and STILL was able to do all of that on a championship team?  I think the only word that works is...wow.

Good post, TP.

[Birdbrain]

I kind of agree with the original post of this thread.  Garnett is not the player he was during his MVP reign with Minnesota.  I see Garnett slowly going into the mold of a more skilled Marcus Camby.  A guy who will get you 15 and 7 and anchor your defense and I think we start to see it this season.  A lot of people are sensitive on this subject but the fact is Garnett just doesn't rebound like he used to.  You could start to see it toward the end of last season and into the playoffs.  He isn't going to average a double-double anymore.  However, I don't think this affects the team that much and really that's all that matters.

  We were one of the best rebounding teams in the league last year. A lot of the drop was because of this, just like the big three's scoring averages dropped. If KG was still in Minny he'd still be putting up bigger numbers.

  That's why I don't think our window is as small as some people. KG will still be capable of putting up 19 and 9 in 3-4 years. And he's not the athlete he was 5 years ago, but he's a smarter and more experienced player.

KG didn't average a double/double (why this matters to anyone that doesn't play Fantasy Basketball makes no sense) last year because he played his least amount minutes since his rookie year.  Stats are for...

[Fan from VT]

I don't think he's a "shell of himself," but he is a different player. In his younger years, he was kind of a dwight howard athletic freak, but even then less prone to delve into the middle on offense. in his prime in minny he still possessed the freakish athleticism and was also an incredibly smart player and great defender. I think it's clear that he's slipped a little in terms of aggressiveness and athleticism, but he's still at least as good a player as he was when he was younger, but just in a different way-smarts and experience now make up for what his athleticism got him then. He is certainly past his peak. As a result, we will never see anything close to his '03-'04 season of 24 points, 14 boards, 5 dimes, 2.2 blocks and 1.5 steals for a 29.5 PER. That was his peak the perfect combination of experience and athleticism, and he won't approach that in terms of absolute numbers or per minute averages...he just can't do that anymore.

However, he is still a very good one on one and team defender, and while his athleticism has slipped, I think because of his experience his overall contribution will be much more consistent...no more 24-18 outbursts, but steady, all-star contribution instead.

So i think it's clear he has slipped from his peak, but to say he's a "shell of himself" is too strong, in my opinion.

[DarkAzcura]

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

[wdleehi]

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

Big reason for that is this team is known as a defensive team. 


KG is the defensive leader. 

[greg683x]

I kind of agree with the original post of this thread.  Garnett is not the player he was during his MVP reign with Minnesota.  I see Garnett slowly going into the mold of a more skilled Marcus Camby.  A guy who will get you 15 and 7 and anchor your defense and I think we start to see it this season.  A lot of people are sensitive on this subject but the fact is Garnett just doesn't rebound like he used to.  You could start to see it toward the end of last season and into the playoffs.  He isn't going to average a double-double anymore.  However, I don't think this affects the team that much and really that's all that matters.

Im not going to disagree that Garnett is on the downside of his career, because he is, and so is Pierce and Ray Allen, but the logic of the OP is completely off in my opinion.  This team was one of the best if not the best rebounding team in the NBA last season, Garnett never played on a team that was as defensively active as the Celtics, and thats on top of the fact that Garnetts never played with starters like Perk, Pierce, and even Rondo who are all good rebounders.  This team just isnt dependant on everything Garnett does, like Minnesota was.

[drza44]

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

So let me see if I understand this logic.  Garnett comes to the Celtics, plays at a level that is top-5 in the NBA by almost every measure, and contributes mightily to the Celtics winning a title.  But because he hasn't been here 10 years like Pierce, he will be minimized and diminished by Celtics fans because the majority of the basketball public insists on recognizing him for the caliber of player that he is? 

We're at the point where Celtics fans will tear down a champion Celtic for no reason?  And this makes sense?

[DarkAzcura]

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

So let me see if I understand this logic.  Garnett comes to the Celtics, plays at a level that is top-5 in the NBA by almost every measure, and contributes mightily to the Celtics winning a title.  But because he hasn't been here 10 years like Pierce, he will be minimized and diminished by Celtics fans because the majority of the basketball public insists on recognizing him for the caliber of player that he is? 

We're at the point where Celtics fans will tear down a champion Celtic for no reason?  And this makes sense?

Hey, Garnett's great, and he should be recognized for his talent, but it sounds ridiculous to some people when the media and other fans look and say "Hey Garnett and his two allstar sidekicks are carrying that Celtic team".

I don't like it when people refer to Pierce and Allen simply as "allstar sidekicks". Yes, it has the word all star in it, but the term makes Garnett's level seem much higher then Pierce's and Allen's which shouldn't be the case. All three had a hand in the championship season run almost equally in a way, and if you really want to separate anyone, you separate Garnett AND Pierce. You don't single out Garnett.

This even bugs me about the rest of the team. I don't like it when people diminish what Rondo and Perkins did for the team either. They're young, though, and will get their chance one day so it doesn't bug me as much as when Pierce and Allen don't get their due.

I'd much rather all three get equal credit.

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

Big reason for that is this team is known as a defensive team. 


KG is the defensive leader. 

That doesn't mean you single him out and make him seem like he changed everything. Defense is only one side of the floor, and he isn't the leader or the best on that side of the floor (offense).

People always do it this way..they call Team A a defensive team and then Team B an offensive team. Can't a team be known for both? If one of the reasons why KG is singled out is because he is the defensive leader on a defensive team, that's lame. It doesn't make much sense to me actually.

[NoraG1]

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

So let me see if I understand this logic.  Garnett comes to the Celtics, plays at a level that is top-5 in the NBA by almost every measure, and contributes mightily to the Celtics winning a title.  But because he hasn't been here 10 years like Pierce, he will be minimized and diminished by Celtics fans because the majority of the basketball public insists on recognizing him for the caliber of player that he is? 

We're at the point where Celtics fans will tear down a champion Celtic for no reason?  And this makes sense?

Hey, Garnett's great, and he should be recognized for his talent, but it sounds ridiculous to some people when the media and other fans look and say "Hey Garnett and his two allstar sidekicks are carrying that Celtic team".

I don't like it when people refer to Pierce and Allen simply as "allstar sidekicks". Yes, it has the word all star in it, but the term makes Garnett's level seem much higher then Pierce's and Allen's which shouldn't be the case. All three had a hand in the championship season run almost equally in a way, and if you really want to separate anyone, you separate Garnett AND Pierce. You don't single out Garnett.

This even bugs me about the rest of the team. I don't like it when people diminish what Rondo and Perkins did for the team either. They're young, though, and will get their chance one day so it doesn't bug me as much as when Pierce and Allen don't get their due.

I'd much rather all three get equal credit.

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

Big reason for that is this team is known as a defensive team. 


KG is the defensive leader. 

That doesn't mean you single him out and make him seem like he changed everything. Defense is only one side of the floor, and he isn't the leader or the best on that side of the floor (offense).

People always do it this way..they call Team A a defensive team and then Team B an offensive team. Can't a team be known for both? If one of the reasons why KG is singled out is because he is the defensive leader on a defensive team, that's lame. It doesn't make much sense to me actually.

Have yet to read an article calling Pierce and Allen KGs sidekicks. If they did they are probably also calling Bynum a Hall of Famer already. And actually KG does it on both sides of the floor.  As does PP. Look, the media is clueless. It is all a popularity contest. KG gets slammed alot as well, when he did not play well in some games in the finals was he left off the hook from critism? No.

Blame the right people--the media. No need to tear KG down to buld Pierce up. They are on the same team and they both helped get the team to a championship.

[Big Ticket]

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

So let me see if I understand this logic.  Garnett comes to the Celtics, plays at a level that is top-5 in the NBA by almost every measure, and contributes mightily to the Celtics winning a title.  But because he hasn't been here 10 years like Pierce, he will be minimized and diminished by Celtics fans because the majority of the basketball public insists on recognizing him for the caliber of player that he is? 

We're at the point where Celtics fans will tear down a champion Celtic for no reason?  And this makes sense?

Hey, Garnett's great, and he should be recognized for his talent, but it sounds ridiculous to some people when the media and other fans look and say "Hey Garnett and his two allstar sidekicks are carrying that Celtic team".

I don't like it when people refer to Pierce and Allen simply as "allstar sidekicks". Yes, it has the word all star in it, but the term makes Garnett's level seem much higher then Pierce's and Allen's which shouldn't be the case. All three had a hand in the championship season run almost equally in a way, and if you really want to separate anyone, you separate Garnett AND Pierce. You don't single out Garnett.

This even bugs me about the rest of the team. I don't like it when people diminish what Rondo and Perkins did for the team either. They're young, though, and will get their chance one day so it doesn't bug me as much as when Pierce and Allen don't get their due.

I'd much rather all three get equal credit.

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

Big reason for that is this team is known as a defensive team. 


KG is the defensive leader. 

That doesn't mean you single him out and make him seem like he changed everything. Defense is only one side of the floor, and he isn't the leader or the best on that side of the floor (offense).

People always do it this way..they call Team A a defensive team and then Team B an offensive team. Can't a team be known for both? If one of the reasons why KG is singled out is because he is the defensive leader on a defensive team, that's lame. It doesn't make much sense to me actually.

Have yet to read an article calling Pierce and Allen KGs sidekicks. If they did they are probably also calling Bynum a Hall of Famer already. And actually KG does it on both sides of the floor.  As does PP. Look, the media is clueless. It is all a popularity contest. KG gets slammed alot as well, when he did not play well in some games in the finals was he left off the hook from critism? No.

Blame the right people--the media. No need to tear KG down to buld Pierce up. They are on the same team and they both helped get the team to a championship.

That last paragraph is completely right.  If you have a problem with any sort of special treatment, then your problem is with the media.  Kevin Garnett is the one who, multiple times, has refused to do media interviews, magazine cover shoots, etc, unless it included Pierce and Allen or the entire team.  He did the same thing with Cassell and Sprewell.  Kobe would not do this.  LeBron would not do this.  And guess what, before being around KG, Pierce would not have done this.

Nobody here is arguing that Pierce is not underrated or underappreciated by the media.  What many of us had a problem with was the OP tearing down KG as a way to lift Pierce, and it seems that you are doing the same thing DarkAzcura.

[DarkAzcura]

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

So let me see if I understand this logic.  Garnett comes to the Celtics, plays at a level that is top-5 in the NBA by almost every measure, and contributes mightily to the Celtics winning a title.  But because he hasn't been here 10 years like Pierce, he will be minimized and diminished by Celtics fans because the majority of the basketball public insists on recognizing him for the caliber of player that he is? 

We're at the point where Celtics fans will tear down a champion Celtic for no reason?  And this makes sense?

Hey, Garnett's great, and he should be recognized for his talent, but it sounds ridiculous to some people when the media and other fans look and say "Hey Garnett and his two allstar sidekicks are carrying that Celtic team".

I don't like it when people refer to Pierce and Allen simply as "allstar sidekicks". Yes, it has the word all star in it, but the term makes Garnett's level seem much higher then Pierce's and Allen's which shouldn't be the case. All three had a hand in the championship season run almost equally in a way, and if you really want to separate anyone, you separate Garnett AND Pierce. You don't single out Garnett.

This even bugs me about the rest of the team. I don't like it when people diminish what Rondo and Perkins did for the team either. They're young, though, and will get their chance one day so it doesn't bug me as much as when Pierce and Allen don't get their due.

I'd much rather all three get equal credit.

I think people make threads like these because of one thing:  the lack of respect Paul Pierce receives (even Ray Allen sometimes). Even to this day, after Pierce won the Finals MVP, we always have to hear about how this is KG's team, blah blah blah. Sometimes they'll say Big 3, but you are crazy if you think they always say this is the Big 3's team. KG is singled out way too much for the success of this team, while Pierce the 10 year Celtic, arguably as important if not more, gets a mention here and there. That's why you will see threads like this diminishing Garnett's value to this team. If the media and fans of other teams would just start talking about how the Celtics played and not how KG changed everything, you wouldn't see threads like these. Ever.

I can see this being annoying for Pierce fans (even though fans should be fans of teams and not players...still gets annoying when your favorite player doesn't get mentioned in favor for a guy who has only been here for a year).

I know some people are going to say, "it's about the team, not just how you feel about Pierce being singled out", but I just want the media and other fans to start talking about the team rather then just KG. Then I wouldn't care as much.

Big reason for that is this team is known as a defensive team. 


KG is the defensive leader. 

That doesn't mean you single him out and make him seem like he changed everything. Defense is only one side of the floor, and he isn't the leader or the best on that side of the floor (offense).

People always do it this way..they call Team A a defensive team and then Team B an offensive team. Can't a team be known for both? If one of the reasons why KG is singled out is because he is the defensive leader on a defensive team, that's lame. It doesn't make much sense to me actually.

Have yet to read an article calling Pierce and Allen KGs sidekicks. If they did they are probably also calling Bynum a Hall of Famer already. And actually KG does it on both sides of the floor.  As does PP. Look, the media is clueless. It is all a popularity contest. KG gets slammed alot as well, when he did not play well in some games in the finals was he left off the hook from critism? No.

Blame the right people--the media. No need to tear KG down to buld Pierce up. They are on the same team and they both helped get the team to a championship.

That last paragraph is completely right.  If you have a problem with any sort of special treatment, then your problem is with the media.  Kevin Garnett is the one who, multiple times, has refused to do media interviews, magazine cover shoots, etc, unless it included Pierce and Allen or the entire team.  He did the same thing with Cassell and Sprewell.  Kobe would not do this.  LeBron would not do this.  And guess what, before being around KG, Pierce would not have done this.

Nobody here is arguing that Pierce is not underrated or underappreciated by the media.  What many of us had a problem with was the OP tearing down KG as a way to lift Pierce, and it seems that you are doing the same thing DarkAzcura.

Duuude, you guys are getting me all wrong. I'm just giving reasons as to why this happens. I couldn't care less what the media thinks.

Oh, and I know you are a Minny fan so I'm going to cut you slack, but you are way off base on that final sentence. I was fine with what you were saying until that. Not once did I lower Garnett past Pierce or Allen. At WORST I said he was equal in terms of effect he had on this Celtics team. If you think I am tearing down KG to raise Pierce...well I'm cutting you slack. You're a Minny fan.

I was bringing KG down (not tearing him) to show why KG is being brought down. Only because Pierce fans or old Celtic fans in general get annoyed with how much credit he gets. I'm not saying he deserves no credit, though. I'm not bringing him down to the level that the media and other fans bring Pierce down to so I don't see how I'm tearing him down.

EDIT: Guys, come on. What I said in my original post (while I feel it a LITTLE), I didn't mean as an argument. I was just informing you guys WHY threads like this may exist...WHY people bring KG down. I did also blame "the right people" many times. I mentioned the MEDIA many times. I didn't say anyone on this board.

Oh, and about the magazine shoots. How do you know Pierce wouldn't have done that? If anyone actually asked Pierce to do a cover shoot, and he actually had experienced players on his team before, you never know..? I don't know. It's such a little point anyway.

Are you trying to say Garnett changed Pierce (by saying "before being around KG, Pierce wouldn't either..)? Really, Pierce looks like the same person with the same mentality out there. I don't think Garnett changed him one bit, and that may be another example of giving Garnett too much credit.

Have yet to read an article calling Pierce and Allen KGs sidekicks. If they did they are probably also calling Bynum a Hall of Famer already. And actually KG does it on both sides of the floor.  As does PP. Look, the media is clueless. It is all a popularity contest. KG gets slammed alot as well, when he did not play well in some games in the finals was he left off the hook from critism? No.

Blame the right people--the media. No need to tear KG down to buld Pierce up. They are on the same team and they both helped get the team to a championship.

Man, I didn't say KG couldn't play offense, I was just saying that if he gets separated because of his leadership on defense, what about our leaders on offense? A team shouldn't be defined as offensive or defensive. In the end teams haves to play both to win, not one.

Oh, and I did say many times "the media". That's all I'm blaming (and fans of OTHER teams) if I'm blaming anyone.

And your final sentence, that's all that matters. We won the championship. I said in one of my posts that I'd rather our team was known (by the media) for everyone as a collective force rather then just a team with one guy getting most of the credit.

[Levis107]

Lol I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about this.  Nobody is bashing Kevin Garnett, we all love him and he is still a GREAT player.  The point of the article is being realistic in saying that KG isn't the player he used to be.  Agreeing with this post is not bashing KG.

Also in regards to my previous post on here, it doesn't matter if the Celtics were one of the best rebounding times last year...KG still doesn't rebound like he used to.  It's just an observation that goes beyond the numbers, it's something you could see the last third of the season last year.  Even Bill Simmons brought it up in his NBA preview article and I totally agree.  And if you don't then you hadn't been watching the Celtics the last part of the season.  Again this isn't bashing KG because I love the guy but some people are so close minded when it comes to this stuff.

[NoraG1]

Lol I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about this.  Nobody is bashing Kevin Garnett, we all love him and he is still a GREAT player.  The point of the article is being realistic in saying that KG isn't the player he used to be.  Agreeing with this post is not bashing KG.

Also in regards to my previous post on here, it doesn't matter if the Celtics were one of the best rebounding times last year...KG still doesn't rebound like he used to.  It's just an observation that goes beyond the numbers, it's something you could see the last third of the season last year.  Even Bill Simmons brought it up in his NBA preview article and I totally agree.  And if you don't then you hadn't been watching the Celtics the last part of the season.  Again this isn't bashing KG because I love the guy but some people are so close minded when it comes to this stuff.

Did you read the first post of this thread? Seemed like there was a bit of bashing. You may feel differently but some of us felt there was.