Greatest NBA player ever?

[commavegarage]

I already did. Ewing was a better player than Garnett will ever be, Duncan is better than Garnett, and KAJ is at least in the top 15.

[twballgame9]

I already did. Ewing was a better player than Garnett will ever be, Duncan is better than Garnett, and KAJ is at least in the top 15.

No, arguable, no.

[commavegarage]

I already did. Ewing was a better player than Garnett will ever be, Duncan is better than Garnett, and KAJ is at least in the top 15.

No, arguable, no.

Why no? What did Garnett do that was so much better than Ewing?

[twballgame9]

I already did. Ewing was a better player than Garnett will ever be, Duncan is better than Garnett, and KAJ is at least in the top 15.

No, arguable, no.

Why no? What did Garnett do that was so much better than Ewing?

Other than wear a ring? I know you are probably a Knicks fan, and I can calculate that you were 4 or 5 years old when Ewing was in his NBA prime, but come on, seriously? At least I have to admit that the Duncan argument is legit. I have to do no such thing with respect to Ewing. I will say that Ewing put up great numbers in the regular season. So he would be high on my "Great Numbers In The Regular Season" list.

Ask the posters on here if they had a pick late in the first round in the all time draft between Ewing and Garnett in their primes. This is a no brainer.

[commavegarage]

I already did. Ewing was a better player than Garnett will ever be, Duncan is better than Garnett, and KAJ is at least in the top 15.

No, arguable, no.

Why no? What did Garnett do that was so much better than Ewing?

Other than wear a ring? I know you are probably a Knicks fan, and I can calculate that you were 4 or 5 years old when Ewing was in his NBA prime, but come on, seriously? At least I have to admit that the Duncan argument is legit. I have to do no such thing with respect to Ewing. I will say that Ewing put up great numbers in the regular season. So he would be high on my "Great Numbers In The Regular Season" list.

Ask the posters on here if they had a pick late in the first round in the all time draft between Ewing and Garnett in their primes. This is a no brainer.

1. So one ring is the difference between a player being top 20 and a player not even being worth considering? Put comparable players (Allen and Pierce) around Ewing for 4 years (plus a top 4 PG for the last two) and he definitely wins at least one ring.
2. It wasn't until Garnett got two all stars around him that he won a ring. Prior to that, Ewing got further with the Knicks than Garnett ever did with the TWolves.
3. Ewing averaged 20/10 in the postseason. Garnett averages 21/12. Huge difference.

On top of this, Ewing played in his prime with four of the best centers to ever play the game. (Mutombo, Olajuwon, Robinson, O'Neal) Garnett played in a time of watered down big men.

[bignick33]

Ewing was a better player than Garnett will ever be

That's almost as laughable as TW's claim that Kareem is not top 20 all-time.

Kareem > Duncan > KG > Ewing

[twballgame9]

I already did. Ewing was a better player than Garnett will ever be, Duncan is better than Garnett, and KAJ is at least in the top 15.

No, arguable, no.

Why no? What did Garnett do that was so much better than Ewing?

Other than wear a ring? I know you are probably a Knicks fan, and I can calculate that you were 4 or 5 years old when Ewing was in his NBA prime, but come on, seriously? At least I have to admit that the Duncan argument is legit. I have to do no such thing with respect to Ewing. I will say that Ewing put up great numbers in the regular season. So he would be high on my "Great Numbers In The Regular Season" list.

Ask the posters on here if they had a pick late in the first round in the all time draft between Ewing and Garnett in their primes. This is a no brainer.

1. So one ring is the difference between a player being top 20 and a player not even being worth considering? Put comparable players (Allen and Pierce) around Ewing for 4 years (plus a top 4 PG for the last two) and he definitely wins at least one ring.
2. It wasn't until Garnett got two all stars around him that he won a ring. Prior to that, Ewing got further with the Knicks than Garnett ever did with the TWolves.
3. Ewing averaged 20/10 in the postseason. Garnett averages 21/12. Huge difference.

On top of this, Ewing played in his prime with four of the best centers to ever play the game. (Mutombo, Olajuwon, Robinson, O'Neal) Garnett played in a time of watered down big men.

1 No. Not what I said. But Ewing was a choke artist in the playoffs, and will be forever remembered for missing a layup (after his usual travel) on the most important shot of his career.


2. Garnett was the star of those stars, and the reason they won. Without him, the team lost in the semis last season. With him, they are back this season.

3. Again, stats not compelling . Dominique Wilkins may have done even better statistically in the post season.

[commavegarage]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

[bignick33]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

[twballgame9]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

It's this team aspect, which is so patently evident with Garnett (Exhibit A: how much better do the Celtics look in this year's playoffs and the 2008 playoffs as opposed to the 2009 playoffs -WHAT'S DIFFERENT?; Exhibit B: the T'Wolves were very good with absolute shit around him, with guys like Spree and Cassell playing the best ball of their careers). It's also this team aspect that makes one reconsider Kareem. He was a piece to surround Magic or Oscar.

That said Kareem is within striking distance of my top 20. Ewing, not so much.

[commavegarage]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

Oh God. Attitude? If his attitude (not the combination with two other allstars) was the reason that the Celtics turned around, they why were the TWolves so mediocre with him? You can't say one is a leader and one isn't because KG hits himself in the head occasionally.

And again, I don't think the defensive gap is as big as you make it out to be. I get the fact that Ewing only made All-NBA defensive teams 3 times, but he was up against Rodman, Mutombo, Robinson, Olajuwon, O'Neal, etc. Garnett was up against primarily Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan...and there were four spots available. The best defensive forwards in the league during Ewing's prime were in a different stratosphere than the best defensive forwards in the league during Garnett's prime.

[twballgame9]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

Oh God. Attitude? If his attitude (not the combination with two other allstars) was the reason that the Celtics turned around, they why were the TWolves so mediocre with him? You can't say one is a leader and one isn't because KG hits himself in the head occasionally.

And again, I don't think the defensive gap is as big as you make it out to be. I get the fact that Ewing only made All-NBA defensive teams 3 times, but he was up against Rodman, Mutombo, Robinson, Olajuwon, O'Neal, etc. Garnett was up against primarily Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan...and there were four spots available. The best defensive forwards in the league during Ewing's prime were in a different stratosphere than the best defensive forwards in the league during Garnett's prime.

The T'Wolves had terrible talent and decent results, all because of Garnett.

And you still haven't addressed the difference between the 2008/2010 Celtics and the 2009 Celtics.

[bignick33]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

It's this team aspect, which is so patently evident with Garnett (Exhibit A: how much better do the Celtics look in this year's playoffs and the 2008 playoffs as opposed to the 2009 playoffs -WHAT'S DIFFERENT?; Exhibit B: the T'Wolves were very good with absolute shit around him, with guys like Spree and Cassell playing the best ball of their careers). It's also this team aspect that makes one reconsider Kareem. He was a piece to surround Magic or Oscar.

That said Kareem is within striking distance of my top 20. Ewing, not so much.

All points regarding KG are spot on.

It's absolute horseshit that Oscar was better than Kareem. Kareem was dominant offensively and defensively in the 70s and into the early 80s. His stats, MVPs, Finals MVPs, all defensive teams, etc are testament to this.

[bignick33]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

Oh God. Attitude? If his attitude (not the combination with two other allstars) was the reason that the Celtics turned around, they why were the TWolves so mediocre with him? You can't say one is a leader and one isn't because KG hits himself in the head occasionally.

And again, I don't think the defensive gap is as big as you make it out to be. I get the fact that Ewing only made All-NBA defensive teams 3 times, but he was up against Rodman, Mutombo, Robinson, Olajuwon, O'Neal, etc. Garnett was up against primarily Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan...and there were four spots available. The best defensive forwards in the league during Ewing's prime were in a different stratosphere than the best defensive forwards in the league during Garnett's prime.

You're right, leadership means nothing in this conversation.

[commavegarage]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

It's this team aspect, which is so patently evident with Garnett (Exhibit A: how much better do the Celtics look in this year's playoffs and the 2008 playoffs as opposed to the 2009 playoffs -WHAT'S DIFFERENT?; Exhibit B: the T'Wolves were very good with absolute shit around him, with guys like Spree and Cassell playing the best ball of their careers). It's also this team aspect that makes one reconsider Kareem. He was a piece to surround Magic or Oscar.

That said Kareem is within striking distance of my top 20. Ewing, not so much.

What's different? They have a top 3 PG now. Hands down. No question about it. Rondo is more valuable to the team than Garnett. Rondo was good last year, but he is elite now.

You take Rondo out of this playoff season and there's a good chance the Celtics are sitting at home right now. You take Garnett out of this playoff season and there's a good chance the Celtics are still playing.

[commavegarage]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

Oh God. Attitude? If his attitude (not the combination with two other allstars) was the reason that the Celtics turned around, they why were the TWolves so mediocre with him? You can't say one is a leader and one isn't because KG hits himself in the head occasionally.

And again, I don't think the defensive gap is as big as you make it out to be. I get the fact that Ewing only made All-NBA defensive teams 3 times, but he was up against Rodman, Mutombo, Robinson, Olajuwon, O'Neal, etc. Garnett was up against primarily Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan...and there were four spots available. The best defensive forwards in the league during Ewing's prime were in a different stratosphere than the best defensive forwards in the league during Garnett's prime.

You're right, leadership means nothing in this conversation.

Way to completely miss the point.

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was. There are plenty of athletes who are top leaders and don't show it by yelling or hitting themselves during games. Derek Jeter for one.

[bignick33]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated that yet, besides posing a question as your "point". It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his leadership and intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

[bignick33]

One other thing CAG: Did you see all of Ewing's career? If not, you have no business commenting.

[commavegarage]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated it yet. It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

No. I don't know. And I don't know how anybody could know. There's no way without actually spending time with both that one could compare the two as leaders. I don't believe in the "intensity changed the team" argument. The team was changed because it went from a one man show to three allstars and added a top 5 PG, not because of one man's "intensity".

[twballgame9]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

It's this team aspect, which is so patently evident with Garnett (Exhibit A: how much better do the Celtics look in this year's playoffs and the 2008 playoffs as opposed to the 2009 playoffs -WHAT'S DIFFERENT?; Exhibit B: the T'Wolves were very good with absolute shit around him, with guys like Spree and Cassell playing the best ball of their careers). It's also this team aspect that makes one reconsider Kareem. He was a piece to surround Magic or Oscar.

That said Kareem is within striking distance of my top 20. Ewing, not so much.

What's different? They have a top 3 PG now. Hands down. No question about it. Rondo is more valuable to the team than Garnett. Rondo was good last year, but he is elite now.

You take Rondo out of this playoff season and there's a good chance the Celtics are sitting at home right now. You take Garnett out of this playoff season and there's a good chance the Celtics are still playing.

You take Garnett off this team and you get last season. Was Rondo a top 3 PG in 2008? Did he just forget in 2009? Garnett is the X factor for the Celtics, and everyone that watches them know it. He's the key. It's not even really debateable.

[commavegarage]

One other thing CAG: Did you see all of Ewing's career? If not, you have no business commenting.

Bullshit. Did you see Kareem's entire career and were old enough to appreciate it (i.e. at least 13 or so by the time he entered the league)? I'm going to guess no, because that would mean you would have to be 54.

[bignick33]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated it yet. It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

No. I don't know. And I don't know how anybody could know. There's no way without actually spending time with both that one could compare the two as leaders. I don't believe in the "intensity changed the team" argument. The team was changed because it went from a one man show to three allstars and added a top 5 PG, not because of one man's "intensity".

What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

[bignick33]

One other thing CAG: Did you see all of Ewing's career? If not, you have no business commenting.

Bullshit. Did you see Kareem's entire career and were old enough to appreciate it (i.e. at least 13 or so by the time he entered the league)? I'm going to guess no, because that would mean you would have to be 54.

I couldn't resist.

[twballgame9]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated that yet, besides posing a question as your "point". It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his leadership and intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

I'd actually suggest that a Derek Jeter fan ought to STFU about statistical comparisons. Garnett's impact on the Celtics is very simlar to Jeter's on the Yankees, despite the fact that his numbers have dropped. Both are leaders. Ewing, not so much.

[commavegarage]

So what's your argument? That Ewing missed arguably the most important shot in his career and for that he shouldn't be considered?

And what will Garnett be remembered for...needing two perennial allstars and a great young PG to finally win or that anything is possible gay shit?

KG is a hundred times better defensively than Ewing was. KG makes his teammates better with his attitude (see Celtics team defensive turnaround). This is the epitome of leadership. Ewing didn't make his teammates better because he was quiet (and out of shape by end of his career). They are even offensively. KG is the better passer.

KG >> Ewing.

It's this team aspect, which is so patently evident with Garnett (Exhibit A: how much better do the Celtics look in this year's playoffs and the 2008 playoffs as opposed to the 2009 playoffs -WHAT'S DIFFERENT?; Exhibit B: the T'Wolves were very good with absolute shit around him, with guys like Spree and Cassell playing the best ball of their careers). It's also this team aspect that makes one reconsider Kareem. He was a piece to surround Magic or Oscar.

That said Kareem is within striking distance of my top 20. Ewing, not so much.

What's different? They have a top 3 PG now. Hands down. No question about it. Rondo is more valuable to the team than Garnett. Rondo was good last year, but he is elite now.

You take Rondo out of this playoff season and there's a good chance the Celtics are sitting at home right now. You take Garnett out of this playoff season and there's a good chance the Celtics are still playing.

You take Garnett off this team and you get last season. Was Rondo a top 3 PG in 2008? Did he just forget in 2009? Garnett is the X factor for the Celtics, and everyone that watches them know it. He's the key. It's not even really debateable.

No. Most people think Rondo is the key, especially right now.

But I'm done with this. I'm obviously not going to change your opinion and you're obviously not going to change mine.

[bignick33]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated that yet, besides posing a question as your "point". It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his leadership and intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

I'd actually suggest that a Derek Jeter fan ought to STFU about statistical comparisons. Garnett's impact on the Celtics is very simlar to Jeter's on the Yankees, despite the fact that his numbers have dropped. Both are leaders. Ewing, not so much.

Thanks.

[commavegarage]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated that yet, besides posing a question as your "point". It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his leadership and intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

I'd actually suggest that a Derek Jeter fan ought to STFU about statistical comparisons. Garnett's impact on the Celtics is very simlar to Jeter's on the Yankees, despite the fact that his numbers have dropped. Both are leaders. Ewing, not so much.

I think you missed the context of this argument. I'm not a Jeter "fan", but it would be downright stupid to argue the fact that he is a quiet leader, which is the point of the statement. Not who was better statistically. BN said that KG is a great leader from his intensity and whatnot and Ewing wasn't. I said yelling on the court isn't the only way to be a leader of a team and cited Jeter as an example.

[twballgame9]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated it yet. It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

No. I don't know. And I don't know how anybody could know. There's no way without actually spending time with both that one could compare the two as leaders. I don't believe in the "intensity changed the team" argument. The team was changed because it went from a one man show to three allstars and added a top 5 PG, not because of one man's "intensity".

Rondo was not a "Top 5 PG" when they won the championship. And if you don't like the immeasurables like leadership, ignore this "best player" thread and stick to the "who was the best statistical player of all time" thread. And immediately admit ARod is better than Jeter because his stats are better (though I would disagree with you, but that's just me).

[bignick33]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated that yet, besides posing a question as your "point". It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his leadership and intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

I'd actually suggest that a Derek Jeter fan ought to STFU about statistical comparisons. Garnett's impact on the Celtics is very simlar to Jeter's on the Yankees, despite the fact that his numbers have dropped. Both are leaders. Ewing, not so much.

I think you missed the context of this argument. I'm not a Jeter "fan", but it would be downright stupid to argue the fact that he is a quiet leader, which is the point of the statement. Not who was better statistically. BN said that KG is a great leader from his intensity and whatnot and Ewing wasn't. I said yelling on the court isn't the only way to be a leader of a team and cited Jeter as an example.

I assume you've spent time in the locker room with Jeter if you're gonna state the opinion that he's a good leader?

[commavegarage]

My point is: How do you know Garnett is such a better leader than Ewing was.

Opinion, obviously, based on observation. Do you disagree with it? If you do, you haven't stated it yet. It's a widely held opinion that KG changed the culture in Boston with his intensity. With his addition, the team went from one of the worst defensive teams in the association to the best.

Let's look at it in a different way. What aspect of Ewing's game was better than KG's?

I'm gonna skip over the Jeter comparison, and save it for TW to tear apart.

No. I don't know. And I don't know how anybody could know. There's no way without actually spending time with both that one could compare the two as leaders. I don't believe in the "intensity changed the team" argument. The team was changed because it went from a one man show to three allstars and added a top 5 PG, not because of one man's "intensity".

Rondo was not a "Top 5 PG" when they won the championship. And if you don't like the immeasurables like leadership, ignore this "best player" thread and stick to the "who was the best statistical player of all time" thread. And immediately admit ARod is better than Jeter because his stats are better (though I would disagree with you, but that's just me).

Are you fucking retarded? I'm not discounting immeasurables, I'm saying it's retarded to think the main reason Boston went from a shitty team to a great team virtually overnight is because of KG's intangibles. It's because they went from one all star to three allstars.