If only the Patriots won…

I grew up loving the Celtics of the 80′s – now I live here it is great to see them finally succeed. What a great year in Boston sports!

DKL – I second the loathing of both Rodman and Jackson

What’s even crazier is that the Celtics covered in all six games! Although anyone betting on the NBA is playing a sucker’s game.

It was delightful to see the Lakers get spanked. I only wish the Celts could have kept the lead above 43 points (where it was a couple of times) to erase the stain of the Utah Jazz 96-54 drubbing in the 1998 finals game 3. Of course that was the year in which Jordan committed an offensive foul in order to hit the series-winning shot. Too bad that Jordan, who certainly didn’t need the help, got the benefit of the doubt on every call. It was during this period that the credibility of the league began to seriously decline. Later things got even worse as Shaquille O’Neal would bowl people over left and right and the stunned defenders picking themselves up off the floor were (maybe eventually not so) surprised to see the whistle-blowing finger pointed at them.

Now we know that at least one official was corrupted and that Jeff Van Gundy was fined $100,000 for telling the truth about league favoritism. Now the league sat idly by while two trades that could charitably be called unfair gave its two historic franchises an unfair advantage over everyone else. Perhaps the only basketball person more imperious than Phil Jackson, and with even less justification, is David Stern.

Not trying to argue or anything – but from what I read, Dennis Rodman has some kind of personality disorder. I mean in a real medical/psychological sense of the phrase.

I kind of loved the idea that he was reviewing tapes to figure out how to better rebound, what side a particular player’s shots were more likely to bounce to, etc. Assuming the reports were true, I would have to say that THAT is sign of true dedication to the craft. To most people, the way a ball bounces would appear to be completely random.

Dennis Rodman has many problems. Rebounding was not one of them. He studied rebounding like pitchers study batters in baseball. I’d even go so far to say that he became so obsessed with rebounding after the Detroit years that the rest of his game suffered a great deal.

Rodman is an interesting study, I think. At least in regards to his basketball game. I’m not referring so much to his off-court antics.

He had tremendous defensive capability as well. He was not just tenacious at guarding a player – but he’d play psychological games as well.

My impression at one point years ago, in a playoffs game, was that he owned Karl Malone.

DKL,

Can you imagine what it would have been like if Walton had been well enough to be working? Of course that raises and interesting question, would he root for his son (and the local team) or for the Celtics, which he played for?

DKL, you’re absolutely right about their scornful comments (regarding Mormons) being out of line. I am not justifying what they said in that instance. Not in the least. And I agree that Phil Jackson’s follow-up was even worse than the original comments.

This is a Celtics fan post about hating the Lakers. Or a Jazz fan posting about past wrongs and hating the Lakers.

In other words, call the waaaaambulance.

What I don’t gets:
1) How we don’t have a post about Tiger winning the U.S. Open on a knee consisting of a torn ACL and 2 fractures. There’s nothing wrong with Paul Piearce’s knee. Shoot I saw that kind of stuff yesterday in the Russia vs. Sweden soccer game.
2) Why the Celtics couldn’t pull this off in 4 straight. The judgment calls were usually in their favor, and the Lakers had no desire to drive to the hoop. Talk about underacheiving.

And the constant Kobe attacks are old. The guy is a jerk in real life, its a given. He is also one of the most competitive people on the planet, which probably makes him a jerk. MJ is a jerk, too, for the same reason. Is he better than MJ? He can do just as much as MJ could, but doesn’t take 40-50 shots a game averaging 30-40%. Frankly, I think he is as good as MJ was, and if he has an obsessive rebounder like Rodman and a competitive forward like Pippen instead of the softy Europeans he has, he would have the same success. Look what he did with Shaq- He dunked on David Robinson and Tim Duncan AT THE SAME TIME- he was a different player.

The Celts are an insanely good team. They have insane talent everywhere and good guys- albeit often underacheiving. It was good to see them win. I’m not the type of person who would say “It was good to see them BEAT L.A.” because that’s just silly. That’s likt the NY Giants Superbowl Party theme this year: 18-1. Not “we won”, but “they lost”. Let’s give the Celts more credit than that.

Embrace da Bulls of yore, embrace Kobe, embrace L.A., embrace the Celts. Sports aren’t devisive, they are meant to show us what human physical and mental potential are under stress. Love game more than the team, people.

Too bad Mark Madsen isn’t on the Celts- we could have seen some good dancing.

nasamomdele, you’re confused. I’m happy the Celtics won, but the fact that they beat the Phil Jackson’s team is nothing more than an added bonus. Nor am I nursing old injuries — I’d dislike Jackson and Rodman even if they’d never played the Jazz. The Mormon incident is just the most elegant example of Jackson being a dick by defending Rodman’s antics.

Furthermore, the Kobe Bryant attacks never get old. He’s a good player, and he’s quite competitive, but you listen to too many sports announcers: “best player on the planet” and “one of the most competitive people on the planet” is nothing more than sports-pundit hyperbole born of a media market that captures a disproportionate amount of basketball-fan mindshare. If Bryant played for Phoenix, nobody would be hailing him as the 2nd coming of the basketball Messiah.

If Bryant gets traded, then it won’t be an alternative universe — he just won’t get much press coverage.

You need to watch more basketball. Darryl Dawkins did all that (against different names), and he’s not even in the Hall of Fame. Maybe you’re right that Pierce only did it for 6 games. That’s still 2 more games than he needed to play to win the championship and 6 more than Bryant played in the finals.

How can you defend saying that Bryant is “one of the most competitive people on the planet” when it’s not even clear would count as evidence that he’s more competitive than someone else who’s also reasonably competitive? Your response would be appropriate if I’d asserted that Bryant is not competitive at all, but it bears no relevance to my assertion that your statement is hyperbole.

And don’t give me this nonsense about ruffling my feathers. I’m not talking about bad private behavior (Magic Johnson was such a horndog that he got HIV out of the deal). I’m talking about public displays of poor sportsmanship, like when Rodman kicked the camera man. That’s not an unreasonable bar. It’s not even a very high bar. Again, you’re trading in irrelevancies.

And it’s just silly of you to accuse me of getting unduly emotionally involved. I started watching basketball for the first time in 10 years because I live in Boston and I heard that the Celtics were in the finals. So I flipped on the TV, and discovered they were playing the Lakers. That made it more interesting, because of the historical rivalry, but I don’t have any real dislike of the Lakers as such. When I saw that Phil Jackson was their coach (apparently he’s been their coach for a while), I thought, “nice!.” Because the only thing better than winning is winning against someone you dislike.

I agree with your both of your assertions (viz., #1 and #2 that you specify). I don’t see that those are inconsistent with my assertion that he’s overrated. Nor does it follow from those that he’s the best player on the planet.

I also think that coaches should draw a line when it comes to sportsmanship. This is professional basketball, and these players are professionals in the sense that an executive at a successful company is a professional — not in the sense that, say, a junior manager is a professional. Specifically, they set the tone and the standard for the game as a game, and their compensation shows this (as it should). They should answer to the highest standards of professionalism in matters that relate to their career, and if they don’t they should be shunned, even by coaches and managers.

This isn’t pie-in-the-sky type stuff I’m talking about here. It’s not like basketball players who behave professionally are saints, role models, or even the kind of person you’d want to invite to your home to have dinner. But when players behave professionally, their games and the events that surround them are remarkable free from inexcusable behavior — behavior that shouldn’t be excused even by a coach.

And it’s not unheard of for coaches to demand a high level of professionalism. Wes Unseld, though he had a lackluster coaching career, demanded a high level of professionalism from his players, even to the point of trading talented players who wouldn’t toe the line. If we prefer Phil Jackson to Wes Unseld simply because Phil Jackson had a better record, then we’ve probably lost site of the fact that athleticism must be shaped by a discipline that encompasses much more than the daily grind of endless practicing and drilling.

I think that the problem with the finals was mostly that the Lakers played bad ball. Even when they led by 24 points in game 4, it was more due to Boston’s poor playing than LA’s good playing. But there’s something to be said for having basketball games like game 6. They allow you to have fun with your friends while you watch the game, and you don’t have to worry about missing a play or two. Though I admit that if every game were like game 6, basketball would really suck.

DKL: “I didn’t follow basketball much this season.”

Have you ever followed basketball? It’s not apparent from your post or the comments that follow. All you demonstrate is a gift for hyperbole and braggadocio.

“You need to watch more basketball.”

“I started watching basketball for the first time in 10 years…”

DKL, you have to admit that someone who could write the above in close proximity within the same comment might not be a person of unimpeachable credibility on the subject.

It’s quite possible to be candid and a braggart at the same time.

I’m no fan of Dawkins, who was a good 1 on 1 player, but was mostly known for breaking backboards. He’s a good comparison to Bryant when it comes to acrobatic feats and the odd good game, which is all Nasamomdele had offered in Bryant’s defense, and that prompted my response. The analogy doesn’t go much further than that. But when you tell me that someone can do a dunk from the foul line, I say “so what?”

But since you agree that Bryant is overrated, let’s get down to brass tacks: what have I said that makes me guilty of bragging in this post?

So there is no real instance of bragging, it’s that my tone bugs you, because it’s not humble.

First of all, I wasn’t lecturing Nasamomdele. We were having a lively exchange. Disagreements between him and me aren’t unusual, and he gives as good as he gets.

Second, your logic about the Dawkins comparison isn’t valid. Your argument takes the following form:

Nasamomdele: Bryant can do x, y, and z, and that makes him the best player on the planet. (This suggests that the a player having x, y, and z is sufficient condition for being the best player on the planet.)

Me: Wrong. Dawkins can do x, y, and z, and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame. (This disproves Nasamomdele’s assertion, by providing a counter example, in which a player who has x, y, and z is not the best the best on the planet.)

You: But Dawkins can’t do a, b, and c. (This is altogether irrelevant.)

(Just to be clear, this is a lecture.)

Third, your irritation at my tone is understandable — lots of people feel it, and I can’t count how many times people come to my posts or comments to try to teach me a lesson of some kind. The problem is that your desire to lecture me about my tone presumes that you have something to teach me. If I were as lacking in humility as you accuse me of being, I’d find that presumptuous and insulting.

Evidently, you need another lecture on logic. Since everything you said about Dawknis was irrelevant, you lost the argument. In fact, you didn’t even made an argument. You just said a bunch of stuff that’s out in left field.

Since I’m a such nice guy (in spite of the tone of my comments and posts), I’ll give you a hint as to how you might be able to win the argument. First, I’ll recap the form of the argument that I outlined earlier:

Nasamomdele: Bryant can do x, y, and z, and that makes him the best player on the planet. (This suggests that the a player having x, y, and z is sufficient condition for being the best player on the planet.)

Me: Wrong. Dawkins can do x, y, and z, and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame. (This disproves Nasamomdele’s assertion, by providing a counter example, in which a player who has x, y, and z is not the best the best on the planet.)

You: But Dawkins can’t do a, b, and c. (This is altogether irrelevant.)

If your argument were “But Dawkins can’t do x, y, and z”, and if you could support it, then you’d have a basis for argument. Until then, you’re grasping at straws.

(It’s funny how frequently I find myself explaining to folks who want to teach me a lesson how they can beat me in an argument. If you end up winning this one, you owe me big time!)

And I don’t mind it that so many people get irritated with me. It’s just the burden I have to carry for being so smart.

Spouting off irrelevancies isn’t arguing. It’s called burning a straw man. But hey, if that’s what you need to tell yourself in order to feel good about this exchange, then far be it from me to disabuse you.

We need to remember also … we don’t root for players and coaches. We root for laundry. If Boston were to sign Roger Clemens at the deadline and he were to go 2-0 in the World Series, all of Boston would cheer for him. If Phil were to go coach the Jazz, he’d be cheered and celebrated. If Kobe were to go win a title in Denver, they’d applaud him (and put away the “NO means NO” signs).

I hated MJ growing up, because he didn’t play for my team. That’s all.

That’s funny! I wish I’d have seen that.

DJ,

Unfortunately, that sequence of events has defined Paul Pierce’s career for me. I lost all respect for him.

“The knee is still sore, but I feel like I can drive past all of the Lakers and throw down 30 tonight.”

He plays soccer in his spare time.

Totally forgot about this thread and my abrupt challenge in #25. Wow, I think I was still smarting from the Lakers defeat. The sting and pain has subsided, but the scars will likely remain forever.

That said, I still found your post lame. I’ll ignore the Phil Jax and Rodman stuff as totally outside the lines of discussion. I’ll just say that I’ve always liked Phil, his bemused Buddha-on-the-mountaintop smile, and his Zen Master / Big Chief Triangle personality, even if it is part affectation. A Phil Jackson interview is infinitely more interesting than an interview with 99% of the rest of the sports world.

As someone who watches roughly 70 Laker games every year, and all Laker playoff games, and someone who also saw at least 20 Celtics games this season, I saw a little more of each team than you did in the lousy and non-competitive six-game finals.

I don’t have time to debunk each of your four points, so I’ll settle on #4: “The Celtics are a much better team than the Lakers this year, outplaying the Lakers even in the games they lost.”

Change “this year” to “this series” and I’ll agree with your statement. But who is the Celtics? The team that dominated the Lakers, or the team that looked like a frosh/soph B squad and barely squeaked past the lowly Hawks? And who are the Lakers? The team that waltzed through the far-more-competitive Western Conference with a 12-3 record, or the team that got shower-raped by the Celtics and their crowd?

My biggest regret is not that the Lakers lost, but that we didn’t get to see the Lakers at their best vs. the Celtics at their best. To me, the finals was more a display of momentum and psychology than athleticism and gamesmanship. The best thing that happened to the Celtics was going from favorites to underdogs. It gave them the necessary chip on their shoulder, the we-have-nothing-to-lose, nobody-believes-in-us attitude to just play Celtic basketball.

Meanwhile, the Lakers were clearly a psychological mess throughout the series, even in their wins. Kobe was playing against the ghosts of You-Can’t-Win-Without-Shaq and the ghosts of You’re-Not-Michael. Phil, Pau, and Lamar each battled their own demons: Red, Soft, and Inconsistency. All of the Lakers were playing the game of Let’s-Not-Choke instead of Let’s-Win.

Finally, while the crowd is always a factor, I don’t think I’ve seen it be a factor to the same degree I saw in these finals. Ever. To say that Boston fed off that rabid crowd, and the Lakers wilted under that unprecedented pressure is an understatement. It looked and felt like the Celtics were 10 feet taller, and 10 speeds faster and played downhill on roller skates, while the Lakers were standing in cement shoes.

You’ll say all of this is just a big excuse. But I’m not making an excuse. Scoreboard. The Celtics beat the Lakers, end of story. The Celtics players deserve a lot of the credit. But with the positive karma surrounding the Celtics, and the negative karma surrounding the Lakers, I’m convinced a team of former Celtic stiffs Greg Kite, Mike Smith, Scott Wedman, Eric Montross, and current stiff Brian Scalabrine could have beat the 2008 Lakers.

In short, I’m not a believer that the best team always wins. Sometimes, “psychology” is the real story, and the better team loses or beats itself (or never shows up), as opposed to the lesser team winning. A few examples:

1988 L.A. Dodgers (one of the worst World Series teams ever) over the Oakland A’s
2002 Patriots over Rams
2008 Giants over Patriots
2006 Heat over Mavericks

In the case of the 2008 Celtics vs. Lakers, I do think the better team won. I thought the Celtics were the better team all season. I just don’t think the Celtics were that much better than the Lakers.

Stick to analyzing religion, politics, wine, and Woody Allen movies…

Matt, that’s just plain silly. The Celtics won more regular season games than the Lakers. The Celtics won more post-season games than the Lakers. The East Coast media markets are saying that the Lakers would have lost to the top-three teams in the East. Your proposal that the Lakers are the better team doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

Your time watching the games seems to have made you reluctant to acquiesce to fallacies below a certain level of sophistication, but it doesn’t seem to have actually taught you much about basketball. I understand that in the reality-distortion-field that is the Los Angeles media market, that kind of dribble plays really well. But if you really want to keep watching the Lakers play some of the sloppiest basketball anywhere and think that they’re hot-hot-hot, nothing I say is going to change your mind.

That said, you still haven’t pointed to anywhere that I’ve been guilty of hyperbole and braggadocio. You’ve argued simply that I’m incorrect — and (ironically) used a great deal of hyperbole and braggadocio in the process.

Matt, psychology is not some accessory to the facts. Psychology is part of what makes a great player/team. If Kobe is playing with baggage, he is less of a player. If the Lakers are playing with baggage, they are less of a team. Great basketball players and teams turn baggage into motivation.

The ghost of “I can’t win without Shaq” should have been Kobe’s greatest motivating factor, not an impediment. If Kobe had maaged to work with his team to beat the Celtics, he would have had that monkey off his back forever.

The East Coast media market isn’t driven by Boston teams (as opposed to New York, DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Atlanta teams). There’s simply no comparison between the East Coast, which encompasses more major metropolitan areas than any other place in the world, and LA’s provincial local media, which would be better suited to a small, rural town than a city purporting to be a world-class metropolis.

“Kobe is the best player on the planet,” “The Lakers are the better team,” “The Celtics victory was an unprecedented upset.” This is not merely incorrect. It’s hyperbole and braggadocio. Shame on you.

Nasamomdele,

It just seems obvious to me that Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen present a core of superstars that the Lakers couldn’t match up to. That’s why I can’t see this as an upset.

Circling back to Mormon Mentality for my fortnightly visit…

Matt said in #45: In the case of the 2008 Celtics vs. Lakers, I do think the better team won. I thought the Celtics were the better team all season. I just don’t think the Celtics were that much better than the Lakers.

DKL said in #47: Your proposal that the Lakers are the better team doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

Wow. At best, it appears you just skimmed my comment.

DKL said, “Your time watching the games seems to have made you reluctant to acquiesce to fallacies below a certain level of sophistication…”

Huh? Does that even make sense?

DKL said, “that kind of dribble plays really well.”

I think you mean “drivel.” Or was that a clever play on words, considering the topic?

DKL, a significant percentage of your post and subsequent comments are hyperbole and braggadocio. Pointing something out that qualifies as such is as simple as throwing a dart at random over my shoulder. Try this: “Kobe Bryant… may be the most overrated man to hold US citizenship.”

I don’t know why you are even questioning this? You deal in hyperbole like Woody deals in neuroses. It is your true medium. You are good at it, and this is why I read you. But denying the fact is either delusional, or just another wink-wink form of hyperbole and braggadocio.

Danithew (#49), I’m more curious by, and interested in, the fickle nature of sports psychology. Kevin Garnett, by all accounts (even Minni and Boston diehards), has always been a psychological mess. With the exception of Karl Malone and Chris Webber, I can’t think of another “big time” player who has wilted under the pressure of big games more than Garnett. Kobe Bryant, by all accounts (even by his worst critics), has always been a psychological rock. His testicular fortitude, his fearlessness, in both big games and big moments, is the part of his game that is most often compared to Michael’s.

We witnessed something pretty extraordinary in the Celtics-Lakers series… one team hitting on all cylinders, playing with a high degree of confidence (the Lakers), get steam-rolled by another team that for three straight series, (especially the first two), were largely out of whack and playing with a very fragile confidence.

It happens in sports, and when it does, ability, skill, etc. of the players and coaches take a back seat to the gale-force winds of psychology.

When DKL’s vaunted “East Coast Media Markets” say that “the Lakers would have lost to the top-three teams in the East,” I would agree, but go one step further… I think they would have lost to the top eight teams in the East. But I’m talking about the version of the Lakers that showed up at the finals, not the version that dominated the superior Western Conference.

I’ve posted twice now on this thread and have yet to proclaim the Lakers a better team than the Celtics. In fact, I’ve said the opposite in both comments. And I didn’t call their loss a fluke. (How could it be, when I said the Celtics were the better team during the regular season?)

Your differences between Garnett and Malone don’t mean much. Garnett has an NBA championship, but so does Brian Scalabrine. Far too many external factors play into who wins a championship and who does not, that making championships a point of comparison between two players is a weak comparison, at best.

I’d put both Garnett and Malone in the Top Five power fowards of all time. But they are notorious choke artists, or lousy 4th quarter, big-game players.

DKL: So you come here every 2 weeks to comment about basketball?”

No, I’m done with basketball. Not sure I’ll even watch the Olympic team. The Boston Massacre shattered my once solid psyche. I need to de-tox for at least 3-4 months before I can watch again.

DKL: Show us some love, and come here to argue a bit more often!

Yeah, Mormon Mentality used to be part of my half-dozen Morm-blog rotation. I think I was a Top 15 Commenter, once upon a time. I was hoping such status would give me some VIP privliges, like, I don’t know, a cool icon that would appear next to my name when I commented, or maybe a certificate I could hang on my wall next to my degrees, or a button I could wear on my chest. But I’m guessing I’ve now dropped out of the Top 30.

As for MM, I like your blog’s willingness to veer off-topic into random minutia and esoterica. I’m not a fan of “thread jack police”. To me, once a blog post has been posted, the Commenters should have free reign. It should be an organic thing. So if someone posts about Joseph’s peep stones, and that triggers someone’s memory about passing kidney stones, which then veers into a discussion of the Rolling Stones, and whether “Emotional Rescue” is brilliant for its shameless excess, or a complete sell out (I say the former), well, then so be it.

But the blog has felt a little stale to me lately. None of the topics have been grabbing me. (But hey, it’s probably just me.) So now I circle back fortnightly to see what you and Devyn are writing. And what happened to Bowman?