Re: Could it be any better?

[JB <james.metz@verizon.net>]

   "Could the team have a better season?"
       Bird
        ***********

   I used to love rhetorical questions, because, of course, by their nature,
there is no correct answer. Once I became a soldier in the work force of
life, they were not always so welcome. Often, it seemed, some pest was
wasting my time, or testing me; but, patience is a virtue and I know Bill is
truly enthused, as well he should be and I'm marching right behind him.
Pests of a feather........
   There is a pretty good analysis, on the playoff possibilities, in today's
Peter May column in the Globe:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/097/sports/Celtics_looking_aheadP.shtml

''We know we're not going to catch New Jersey,'' coach Jim O'Brien said.
''But we have an interest in catching Detroit. And we have an interest in
keeping one of the top four spots.''

They are in good shape to at least stay at No. 3, because they lead No. 4
Orlando by 21/2 games and No. 5 Charlotte by three.

They also have the first tie-breaker against both teams, having beaten
Orlando three out of four and the Hornets two out of three.
      
   If David Stern has any influence, as he is accused of having, during
draft lottery time (won't we all be watching the Knicks? Do you think
"Arthur Anderson" will be auditing the proceedings?), I have a feeling, that
he would prefer the natural and geographical rivalries, being herein
proposed, that are shaping up quite nicely.
   N.J. should play  Indiana. There really isn't much at stake here for the
league, but Toronto might be considered a weak franchise and even without
marquee Carter, get the commissioners nod, but for pure buzz and marquee
value, we have the three man tag team of  tough guys; Ron Artest, Brad
Miller and Jermaine O'Niel, going against the league leader and closing in
on the all-time record for flagrant fouls in a single season; Kenyon Martin.
What a perfect opportunity for media hype.
   Beyond that, it should be easy. Detroit/Milwaukee; just across the lake.
Charlotte/Orlando; the southern thang. Boston/Philly; do we even have to
analyze that one? 
   Can you imagine the media frenzy, on the East coast, for Sixers/Celtics?
Bird/Erving, Parish/Malone, McHale/Jones, D.J. trying to turn off the
microwave, Daryl Dawkins smashing backboards, Tiny splitting the lane? Oh,
will that be fun and glory.......................................
............................. What? You're saying those players have
retired? You mean we have to watch today's NBA ? Walker and Pierce forcing
shots into traffic ? Iverson jacking up 11-35 and getting 40, by scoring 18
points at the line?  The Celtics getting out rebounded 55-24? Both teams
having less than 10 assists?
   In other words, all those titles that Red dragged home don't mean shit.
We should expect an unselfish, hard working team on the floor at all times
and this bunch has given us every reason to expect same. They can do it.
They had better do it. With the right attitude, we could be the fodder, to
be fed to the Western conference champ. I'm rooting for it, I want to see
it, and if it doesn't happen it will be O'Brien's or Wallace's or Walker's
fault and I'll rip em.
  All joking aside, it should be a good show. Bring on the Sixers.
   By the way, if we do make the finals, will they let Vitaly wear cleats? I
don't mean metal cleats, I mean the rubber ones, like we used to wear in
little league. I don't want to be stepping on anyone's toes here, but Red
would have always looked to exploit every possible opponent's weakness.

 JB

Link to current standings:
http://archive.sportserver.com/newsroom/sports/bkb/1995/nba/nba/stat/2000-01
confstands_lo.html



                Unchain My Heart !



on 4/7/02 5:13 AM, bird at birdwl@earthlink.net wrote:

> Could the team have a better season?  Eliminating the playoff drought,
> sweeping LA -- it just doesn't get any better than that for me.  Sure,
> they could have won more games, but you've got to leave them some goals
> for the regular season next year.  Now, perhaps, comes the new era, an era
> where we are actually concerned with the playoffs, because we're in 'em.
> I'm not saying the team ought to concentrate on the playoffs to the
> exclusion of the regular season next year, as the reg season obviously
> determines playoff seeds, but maybe, just maybe we've turned the corner
> and the playoffs will be a familar arena.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe the Boston Celtics are finally, once again, at least a
> playoff team.  Of course, respect and a real title of "playoff team" can
> be applied when the team wins a playoff series, either this year or next.
> Anyway, this is all I've wanted for some time now.  Sure, championships
> are the ultimate goal, but you've got to crawl before you can walk, and
> walk before you can run.  The way I see it, we've have three good
> championship runs (Russel's teams -- obviously, Havilcek, Cowens and the
> boys in the Seventies, and then Bird, and then Parish and McHale in the
> Eighties).  Other franchises can't compare.  Sure, the Lakers had even
> more runs (maybe four or five) but don't have near the total amount of
> rings (who does?), and they've wanted to distance themselves from their
> Minneapolis roots for some time so I say let them.  Chicago had their one
> good run, Portland had one, Knicks had one or two, Rockets, etc.  I'm not
> saying these teams can't compete again for a championship -- I sure would
> like to see the Celtics do so -- but if the Boston Celtics never won an
> NBA championship again, the franchise would still be a part of history --
> and the best part of basketball history.
> 
> Anyway, the playoff scene's still murky, but it''s likely Charlotte, or
> Milwaukee, or Philly will be the foe.  I'll tell you who I'd like to face:
> Orlando.  Or Toronto.  But the latter ain't gonna happen, and I don't
> think Orlando will slip enough either.  The three likeliest teams are all
> dangerous.  Charlotte's on a surge, but have the monkey wrench of their
> (lack of) homecourt advantage -- even when they're playing at home,
> because of the lack of fans in the seats.  But that means they've become
> an even better road team.  Dangerous for a playoff team with the homecourt.
> The Hornets have guys who have been there before and Mashburn just
> recently returned.  They're the East's sleeper, I think, not unlike last
> year.
> 
> And who knows, Philly could be it together, *and* they seem to match up
> well against us.  Except when the C's take Tommy's advice and draw Motumbo
> out.  Iverson's going to return for the playoffs, isn't he?  Philly's
> dangerous, but I don't think they'll burst out of the East.  Not much
> consolation if they beat us in the first round, though.  Then there's the
> Bucks.  Formerly a good team, and maybe they still are.  What a slide,
> though: from Division-leading almost all year, to a possible seventh seed.
> Yes, they may just have gotten tired with George Karl and given up on
> him.  Still, if the Big Three break out and/or Anthony Mason starts
> fitting in well, they could win a series or two.  But I have this feeling
> they've really given up.  Oh, they won't admit it publicly, maybe they don'
> t admit it to each other or even themselves, but I think their lethargy
> will hurt them most in an area that wasn't all that tight to begin with:
> defense.  They may still score a lot of points, maybe out of professional
> or personal pride, but I think they might roll over when it comes to
> playing at the other end.  That seems to match well with a Boston Celtics
> team that can, at times, compete or surpass them offensively, and also can
> be better defenders.
> 
> I guess I think they have the best chance against the Bucks.  But it'll
> just be great watching the C's in the second season.
> 
> Bird