Blown leads

[Eric Albert]

>Peter Delevett <pdelevett at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry, Eric, I mean: "Gosh, isn't it great the Celtics
>keep blowing big leads and having to barely win games
>down the stretch? It sure fills me with confidence
>that if they can make it past the Pistons, they'll
>have no trouble at all against a Lakers team that's
>11-3 in the playoffs against teams that are generally
>far superior to the teams Boston has struggled to
>beat. But don't worry, because the Celtics are great
>and anybody who points out the team's shortcomings or
>worries about whether they can win it all is a
>nattering nabob of negativism."
>
>Gotta go, I'm getting Red's image tattoed on my
>cheekbone. 

Cool! And a nice parody of my position.

Which, in actuality, is this: I expect the Celtics will
have no end of trouble making it past the Lakers. And
it won't break my heart if the C's fail -- 66 wins and
a trip to the Finals sounds pretty darn good to me.
If someone had promised me that last season, or even
at the beginning of this season, I'd have been delirious
with joy. What I'm saying is: Count your blessings.

But while I'm here, let me engage your argument.
True, the Celtics barely beat the Hawks, barely beat
the Cavaliers, and are not out of the woods with the
Pistons. But why focus on the "barely"? Why not on
the "beat"?

Everyone seems to agree that the Cavaliers are
better than the Hawks, and the Pistons better than
the Cavaliers. Maybe the C's are "just" getting by each
team, but, if so, that means they're getting better each
series. They're learning about themselves, and how to
play together in the playoffs, just like they say.

So, no, I don't expect a series against the Lakers to be
a walk in the park. But here's my question: if the C's
happen to "just" beat the Lakers, to barely squeak by,
winning Game 7 by two points after leading earlier by
twenty . . . will you respect them? Will you be happy?

-- Eric