Respectively disagree with Reed. To my mind this is without question the NBA's classic rivalry, and goes back much further in time and is much richer in drama than Red Sox-Yankees, which (as we've discussed before) essentially dates to the Bucky Dent game, notwithstanding all of ESPN's hype.

The Celtics' overall record in the finals (16-3) is such that their record against anyone is by definition going to be very good, and this particular paring is almost twice as common as any other in the history of the league (the next most common being Sixers/Lakers (6 times), but only if one throws in the Syracuse Nats as the Sixers predecessors.

Celtics/Lakers also spans multiple generations in both sporting and real-life terms:

The pre-Russell Cousy Celtics vs the Mikan Lakers (late 50s)
The Cousy/Russell Celtics vs the pre-Wilt Lakers (early 60s)
The Russell/Havlicek/Jones(2) Celtics vs Wilt's Lakers (mid to late 60s)
Magic vs Bird (mid 80s)
Kobe vs The Big Three (late 00s)

It also is the setting for the two most compelling individual rivalries in the history of the sport: Russell/Chamberlin and Magic/Bird.

I knew when Pierce did the Willis Reed thing it would be a lift. I knew when Pierce hit the 2 3's it would be a major lift. But when I saw Pierce on that exercise bike while getting cheered on in the middle of the crowd, I knew the game was over.

Reed - Not one of your prouder moments. You're alone on that island. All of your points come up short.

Even if two teams met 9 times with one team going 9-0, it could still be a major rivalry. The Yankees winning 21 titles and the Red Sox none during those 86 years meant they didn't have a rivalry ?

Not only did they meet 9 (nine) times in a championship, but the two teams have been in exactly half of every Finals ever played.

And even though it was before I was born, I know all about Bill Russell v Wilt The Stilt. Anytime any team gets a repeat or a threepeat, it always goes back to the fact that they're only 33% of the way towards what the Celtics did during the 60s.

QUOTE:
I think back on the old board I contribued to the NBA thread by saying that Celtics of Boston would definitely not win the NBA title this year.

I just wanted to remind everyone so when I'm wrong you know who to gloat at. I won't be though.

I'm having a hard time deciding if I should stand behind this statement or not.

I can't really care that much about this series, but I think my dislike for Kobe outweighs my generic dislike for the Celtics. If Kobe gets hurt and LA Still wins, that's okay by me.

I guess I think Garnett deserves a ring, as for so many years he looked cursed never to get one.

What the hell kind of knee injury has you being wheeled down into the locker room and then sprinting back onto the court two minutes later? I guess that was karma for me jumping around and whooping when it looked like Pierce was going to be fitted with a top of the line Rascal scooter.

One game, I'm not worried. I am worried that the Lakers showed no inside presence at all, especially defensively--how many times did Garnett jump over Odom and Gasol to get an offensive rebound like they weren't there at all? In that shot of Pierce riding on the exercise bike, there were two pasty, whiter-than-skim milk Celtics fans behind him in the shot going crazy, one of them seen mouthing "That's my boy!" That, my friends, is the enemy.

That actually happened to me, but with an ankle. I was jumping up on a basketball court, when a guy's ankle came down on my ankle. He stepped on it as I twisted it, and all I heard was POP. I didn't have health insurance at the time, so I was petrified. It swelled to the size of a baseball, and I knew it would be trouble.

The next day, no swelling, no pain, good as new. Sometimes it just works like that.

Getting back to the numerous "Lakers in 5" in the media (not here, of course,) I'm not too sure why so many are picking that. We all know what happened to the Lakers the last time they were supposed to sweep somebody in the Finals, and the Celts did sweep the regular season series.

I'm betting on Pierce to ruin Big Brown's Triple Crown dream in the Belmont.

jason voorhees wrote:

QUOTE:
Getting back to the numerous "Lakers in 5" in the media (not here, of course,) I'm not too sure why so many are picking that. We all know what happened to the Lakers the last time they were supposed to sweep somebody in the Finals, and the Celts did sweep the regular season series.

This is something I don't get--who are all the people in the media picking the Lakers? People on ESPN? Why listen to them to begin with? I never really got this in 2004, either. Sure, I know the Lakers were favored, but that team was worse the 2000-2002 teams.

I can understand a feeling that the Lakers will win, but I don't see or hear this overwhelming chorus of people proclaiming that the Lakers will win. It seems like a very useful "us against the world" narrative for Boston now, and the Pistons then, to use.

QUOTE:
Respectively disagree with Reed. To my mind this is without question the NBA's classic rivalry, and goes back much further in time and is much richer in drama than Red Sox-Yankees, which (as we've discussed before) essentially dates to the Bucky Dent game, notwithstanding all of ESPN's hype.

The Yankees have been playing the Red Sox for about 100 years. The LA Lakers have only existed for about 50.

New York and Boston have been rivals as cities for about 300 years.

Hardly anybody really cared about the NBA until the early 80s. So if you're not going to count the pre-Bucky Dent era, you can't count the pre-Bird/Magic era.

Of course, it's basketball, so I'm unable to perceive any rich drama therein.

QUOTE:
Even if two teams met 9 times with one team going 9-0, it could still be a major rivalry. The Yankees winning 21 titles and the Red Sox none during those 86 years meant they didn't have a rivalry ?

That's true, but the Yankees-Red Sox series pulls in a lot of mutual animosity about the cities themselves. LA and Boston are not really regional rivals.

For a cross-country rivalry to really count, I think, it needs to have some back and forth, which this one only had for a few years in the 1980s. The Red Sox-Yankees play each other many times every year, so it's always going back and forth throughout the year, every year, even if it has usually ended up one way.

The Celtics and Lakers hardly play each other during the regular season and can only meet in the playoffs at the end so the rivalry loses steam after a 20 year hiatus.

Besides, I don't think the Yankees-Red Sox is all that great of a rivalry. As far as I can tell, until 2004, only the Red Sox fans really cared about it. The Yankees fans seemed to think that something like a rivalry was beneath their station.

Now it's sort of a rivalry by default. Nobody else can come close to matching their pay rolls except the Mets, but they're in a different league so this is the one ESPN has latched on to.

QUOTE:
This is something I don't get--who are all the people in the media picking the Lakers? People on ESPN? Why listen to them to begin with? I never really got this in 2004, either. Sure, I know the Lakers were favored, but that team was worse the 2000-2002 teams.

The people on ESPN (TV and online) and on SI were picking the Lakers to make short work of the Celtics. I think this is b/c (a) Phil v. Doc is a very one-sided coaching match-up; (b) the media has been hyping Kobe as MJ for years, they buy their own hype, and if Kobe was MJ, he'd win this one; and (c) the Lakers have rolled in the playoffs against superior competition, while the Celtics have relatively struggled.

I picked the Lakers in 5 b/c (a) it generally (though not in 2004) helps to have a player in a short series that can absolutely dominate, and the Celtics don't really have one, as great as he is, Garnett is more consistently good than dominating; (b) the Celtics great defensive advantage is against great PGs and traditional centers, neither of which the Lakers have, and so the advantage is reduced; (c) prior to last night, I would have said that the Celtics would need to play Posey 40 minutes to contain Kobe, which would mean sitting Allen more than Rivers would be willing; (d) Phil v. Doc is a huge mismatch); and (e) I always expect the worst to happen.

On the rivalry point, I think the argument is really one of semantics, with Reed having a higher bar for declaring something a truly great rivalry. Reed, would you say that most great rivalries in American sports occur in college, where teams are generally close in location, pull from the same talent base and have competed over and over in tight competition for decades?

QUOTE:
The Celtics and Lakers hardly play each other during the regular season and can only meet in the playoffs at the end so the rivalry loses steam after a 20 year hiatus.

I think them playing infrequently, and meeting in the playoffs only in the Finals raises the stakes. I could care less about the Yanks/Sox (or any other baseball rivalry) because they play each other so often.

QUOTE:
On the rivalry point, I think the argument is really one of semantics, with Reed having a higher bar for declaring something a truly great rivalry. Reed, would you say that most great rivalries in American sports occur in college, where teams are generally close in location, pull from the same talent base and have competed over and over in tight competition for decades?

I would agree with that. I think good pro rivalries are usually transient and therefore cannot ever be classic. Patriots-Colts now, Raiders-Steelers in the 1970s, Avalanche-Red Wings a few years ago. Even the Ravens and Titans had a pretty good thing for a short spell.

However, regional rivalries seem so maintain their animosity even if the teams aren't good at the time. Eagles-Giants, Montreal-Toronto in anything, Devils-Rangers, etc. These would be rivalries regardless of the teams involved.

Also there are some teams that aren't so much rivals as simply the objects of universal and justified hatred. Washington thinks the Cowboys are its great rivals, but I don't think Redskins fans hate the Cowboys any more than anybody else. Same with the Yankees.

Yes. Boston fans don't care about the Lakers and Lakers fans don't care about Boston.

That's why Jack Nicholson banned anyone from wearing Celtics shirts on the film set of The Departed.

That's why from the USA Today 'A sign in the TD Banknorth Garden featured a scowling Jack Nicholson with the words, "L.A. Can't Handle the Truth."
It's a play off Nicholson's famous line from A Few Good Men; "The Truth" is the nickname of Boston Celtics forward Paul Pierce.'

Right, I'm about to throw a huge elephant into the room, and I'm sorry if it's utterly inappropriate, but was there ever a time where the Celtics-Lakers thing was based on the racial makeup of the players? Only I remember when Larry Bird was Boston's main player, he seemed to be Boston's top hero not only because he was brilliant but because he was the last great white American baller? I saw the highlights of the opening finals game and all of Boston's players this year were distinctly not of an Irish-American background?

I'm probably poking at a fire that doesn't exist, don't flame me for suggesting it, just wondered if there ever was a factor in supporting one or the other about race?

Man, I could write for about an hour trying to answer all of that.

The Boston Red Sox were the last baseball team to have a black player and the city had a lot of racial tension through the 1970s with school busing, but for Celtics fans, Bill Russell is a god to them, and the teams in the 80s had Robert Parrish and Dennis Johnson.

Black players have long complained about Boston being racist, though.

On the other hand, here's a JA Adande story on the Celtics and race.