A Case For Boston

[Russ]

Now that the NBA Finals is set (without the Spurs) Spurs fans can root for either team. I'll root for the Celtics (and I think Spurs fans should) for the following reasons:

"Team of the Decade" — The NBA pundits are primed to call the Lakers the NBA's "Team of the Decade" if LA wins this series. They would argue that in this decade the Lakers won four les to the Spurs' three. (The Spurs ‘99 le, they will argue, can't be counted.) Personally, I think the Spurs' accomplishments over the last 10 years have been minimized and disrespected enough without this mortal blow — a Lakers le would allow folks to completely sweep the Spurs' "mini-dynasty" under a big Purple and Gold rug. Trust me, the Spurs' 3 in 5 run would simply be seen as a blip in the middle of the Lakers' "longer" and more "legitimate" run.

The Spurs = the "West's Best" — The Spurs have represented the Western Conference four times and won all four matchups with the Eastern Conference champ. Lately, when the Spurs don't go, the West gets beat, simple as that. In the last 5 years, the Spurs have been the only Western Conference team to win the le. The other two West representatives (LA ‘04 and Dallas ‘06) have lost with the Eastern team "pulling away" as the series progressed. I kinda like that streak — let it continue.

Kobe = the "Anti Spur" — I'll admit I've never liked Kobe Bryant. To me, he represents everything that is wrong with modern sports and, perhaps in an admittedly pretentious sense, what's wrong with the modern world in general. I live and work in LA and I have seen more hypocrisy from my Laker-fan friends as a result of this guy than I can take. Everyone knows that he has no loyalty to the Lakers, the city of LA, or his "supporting cast." (Trust me, it's only a matter of time until he refers to his Olympic teammates as his "supporting cast.") Yet these same otherwise honest folks repress all sense of perspective when, less than a year after Kobe basically tells them to shove it, they gush "Did you see Kobe in the 4th quarter last night?"

In other words, Kobe stands for everything that the Spurs do not. The Spurs stand for everything that Kobe does not — teamwork, modesty, a sense of perspective about ones one role in the universe and one's own accomplishments — even when the world is screaming how important those accomplishments may be. Kobe is the "anti-Spur" — as a Spurs fan I can't root for him.

Garnett, Pierce and Ray — On the other hand, Kevin Garnett (despite his infamous run in[s] with TD), doesn't seem like such a bad guy to me. Unlike Kobe, he was loyal to his organization in Minny even after some suggested that he should be more demanding and outspoken about his situation (again, a lack of "supporting cast"). I'll take Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce over Kobe and Lamar Odom any day.

Phil vs. Doc — I know a lot of us Spurs fans still blame Doc for trying to steal Tim from the Spurs. I know I do. But having said that, I like just about everything else about Doc. He came to SA by choice at the end of his career to try to win a ring. Dennis Rodman basically abandoned the team in the ‘95 playoffs to prove a point and Doc never got that ring. But Doc never complained and never got the credit he should have for conducting all the unofficial "workouts" of the Spurs during the ‘99 strike. He was virtually a coach to that team during the lockout and I believe he had almost as much to do with forming that le team as Pop did after the strike was settled.

On the other hand, we have the smirking Phil Jackson. He presents himself as someone who has a cosmic Zen-like perspective on the day-to-day events of this mundane earth. To demonstrate this he continually misuses big words in a way that makes Mrs. Malaprop look like Daniel Webster. Although I personally think he is the best pro basketball coach the NBA has ever seen, his arrogance overwhelms that in my mind.


So I will pull for the Boston Celtics. In the past I've pulled for the Lakers after they eliminated the Spurs — in ‘02 and ‘04 it was because I wanted to keep the 2000 decade's "Champions Club" small. I've even argued with Spurs fans about this. (I remember in ‘02 after the Lakers eliminated the Spurs, back in the short heyday of LA Spurs GTGs, saying that if we leave our emotions aside and soberly reflect, we will see that it's in the Spurs' interest for the Lakers to win the le. Kori, as I recall, replied "Russ, talking about sober?.")

This time, no way I pull for the Lakers. The only NBA record I want to see the LA Lakers set is an "add on" to the Laker record that will never be broken (like Dimaggio's hitting streak) — the Lakers' all-time record 13 NBA Finals losses.

(14 if you count Minneapolis.)

[Lakers_55]

I'm just going to say that no matter the result, the team of the decade le remains open no matter the result of this series.

First, let's throw you Spurs fans a bone and throw out the Laker le of 1999-2000 and call that belonging to last decade. That puts you up 3-2 but at least we have 4 finals appearances. We also have a 4-1 playoff series edge straight up, so Lakers a bit ahead arguably on the team of this decade le to this date.

However, as I pointed out elsewhere, a Laker finals victory is better for the Spurs. First, you get a chance to dethrone us next year. Second, if Boston does win, people will say, "Not even the Spurs would have beaten those Celtics of 2007-08". I think if you had beaten us in the WCF, you would have gone all the way, getting undisputed dynasty status and a legacy as one of the greatest units of all time.

The decade closes in 2010. A Spurs back-to-back to close it all gets you everything you justifily deserve but haven't fully earned yet. Going to be a fight no matter who emerges in the next few years. Thoughts?

[Russ]

I'm just going to say that no matter the result, the team of the decade le remains open no matter the result of this series.

First, let's throw you Spurs fans a bone and throw out the Laker le of 1999-2000 and call that belonging to last decade. That puts you up 3-2 but at least we have 4 finals appearances. We also have a 4-1 playoff series edge straight up, so Lakers a bit ahead arguably on the team of this decade le to this date.

Hwoever, as I pointed out elsewhere, a Laker finals victory is better for the Spurs. First, you get a chance to dethrone us next year. Second, if Boston does win, people will say, "Not even the Spurs would have beaten those Celtics of 2007-08". I think if you had beaten us in the WCF, you would have gone all the way, getting undisputed dynasty status and a legacy as one of the greatest units of all time.

The decade closes in 2010. A Spurs back-to-back to close it all gets you everything you justifily deserve but haven't fully earned yet. Going to be a fight no matter who emerges in the next few years. Thoughts?

The deciding difference in the Spurs' favor, IMO, is the Lakers' "three years in the wilderness" - 2005 through 2007. The Spurs had no "down time" in the decade even close to that bad.

[Lakers_55]

The deciding difference in the Spurs' favor, IMO, is the Lakers' "three years in the wilderness" - 2005 through 2007. The Spurs had no "down time" in the decade even close to that bad.

Yeah, that was our rebuilding time. We have a tradition of doing that, just as you do. Most teams can't say that. We just did it quicker than expected. Yeah, the team of the decade at this point is open to wide debate, and the decade goes two more full seasons. Only fitting LA and SA meet to decide it in the WCF each of those years. A Laker win against Boston can't give us Team of the Decade status yet, as it isn't over. Really though, that le is meaningless. Lakers have 2 trophies this decade, Spurs 3. That's what they count. If we each keep winning out over each other, we help both our teams and our reputations.

I know it's tough or Spurs fans to root for the Lakers, but if we win when you can't it's better for you. The reverse is just as true. the TooD le, win championships and compare teams later.

[timvp]

Good points, Russ. I'm still undecided on which of the evils to root for but you did a good job campaigning for the Celtics.

[J.T.]

The difference between the Spurs and the Lakers is that the Spurs didn't make under the table deals with franchise player spies they had installed in another team's FO to deal their franchise center to us for next to nothing. The Lakers did, and everything about this season is just one huge

*

[E20]

I wish Doc or Sloan would say that this le run for the Lakers should have an asterisk on it. Let's see what Phil's response to that would be.

[J.T.]

Vuja 's 3 at the end of Game 5 will be karmic doom for the Lakers. The Boston have the Spurs good Finals mojo on their side since they're the first #1 overall seed to make it there since the Spurs did in '03.

[J.T.]

I hate the Celtics, Kevin Garnett, and the city of Boston soooooooo much, but there's not a symbol on my keyboard small enough to represent how small my hate for them is compared to my hate for Kobe, Phil and LA.

[Lakers_55]

After thinking this over, I will now say Spurs are ahead of Team of the decade even if Lakers take it all this year. See, point is, even though we have taken you down 4-1, you would have beaten us had we played 2005-2007. That makes it 4-4. Equal in les, but you have the better regular season results. Let the next 2 years decide it, we are still behind and have to win this year to stay close.

Meanwhile, sorry so many Spurs fans hate us. Once you get to know us, we aren't as bad as we seem. At least the reasonable Laker fans.

[rascal]

Agree with you. I'd rather see the celtics win.

[ducks]

the one good thing is if the lakers win
every team will try to beat the champs
so they would have to play harder each game

[Mulletino]

Beat the out of LA

[Holt's Cat]

I don't really care one way or the other. My loyalty rests with the Spurs. Bandwagon baggery is the stuff of the two teams in the Finals. I will watch some of the games as I am a basketball fan.

That said, here are the cases for rooting for either team, if Spurs fans are so inclined:

Celtics - basically what Russ covered above. I'd add that Paul Pierce has stuck it out in Boston and has been forced to carry some crappy teams for almost 10 years. Plus they're in the other conference. They've been an awesome defensive team and if anything, the focus on defense is very Spur-like. Plus while Boston has bag fans, they aren't as bad as their opponent's bag fanbase. Boston winning the le this year would be like Detroit winning it in '04 or Miami in '06, a one-time win by a team that put it all together at the right time. LA wins and the amount of media fellatio administered to Kolby will be unbearable.

Lakers - Would not the Spurs look a little worse if they were eliminated by a team that wasn't good enough to win the Finals? '04 and '06 were that way. Of course, the Spurs beat the '04 champs the following year. In addition, if the Lakers weren't able to win it all does that change the front office's plan for adjusting the roster heading into next season? In addition, if LA loses perhaps their front office opts to be more aggressive with changes heading into next season.

[Holt's Cat]

Another case for wanting LA to win is that it would end whatever remaining discussion there is about Duncan's greatness relative to Garnett's. If KG can't get it done now, there will be no doubt as to who has been the better player.

[bonesinaz]

I want the Celtics to win. I want to see Kobe cry again and I don't care who does it.

[Ghost Writer]

A case for Boston?

I fully expect them to win.

KG, Allen and Pierce are veteran stars who crave that le that Kobe already won several times.

The schedule and the homecourt will favor the Celts.

[pjjrfan]

I'm going for the Celtics, cause I can't stand Jackson and I have rooted against the Lakers since Wilt and West retired.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

The Laker hate completely dwarfs the Celtics.

and I HATED The Celtics just last week, thanks to the Lakers i didn't realize how much I wanted the Celtics to win until Friday...

Sure the Celtics team can be annoying SOB's , and bizarre at timese, but they seem so benign now in comparison.
Also it's understandable for the Boston fans to be obnoxious since they've basically been forced underground for 23 years.

Meanwhile LA fans....ugh.

[TampaDude]

I ing hate all Boston teams...in a perfect world, the Lakers would SWEEP the Celtics, with every game being a 20+ point blowout, and at least one of Boston's "Big 3" getting ejected in each game. I want Kobe to be the rapist people accuse him of being, except he gets to rape the entire city of Boston. That's what I want.

GO LAKESHOW!!!

BOSTON!!!

[urunobili]

Go Lakers! i want KG to retire ringless! let them have the asterisk!

[DazedAndConfused]

Honestly I can't believe Spur fan would even consider rooting for the Celtics.

Where is your WC pride for god sakes? What is this nonsense?

[GrandeDavid]

F- LA. Go Celts! I probably won't even watch one game, but I will be happy when I hear that Boston has won the championship over that team with the y ass coach and 95% of whose fan base are bandwagoning, miserable loudmouths who have extremely limited basketball knowledge and decency.

[rayray2k8]

I'm rooting for the celtics, only because of KG and Pierce, to with Ray Allen.
I dont think anyone on these 2 teams (Lakers and Celtics) want it more than
KG. This man would die for his team and takes a loss harder than anyone else.

This man was in tears about how hard it was to loss and the fear of not having a
championship in his basketball career.
So I'll pull for KG, meaning, I'll pull for the celtics in the finals.
Looks like a good match up and I'm interested to see who will win.

[TampaDude]

that team with the y ass coach and 95% of whose fan base are bandwagoning, miserable loudmouths who have extremely limited basketball knowledge and decency.

Oh, you mean the 2008 Celtics???