If you’re a Lakers fan going back into the 1960s, you wish only defeat and disaster for the Boston Celtics. They inflicted a lifetime’s worth of misery on the Lakers franchise in that decade; the Russell-Jones-Havlicek Celtics defeated the Lakers no fewer than six times in the NBA Finals between 1962 and 1969. And three of those six Finals went to seven agonizing games.
If you remember any of that, you’re in your 50s.
Fans don’t have to be that old to still loathe the Celtics. The teams met three times in the finals in the 1980s, with the Lakers winning twice — once on the Boston Garden parquet. Those were nasty, violent series, with the Bird-McHale-Parish Celtics trying to beat up the finesse-oriented Lakers.
So you could be in your late 30s and still hold animus toward the guys in green.
But if you think this through, 50-ish fan or thirtysomething, you may just find yourself rooting for the Celtics to reach the NBA Finals this year. If not rooting for them, at least not rooting against them. For a couple of very good reasons.
1. A Celtics-Lakers championship series would be hee-yuge. Waking up the echoes, and all, of the league’s most heated rivalry. It would generate an amazing level of buzz. And would could be sweeter for the Lakers (and their fans) than taking down the Celtics in the Finals? Which also would enable Phil Jackson to pass the haughty Red Auerbach for Most Coaching Titles.
2. I’m worried that the Detroit Pistons might actually be a tougher matchup for the Lakers than would be the Celts.
Detroit just won at Boston last night. LeBron James and Cleveland couldn’t do that in four tries.
The Pistons look like a younger, deeper, more athletic team than the Celtics. Actually, they look like a younger and more athletic version of the San Antonio Spurs. All the playoffs smarts, but they run and jump better. They look dangerous.
Yes, the Lakers fared better vs. the Pistons during the regular season than they did vs. the Celts. The Lakers won 103-91 on Nov. 16, and lost only 90-89 at Detroit on Jan. 31, on a three-pointer by Tayshaun Prince with 4.5 seconds to play — the day before the Pau Gasol trade.
Meanwhile, the Celtics abused the Lakers twice, 107-93 at Boston on Nov. 23 and 110-91 at Staples on Dec. 30.
But the Lakers haven’t won at Detroit since 2002, a stretch of nine consecutive defeats that includes three from the 2004 Finals — won by the Pistons in five games with pretty much the same team they’re still running out there.
The Pistons look lean and hungry. The Celtics have a feeling of past-their-peak, getting-exposed to them. Plus, none of their key players ever has won an NBA title. I think the Lakers at this point match up with them better than the Pistons.
But when you’ve had a lifetime of wishing ill on the Boston Celtics, it’s hard to all of a sudden hope that Ray Allen finally finds his jump shot. In fact, last night, I was pulling for the Pistons, out of anti-Celtics habit … before my brain clicked into gear and overcame natural emotion.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Damian // May 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM
While I agree Lakers-Celtics would be the ideal NBA Finals to watch, bringing back the old-school vibe and feelings from the best rivalry that will ever be in the NBA, I can’t find it excusable in my brain, heart or soul to root for the Celtics to ever have a positive experience on or off the floor. I want them to suffer and despair as often as possible.
I was watching the game last night and though I am hoping for the Celtics to get to the finals — as long as the Lakers get there — I still found myself naturally and unabashedly rooting for Detroit and happy to see the Pistons won that game, even though the Lakers have their own negative history with the Pistons, having lost 2 of their 3 NBA Finals meetings.
About the only thing I could ever say about the Celtics that may sound remotely postive is that their 80’s team and the Lakers 80’s team are the 2 best teams I’ve ever seen, and the two best there ever was, in pro basketball.
The Celtics of the 60’s played when there were something like 2 teams in the NBA; the league-wide level of competition was not there and so those Celtics teams were rarely tested. Bill Russell could not be able to contend with a Kareem sky-hook, the only block-proof shot ever.
Both mid-80’s Lakers and Celtics teams would wipe out any of Jordan’s Bulls teams in 6 games, max. The Bulls won largely because of NBA expansion, the ensuing dilution of talent and the blooming of free agency as other teams lost key players, and Jordan skipped out to be a baseball bust just in time as the Hakeem-led Rockets rose up to become what would have been the Bulls’ best NBA Finals competition. Instead, the Bulls got to beat on mediocre NBA Finals teams like an injured Lakers team with a rookie center named Vlade, the Blazers, Suns (which didn’t play defense back then either) and squeaked by the Sonics and Jazz, one year thanks to the blatant Jordan push-off offensive foul on B-Russell that was never called.
I am proud to say the 80’s Lakers beat the 80’s Celtics 2 out of 3 years in the Finals, and will forever hold that advantage. My one goal for Kobe, before he retires, is to win enough titles to put the Lakers over the Celtics in all-time championships. Kobe and Bynum, make this happen!
2 DPLassen // May 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Of course, if you’re in the local media, the question boils down to this: A trip to Boston, or to Detroit?
Go Celtics.
3 nickj // May 24, 2008 at 10:39 AM
never. i hate boston area fans and would love to see them choke like the pats did
4 DPope // May 24, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Remember when Larry Bird’s head bounced off the floor in the 1991 Playoffs? That was great.
5 Char Ham // May 25, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I like the comment on NPR about the possibility (it better happen) of the Lakers-Celtics finals. If you’re David Stern, you’re probably sticking pins in the Pistons & Spurs dolls because you want huge TV ratings & a better fan following. Would you blame him?
Leave a Comment