Boston's Worst Nightmare

I don't think anything or anyone is going to stand in the way of the Celtics' march to the 2008 NBA Championship. Still, it warms this Boston-haters' heart to know that the thoroughly mediocre Wizards seem to have their number.

That said, I find that my distaste for the Hub is actually on the decline. It was very frustrating to me to constantly be hearing Kevin Garnett blamed for the Timberwolves' problems (he didn't have enough "leadership" it seems) when it was eminently clear that he was one of the top players in the game and just saddled with terrible teammates. This year, I think he's gotten his vindication and that's all to the good, even if it does bring cheer to the undeserving people of Massachusetts.

Comments

Since at this point in the season, Boston has nothing to play for, foregive me if I don't view last night's Wizards win as any more significant than last night's Sixers win over Detroit.

Posted by Dantheman | April 10, 2008 4:41 PM

With Kansas winning the NCAAs this week, I have two nagging questions:

(1) Shouldn't Paul Pierce be a bigger star than he is?

(2) How did Roy Williams fail to win a national title with a team with Paul Pierce on it (especially 1997)?

Posted by dry_fish | April 10, 2008 4:44 PM

Maybe Roy Williams is overrated as a coach.

Posted by mpowell | April 10, 2008 4:54 PM

Matt,
What's up with your hatred of Boston teams? Or is it just that you hate Bostonians or Boston sports fans? For what it's worth, from one Celtics/Sox fan out of several here, this Celtics team is not only really good but really likable as a group of adult men. I could understand hating this team if we had some egomaniac like Kobe or a bunch of lazy goons like the Knicks, but what's not to like about the sage veterans or the hardworking kids like Leon Powe? I'd compare this Celtics team to the Yankees teams of the late '90s: the were actually fairly likable despite being dominant, whereas the 2003-2007 Yankees had enough a-holes and juicers to make their dominance seem grotesque and purchased rather than admirable and achieved. These Celtics are really good, and they're good guys. What's not to like, that they're playing in Boston? Grow up.

Posted by tinisoli | April 10, 2008 5:00 PM

How sharper than a serpent's tooth . . .

What did the good people of Massachusetts ever do to you? Didn't you go to college here? We've paid the price of sports hubris with a Superbowl defeat. We waited an agonizing 86 years between World Series wins (1918-2004). It's been 22 years since the last Celtics championship. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson collect social security now. Give me a break . . .

Posted by Martin | April 10, 2008 5:01 PM

As a resident of Minnesota, nothing would make me happier than to see Garnett on the championship team this year.

Posted by Chris O. | April 10, 2008 5:06 PM

mpowell,

I'm beginning to think so.

Posted by dry_fish | April 10, 2008 5:06 PM

"Maybe Roy Williams is overrated as a coach."

Bite me.

This past week's unpleasantness notwithstanding, there are but 4 coaches who have won championships in the last 4 years, and one of 'ems name is Roy ...

Posted by drinkof | April 10, 2008 5:07 PM

(2) How did Roy Williams fail to win a national title with a team with Paul Pierce on it (especially 1997)?

That's good question. Four of the five starters from that Kansas team are still in the NBA. Sure three of them are scrubs but it's ten years later and they're still in the NBA.

Also note Roy won the title at NC a few years ago with Matt Doherty's recruits; this year Self had his at Kansas and Roy had his at NC. Something to ponder.

(Apologies to MY for the college basketball stuff.)

Posted by Mike | April 10, 2008 5:09 PM

The Celtics are obviously a very good team, but I tend to think there is a certain amount of irreducible uncertainty about how well new-found regular season success will translate to the playoffs.

Plus, I'm a Pistons fan.

Posted by DTM | April 10, 2008 5:09 PM

i like sam cassell as much as the next guy, and i certainly agree that rondo, the big question mark coming into the season, has done quite well, but still, i'm not sure why matthew is so convinced that a 1-guard combo of rondo/cassell (2008 version) is guaranteed championship material....

Posted by howard | April 10, 2008 5:09 PM

Individually the Celtics are great guys, but come you guys, you don't understand rooting against Boston teams with everything they've been winning? Sure they lost the Super Bowl... but even then they were in the Super Bowl. Think of all the cities who haven't even sniffed a remote shot at a title in any sport decades. Minneapolis, Portland, Cincinnati, the Bay Area (when was the last 49er title? Early 90s?), Atlanta, etc... Even cities like Seattle and Cleveland we're just playing the foil for the inevitable champs.

I can't think of any fans who've had it as good as Boston sports fans over the last 5 or 6 years. Of course the rest of the country is going to root against you. Nothing personal.

Posted by matthewcc | April 10, 2008 5:11 PM

As a Bostonian I was prepared to be insulted, but realize I have no idea what you're talking about. Timberwolves? I suppose it's a sports thing. (I do know the Celtics are basketball. Isn't that season over?)

Posted by Deborah | April 10, 2008 5:14 PM

Mike, whats to ponder? Williams team won 30 games and got to the Final Four, where the lost to the eventual champion. Only one team can win, and this year it was Kansas. It doesn't mean North Carolina isn't an excellent team under Williams, or even that they were overrated. Kansas was just playing really, really great basketball.

Posted by matthewcc | April 10, 2008 5:15 PM

Maybe Roy Williams is overrated as a coach.

I'm a North Carolina fan, but I think this is correct. He was always overrated at Kansas - was never able to win the big games. It's remained that way to some extent at UNC.

That said - if you remember the 1997 season, Kansas was eliminated by the Mike Bibby-led Arizona team, which had 3 pros (Bibby, Miles Simon, and Michael Dickerson). And that team was red hot in the tournament and won the championship. Kansas's team was good that year, but it wasn't really Pierce's team - it was Scot Pollard and Raef LaFrentz's team, and those guys have always been overrated too.

Posted by Al | April 10, 2008 5:18 PM

I'm a North Carolina fan

Much is explained.

Posted by Gabriel | April 10, 2008 5:20 PM

I can understand hating the Patriots. I live in Boston and I've grown to loathe them... and there are real reasons for it.

But the Celts and the Sox? Hating them is just rank jealousy.

Posted by Jay | April 10, 2008 5:21 PM

"This past week's unpleasantness notwithstanding, there are but 4 coaches who have won championships in the last 4 years, and one of 'ems name is Roy ..."

That's only true if there were in fact two seperate, identical men named "Billy."

Posted by Just Another Greg | April 10, 2008 5:24 PM

I thought the east coast media bias only existed in college sports.

The team that survives the gauntlet of the western playoffs beats the beats the Celts in six.

Posted by Sebastian | April 10, 2008 5:29 PM

Why hate Boston sports? Easy - overexposure. When the Sox won the Series the first time, all members of the sports watching world were subjected to countless retellings of their long drought and the passion of the Boston fanbase, etc. Then they emerge as the only consistently good team in baseball over the next few years, capping it off with another championship. And of course, the Pats have been the golden boys of the NFL for the last 5 years. Boston was tops in two of the three major sports leagues, and then suddenly the abysmal Celtics get turned around and are apparently on the road to a championship berth... With this embarassment of riches, comes the attendant never ending loathing of the rest of sports consumerdom. For other examples of this phenomenon, see the way the Yankees were derided throughout the late 90's by everyone, the way the Duke Blue Devils are hated, the way many people react to the San Antonio Spurs, ad infinitum.

Posted by C | April 10, 2008 5:30 PM

Why hate Boston sports? Easy - overexposure. When the Sox won the Series the first time, all members of the sports watching world were subjected to countless retellings of their long drought and the passion of the Boston fanbase, etc. Then they emerge as the only consistently good team in baseball over the next few years, capping it off with another championship. And of course, the Pats have been the golden boys of the NFL for the last 5 years. Boston was tops in two of the three major sports leagues, and then suddenly the abysmal Celtics get turned around and are apparently on the road to a championship berth... With this embarassment of riches, comes the attendant never ending loathing of the rest of sports consumerdom. For other examples of this phenomenon, see the way the Yankees were derided throughout the late 90's by everyone, the way the Duke Blue Devils are hated, the way many people react to the San Antonio Spurs, ad infinitum.

Posted by C | April 10, 2008 5:31 PM

Dantheman,

If "Boston has nothing to play for", why did Garnett play 31 minutes (going late into the 4th quarter, and both Paul Pierce and Ray "Grandpa" Allen play 37 minutes? Admit it--the Celtics played long, played hard, and got beat.

This is the reason why America loves it when Bahstan loses. Freakin' insufferably smug fans.

Posted by ben | April 10, 2008 5:32 PM

Freakin' insufferably smug fans.

No, it's the embarrassment of riches and the exposure of Boston(ian fans/media). There are incredibly smug Boston fans, but no more so (percentage wise) and no smugger than if, say, the Pistons, Lions, and Tigers had won five titles in six championship appearances in six years, instead of one title in three championship appearances in however many years.

Posted by Quarterican | April 10, 2008 5:43 PM

Are you folks really surprised that a New Yorker is anti-Boston sports?

Posted by Tiparillo | April 10, 2008 5:46 PM

No, its true. Most Boston fans are smug, and insufferable. They are the worst of the worst, and I hope their teams lose. Seriously, they are some of the worst people on the planet. Worse than terrorists.

Posted by Stacy | April 10, 2008 5:51 PM

"That's only true if there were in fact two seperate, identical men named "Billy.""

Duh. Of course, I was attempting to show 'how few', and typed 4 twice. Good catch.

Posted by drinkof | April 10, 2008 5:54 PM

For me, it's the smugness of a certain style of Boston fan, led by the insufferable Bill Simmons, coupled with constant media fawning and overexposure, that makes me root against the Boston teams.

Particularly galling are the Red Sox fans who still cling to the self-image of lovable underdogs, and can't understand that as far as most other fans are concerned, they might as well be the Yankees. This is by no means universal, but there are enough Sox fans who are actually taken aback when you say that you dislike "Red Sox Nation." Patriots fans fall in the same boat: "But it's just such a classy and well-run organization! You have to appreciate that!"

The Celtics, on the other hand, are far enough removed from their glory years that their fans don't have the same passive-aggressive swagger. Plus, I still like KG.

Posted by BP | April 10, 2008 6:19 PM

Matt, Washington does not factor into the playoff picture this year. At. All.

Boston will steamroll into the Finals and stands a good chance to win, partly because the East is miserable and they'll play one good team to get there.

But NEVER in my memory has a team won the NBA championship without battling in the trenches and failing for at least a couple years to get there. If Boston does it, this will be historical.

Posted by Rico | April 10, 2008 6:39 PM

Detroit is going to beat Boston in the Eastern Conference finals. Ball don't lie.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 10, 2008 6:42 PM

A playoff match up between Washington and Boston will likely require Washington beating Cleveland in a playoff series. It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by JBJB | April 10, 2008 6:49 PM

The Celtics, on the other hand, are far enough removed from their glory years that their fans don't have the same passive-aggressive swagger. Plus, I still like KG.

Much has been said about the Celtics "amazing" comeback, but they you have to remember that last year they were intentionally tanking. Also, they picked up KG from Minnesota for scraps. (They picked up Ray Allen because the Sonics' FO wanted to shed fan support in order to more easily move to OKC).

KG is great though, in the sort of way that you'd love to have him on your team and hate him when he's playing your guys.

Posted by ben | April 10, 2008 6:55 PM

"the undeserving people of Massachusetts"

Hey!!

OK, we totally earned that. Plus that South Park last night hit prettyclose to home..

Posted by Crusty Dem | April 10, 2008 7:03 PM

How do I teach these keeeeeeds?!

Posted by ben | April 10, 2008 7:14 PM

"the undeserving people of Massachusetts"

I guess you aren't watching John Adams! We kick ass.

Posted by berger | April 10, 2008 7:18 PM

Boston fans may be insufferable, but we DO live and die with our teams. I woke up in the middle of the night two weeks after the SB thinking, "If only Asante Samuel had caught that interception!"

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 10, 2008 7:21 PM

After about a year in DC, this temporarily-transplanted New Englandah doesn't understand how you can live here and rail against Beantown.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 10, 2008 8:29 PM

God's Grace is always undeserved.

Posted by John Winthrop | April 10, 2008 8:39 PM

Matt wishes he'd been at Harvard when the boys trooped across the river (from the place that is not Boston) to break the police strike.

Posted by Calvin Coolidge | April 10, 2008 8:45 PM

I tuned into and caught a few minutes of the late third quarter of this wizards-celtics game.

After watching monday night's game of mediocre amateurs, I was blown away by the play between these two professional teams. The game was ELECTRIC!

Posted by djslippyb | April 10, 2008 9:32 PM

Mr. Yglesias is from New York. That's why he doesn't like Boston- that simple. Most New Yorkers in my experience tend not to.

We don't much like New York either.

Posted by Hector | April 10, 2008 9:51 PM

"Shouldn't Paul Pierce be a bigger star than he is?"

Probably. He's gotten a decent amount of props, but he might be underrated. For one thing, "The Big Three" could more aptly be dubbed "The Dynamic Duo," because Ray Allen, all 32 wonderful years of him, is not quite the player at this point that Pierce is-- in fact, Rajon Rondo may have already surpassed him, though he's less consistent (not surprisingly, for a seond-year player). Of course, this is partly because Paul Pierce is playing the best defense of his career, in no small part, I imagine, thanks to Kevin Garnett (and probably Tom Thibodeau, too).

Posted by Pierce Fan | April 10, 2008 10:01 PM

"This year, I think he's gotten his vindication and that's all to the good, even if it does bring cheer to the undeserving people of Massachusetts."

Fuck you, you fucking retard.

Posted by Reality Man | April 10, 2008 10:18 PM

As an Alumni of the University of Arizona, people forget that that team essentially had 4 pros, not 3 as the previous commentor suggested:

- Mike Bibby
- Mile Simon
- Michael Dickerson
- Jason Terry.

The fact that you left of Jason Terry who is still in the league unlike Dickerson and Simon.

Why did Kansas lose that team:
Because Bibby was at that time the best PG in College, pure and simple and Miles Simon essentially could not miss a shot during the tournament. He maybe the most mediocre MVP of a tournament if there ever was one. He had one shot, a running jumper that quite frankly, looked like a shot a poor high school baller takes. Yet no one could stop it for the tournament.

Zona was not the best team that year (or the best Zona team for that matter - that hat goes to the 2001 team which had Luke Walton and Gilbert Arenas - had Arenas not been injured in the Semi-final game against Michigan State - they beat Duke). But they were the best team in that tournement. Meaning - not only did they win it, but they were clearly playing at a level above all other teams (versus playing a level of ball equal to others, but getting some lucky breaks).

But also remember - except for Utah's famous Triangle and Two defense in 1998, Zona was the #1 ranked team almost the entire 1998 season. So Kansas really lost to quite frankly, the best team in the nation from March 1997 through February 1998.

People also forget that during that time period, because of Roy Williams, Kansas always played extrmely tight, as every year it was expected they were supposed to win it, yet every year they failed). And yes - Raef was over-rated beyond belief.

Posted by Brad | April 10, 2008 10:38 PM

Ditto Reality Man.

seriously, though, how enraging is it for Bostonians to hear pampered New Yorkers bitching about our city on the hill after colonizing it for four years to use our vaunted educational institutions? If you hated it so much, you should have transferred to Columbia.

Posted by Ben Cronin | April 10, 2008 11:30 PM

Hey, Matt - eat a Knick-flavored dick.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 10, 2008 11:49 PM

Boston is soooooo 4-years-ago. The San Francisco Bay Area is the new Boston.

Posted by adlsad | April 11, 2008 12:08 AM

'Boston fans may be insufferable, but we DO live and die with our teams. I woke up in the middle of the night two weeks after the SB thinking, "If only Asante Samuel had caught that interception!"'
Posted by LnGrrrR

Bah! I still have nightmares of "Havlecek stole the ball! Havlecek stole the ball!" Bastards!

Just to be safe, I'm cursing the Bruins in my spare time.

Posted by Njorl | April 11, 2008 12:53 AM

"Zona was not the best team that year (or the best Zona team for that matter - that hat goes to the 2001 team which had Luke Walton and Gilbert Arenas - had Arenas not been injured in the Semi-final game against Michigan State - they beat Duke)."

In 1988, if I remember correctly Arizona had Sean Elliot, Tom Tolbert, Steve Kerr, Judd Bucheller (sp.), Anthony Cook, Kenny Lofton and, I think, Sean Rooks. If I'm right about the squad, I think it's certainly the best Arizona team ever if not one of the best college basketball teams in the last 30 years based on pro careers.

Posted by es | April 11, 2008 1:04 AM

Njorl,

It's working so far, obviously...

When did you start cursing us? Was it right before leadership decided to trade Jumbo Joe? *cursing commences*

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 11, 2008 2:13 AM

It is time to move The Atlantic back to Boston. The kind of drivel it has published over its couple of years in DC is going to ruin the reputation this august publication built in its 150 years in the Hub.

Posted by Stav | April 11, 2008 9:31 AM

"When did you start cursing us?"

Game 2 of the 1977 semifinals. It didn't work that well.

Posted by Njorl | April 11, 2008 10:45 AM

"Zona was not the best team that year (or the best Zona team for that matter - that hat goes to the 2001 team which had Luke Walton and Gilbert Arenas - had Arenas not been injured in the Semi-final game against Michigan State - they beat Duke)"

Duke alum here...

That 2001 Duke team was stacked as well with Jason Williams, Shane Battier, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, and Chris Duhon. That's 5 NBA players before Williams wrecked his knee.

Besides Gilbert Arenas and Luke Walton, who from the 2001 Arizona team is a regular player in the NBA?

Posted by David68 | April 11, 2008 10:57 AM

RE: es

"In 1988, if I remember correctly Arizona had Sean Elliot, Tom Tolbert, Steve Kerr, Judd Bucheller (sp.), Anthony Cook, Kenny Lofton and, I think, Sean Rooks. If I'm right about the squad, I think it's certainly the best Arizona team ever if not one of the best college basketball teams in the last 30 years based on pro careers."

Sorry – but I would take the 2001 team of Gilbert Arenas, Loren Woods, Richard Jefferson, Luke Walton and Jason Gardner over those guys. Reason: athleticism. Say what you want, but as we move forward, regardless of how dominant those guys were in their day, the athletes in the 2000’s are just more athletic.

Posted by Brad | April 11, 2008 11:13 AM

Who said that?

I for one was happy when KG left, at least, well I was sad of course, but now he could go somewhere with a franchise that could get him a championship.

I felt the same way about Johan Santanna the Pitching God.

The management of the Twins, Wolves, and Vikings is unbelievably bad and has been so for some time now.

Posted by MNPundit | April 11, 2008 11:45 AM

The Celts' loss to the Wizards the other night was truly ugly, for a Celtics fan. They lost because Doc Rivers' top priority is to rest the old guys. He waffle to climb back into a game that the Wizards were playing very well. Had he treated it like a playoff game, he would have pulled the second team much earlier and the Celtics probably would have won comfortably.

But I was on a New Orleans sports comment thread a week ago, and New Orleans' only real hope if they face the Celtics in the finals is that Detroit will take the Celtics to seven games, and Garnett, Pierce, and Allen won't have any legs left. Which is plausible. (What is not plausible is that Chris Paul is the MVP.)

So the Celtics are in a bit of a quandary. They've clinched home court advantage throughout the playffs, but they're playing teams for whom these final games really count, and you don't really want to end the season playing badly and losing to losers. The winning attitude you take into the playoffs counts too. But so do rested legs.

As a Massachusetts resident, I am not offended by Matt's understandable envy. You guys don't get to hear Tommy Heinsohn and Bob Cousy do the color on the local Celtics broadcasts. (Both Cousy and Heinsohn were touting Rondo as a potential superstar last year.) You guys (excepting Matt who doesn't have any) have to write to your senators and congressmen whenever MoveOn.org is up in arms. My senators are Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. My congressman is Jim McGovern. Top that.

Posted by Walter Crockett | April 11, 2008 12:59 PM

that should have said "He waffled and put them back in too late"

Posted by Walter Crockett | April 11, 2008 1:03 PM

Pretty much agreed. I'm not surprised he decided to give the starters a rest and get the bench some playing time, though. For a game that didn't really matter it was probably the right call. Pierce was on fire in the first quarter, though, and pulling him and KG so early definitely screwed with the game's momentum.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 11, 2008 1:16 PM