Of all the aforementioned storylines, the most overrated was easily the Celtics-Lakers rivalry. In the 80's, when the Celtics-Lakers rivalry was at its best*, the teams had two opposing identities: the Lakers, personified by Magic, were flashy and exciting, while the Celtics, personified by Bird, were hard-nosed and white. Really white. Just as importantly, both teams had an aura of greatness about them. Not just the teams, but the clubs themselves. The Lakers and Celtics were good then, they had been good in the past, they would be good in the near future, and they would probably always be good. The Celtics and the Lakers weren't just any other team.
Now, they are just two other teams. In the seasons between Celtics last two championships, they have gone 837-853 (40.6 wins per 82). There's no sense of inevitability about their greatness. Last season, there was no difference between playing the Celtics and playing the Charlotte Bobcats, except the Bobcats were better. Opponents didn't mark the Celtics on their calendars and weren't in awe when they stepped onto the court in the TD Banknorth Garden. Fans didn't care when they saw the Celtics were next in the same way that baseball fans' eyes light up when they say even an average Yankees team on the schedule. The Celtics just aren't special. The Lakers aren't either. They missed the playoffs in 2005 and deservedly lost in the first round the following two seasons.
Yeah, the Celtics and Lakers were both really good this year, it's hard to think of these two teams as having a rivalry when one has been nondescript and average for 20 years, and the other had been under .500 for the three seasons preceding this one combined.
But I digress. Some of the other storylines are still interesting though:
Kobe trying to prove he can win a title without Shaq. Well, he didn't do it this year, but he probably will next year, and maybe a few years after that. And yes, I did just barf a little.
Garnett trying to prove he can win a title. There was never any doubt about this for me. The problem with KG is that he can't take over at the end of games, and he doesn't really make his teammates better. Some people misidentified him as a good numbers/bad team type of player because, well, because he put up great numbers on mediocre teams for so many years. The method of good numbers/bad team players is that they're usually inefficient, and don't positively impact their teammates. For example, someone who scores a lot of points by shooting a high percentage of the team's shots, or gets a lot of assists by dominating the ball and refusing to get hockey assists (which they don't get credit for). Garnett, on the other hand, has always shot the ball efficiently, and rebounded very well. It's not like he averaged 13 rebounds per game the last three seasons, but he would have averaged 10 per game if only he were on a good team. Garnett is a flawed player, but he's definitely not a loser. Now, no one can say he is.
Another storyline about the Finals would be the continuing evolution of Kobe Bryant, but I think I have a bigger post in store for him, so I'll hold off on that for now. I'll just say right now that no matter what happens the next few years, Kobe < MJ.
*Of course, the Lakers and Celtics played in the Finals six times in the 60's, but the Celtics won all of them. It wasn't so much a rivalry as it was a nonstop ownage. It was Malone and Stockton versus Jordan's Bulls, but three times as bad.
2 comments:
As far as the Finals go, don't forget that the games themselves were generally sucky to watch. Whether it was a massive blowout and having your stomach turn at how even someone you love to see lose as much as Kobe actually going and blowing a 24 (I think?) point lead in a Finals game, the series was lame overall...in addition to the reasons you mention.
Also, hypothetically, what would make you barf more - Kobe winning another title, or Shaq winning another?
Kobe winning another title would be much worse.
Let's get this out of the way first: Kobe will certainly win another title, and Shaq certainly will not.
When Kobe wins, it will mean the Lakers will win and the Lakers and their fans will rejoice. If Shaq were to win, the Suns and their fans would rejoice. In that sense, a Kobe championship would be worse.
As for how I feel about them as players, I don't like either of them, and don't wish either of them any success. Shaq in his prime, however, was a much better player than Kobe is, so I feel like the amount of success for each of them should reflect that. I would rather not live in a world where Kobe has more rings than Shaq (especially considering that Kobe got three of his by riding Shaq's coattails).
Ideally, the amount of success for a player or team should be indicative of their level of greatness. I wouldn't like living in a world where Kobe has more rings than Shaq, in the same way I don't like that Duncan has more rings than Larry Bird, Tony Parker has more rings than John Stockton and Steve Nash, Brian Scalabrine has more rings than Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, John Stockton, etc.
Lastly, in case you haven't noticed, there's been a movement to crown Kobe either as good as or better than Michal Jordan, a movement which has picked up a lot of steam in the last few years (this last season especially), and the comparisons would only become more unavoidable, the pronouncements more bold, the Kobe fans more obnoxious and delusional if Kobe's championship resume were on par with Jordan's.
Post a Comment