This series will Re-Write the last two years historically.

[LarBrd33]

I wanted to start this thread yesterday, but was afraid to.  Then I read this article that kinda throws out some of the same concept:  

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/columns/story?id=5237869

Worse yet, if they lose, they'll have to answer questions about "stealing" last year's championship while the wounded Celtics played without Kevin Garnett and were eliminated before the Finals.
...

If the Celtics win, they will put to rest the notion the Lakers would have beaten them with Andrew Bynum two years ago and make the case they were the best team last year and would have won the championship if Garnett had not gone down.

I guess we can't avoid it.  I complained all summer that Boston would have repeated as champions had KG been healthy.  Boston is defined by their defense.  The heart of their defense is KG.  You take KG off the Celtics and it's like taking Duncan off the Spurs.  It's nowhere near the same team.  Without KG, they go 7 games against a mediocre Bulls team.  With a healthy KG, they blow em out by 28 in October and 26 in December.    Without KG, they lose in 7 games to Orlando.  With a healthy KG, they massacre Orlando in a sweep (I don't count games 4 and 5 where the NBA blatantly extended the series for TV time).

The media right now is unquestionably slanted with a Lakers-centric focus.  It's all about how Kobe and his boys can get revenge for 08.   But if Boston wins this series, the stories change.  If Boston wins... history looks at them as the dominant team of the past 3 years and people look at the 09 Lakers title as officially "asterisked".

I jokingly compared it to a WWF wrestler getting injured prior to his title defense...  a free-for-all match is set up to create a new champ.  The Lakers won that little tourney, but the champ is back and healthy.  KG wants his belt back.

We win this... and the Lakers 09 title takes a knock historically.  However... if The Lakers win... does the Laker-adoring media say LA would have won in 08 had Bynum been healthy?  *gag*  (My opinion:  KG's impact on the identity of the Celtics is FAAARRR greater than what Bynum adds to the Lakers.  So I'd say no.  But the media will run with it regardless)

[Chris]

I don't think so.  First off, injuries are part of the game.  Maybe the Spurs would have beat the C's in '08 if they had been healthy. 

Also, I do not think the C's necessarily win last year, even if KG was healthy.  I think they matched up much worse with the Cavs than the Magic did, and they might have been knocked out by them.  Remember, their best player off the bench was Stephon Marbury.  The only wing they had off the bench at all was Tony Allen, and he was so bad last year that Doc went with House and Marbury off the bench instead of him throughout the playoffs.  And they were still thin up front, even if KG was back, since Powe also was out (or are we bringing him back too?), and they didn't have a PJ Brown, or Sheed to add some length off the bench.

[Rondo_is_better]

I don't think so.  First off, injuries are part of the game.  Maybe the Spurs would have beat the C's in '08 if they had been healthy. 

Also, I do not think the C's necessarily win last year, even if KG was healthy.  I think they matched up much worse with the Cavs than the Magic did, and they might have been knocked out by them.  Remember, their best player off the bench was Stephon Marbury.  The only wing they had off the bench at all was Tony Allen, and he was so bad last year that Doc went with House and Marbury off the bench instead of him throughout the playoffs.  And they were still thin up front, even if KG was back, since Powe also was out (or are we bringing him back too?), and they didn't have a PJ Brown, or Sheed to add some length off the bench.

We had ridiculous injury trouble. Ridiculous. We were also by far the best team until Garnett went down. 27-2.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't think so.  First off, injuries are part of the game.  Maybe the Spurs would have beat the C's in '08 if they had been healthy.  

Also, I do not think the C's necessarily win last year, even if KG was healthy.  I think they matched up much worse with the Cavs than the Magic did, and they might have been knocked out by them.  Remember, their best player off the bench was Stephon Marbury.  The only wing they had off the bench at all was Tony Allen, and he was so bad last year that Doc went with House and Marbury off the bench instead of him throughout the playoffs.  And they were still thin up front, even if KG was back, since Powe also was out (or are we bringing him back too?), and they didn't have a PJ Brown, or Sheed to add some length off the bench.

TA was injured, that's why he looked bad (if bad is what he really looked like). But I think we could've gotten enough from him defensively against LeBron.

The TA "was so bad last year" statement is way overstated. He was having a [dang] effective season until he suffered multiple injuries, the last one that force him to surgery once the playoffs were over.

Plus, many of his problems last year in the playoffs stemmed from putting him in the wrong situations. I mean, who the heck gives him the ball with the shot clock winding down? Makes no sense.

He played some good defense on Gordon, but of course, since the out of bounds call wasn't called correctly, then all we remember is TA's foul.

TA could have given us something similar to what he is giving us this year. Maybe not as effective, but enough to get the job we needed from him done.

Anyways, we still had Scal who had a pretty good season for us last year, and he's mildly effective against the Cavs with his help defense on LeBron.

[Roy Hobbs]

For better or for worse, I agree.  The Celtics will either be seen as one hit wonders, or the Lakers will be seen as earning a title by default. 

This matchup will determine how history views this team.  That doesn't mean that the events of 2010-11 won't further shape that view, but for now, it's going to define who was, indeed, the best team of this mini-era.

[Chris]

I don't think so.  First off, injuries are part of the game.  Maybe the Spurs would have beat the C's in '08 if they had been healthy.  

Also, I do not think the C's necessarily win last year, even if KG was healthy.  I think they matched up much worse with the Cavs than the Magic did, and they might have been knocked out by them.  Remember, their best player off the bench was Stephon Marbury.  The only wing they had off the bench at all was Tony Allen, and he was so bad last year that Doc went with House and Marbury off the bench instead of him throughout the playoffs.  And they were still thin up front, even if KG was back, since Powe also was out (or are we bringing him back too?), and they didn't have a PJ Brown, or Sheed to add some length off the bench.

TA was injured, that's why he looked bad (if bad is what he really looked like). But I think we could've gotten enough from him defensively against LeBron.

The TA "was so bad last year" statement is way overstated. He was having a [dang] effective season until he suffered multiple injuries, the last one that force him to surgery once the playoffs were over.

Plus, many of his problems last year in the playoffs stemmed from putting him in the wrong situations. I mean, who the heck gives him the ball with the shot clock winding down? Makes no sense.

He played some good defense on Gordon, but of course, since the out of bounds call wasn't called correctly, then all we remember is TA's foul.

TA could have given us something similar to what he is giving us this year. Maybe not as effective, but enough to get the job we needed from him done.

Anyways, we still had Scal who had a pretty good season for us last year, and he's mildly effective against the Cavs with his help defense on LeBron.

OK, so now we are making KG healthy, and we are bringing Tony (who was healthy enough to play) up to 100% for the playoffs.  

This is not an argument of WHY someone was not effective, the point is, injuries happen, and to try to rewrite history, imagining those injuries didn't happen is a very slippery slope.

[LB3533]

Last year's team won 62 games with KG missing 30% of the season, and all the while tiring out PP & Ray for much of the year?

I am pretty sure the C's would have won 69 or 70 games had KG been healthy.

[Mr October]

I can't wait to get this series started. Yep, lots of bragging rights are at stake here.

[guava_wrench]

I have been thinking the same thing for a while now. Our dominance of the Lakers would always hang over their championship if we dispose of them this year like we did in 2008.

Sure, injuries happen, just like temporary retirement happens. But don't people frequently point to Jordan's baseball stint in relation to the Houston repeat?

[footey]

I don't buy this re-write stuff. We won in 2008 legitimately and the Lakers did same last year. It would be like our taking position that we would have won in '87 and beyond if Len Bias had not died.  What happened, happened. If we win this year, some Laker fans will say Bynum was not at full strength. Ditto Celtic fans about KG or Wallace if the Lakers win.

I personally feel very good about this series.  I really like our ability to win on the road, and am increasingly confident that we will take care of home court. I'm liking us in 5 games.

[guava_wrench]

I don't buy this re-write stuff. We won in 2008 legitimately and the Lakers did same last year. It would be like our taking position that we would have won in '87 and beyond if Len Bias had not died.  What happened, happened. If we win this year, some Laker fans will say Bynum was not at full strength. Ditto Celtic fans about KG or Wallace if the Lakers win.

I personally feel very good about this series.  I really like our ability to win on the road, and am increasingly confident that we will take care of home court. I'm liking us in 5 games.

Though I probably agree that such thinking is misguided, people would remember a Lakers title sandwiched between 2 finals losses to the Celts and would remember why the Orlando was in the final and not the Celts.

There is a reason why this is relevant. If the Lakers win, they become the best team over the past 3 years without question. They go to 3 straight finals, and split the matchups with the Celts, the runner-up team.

If the Celtics win, the Celtics become the best team over the past 3 years without question. The Lakers become the second best, who were able to break through only when they didn't have to go through the Celts.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't think so.  First off, injuries are part of the game.  Maybe the Spurs would have beat the C's in '08 if they had been healthy.  

Also, I do not think the C's necessarily win last year, even if KG was healthy.  I think they matched up much worse with the Cavs than the Magic did, and they might have been knocked out by them.  Remember, their best player off the bench was Stephon Marbury.  The only wing they had off the bench at all was Tony Allen, and he was so bad last year that Doc went with House and Marbury off the bench instead of him throughout the playoffs.  And they were still thin up front, even if KG was back, since Powe also was out (or are we bringing him back too?), and they didn't have a PJ Brown, or Sheed to add some length off the bench.

TA was injured, that's why he looked bad (if bad is what he really looked like). But I think we could've gotten enough from him defensively against LeBron.

The TA "was so bad last year" statement is way overstated. He was having a [dang] effective season until he suffered multiple injuries, the last one that force him to surgery once the playoffs were over.

Plus, many of his problems last year in the playoffs stemmed from putting him in the wrong situations. I mean, who the heck gives him the ball with the shot clock winding down? Makes no sense.

He played some good defense on Gordon, but of course, since the out of bounds call wasn't called correctly, then all we remember is TA's foul.

TA could have given us something similar to what he is giving us this year. Maybe not as effective, but enough to get the job we needed from him done.

Anyways, we still had Scal who had a pretty good season for us last year, and he's mildly effective against the Cavs with his help defense on LeBron.

OK, so now we are making KG healthy, and we are bringing Tony (who was healthy enough to play) up to 100% for the playoffs.  

This is not an argument of WHY someone was not effective, the point is, injuries happen, and to try to rewrite history, imagining those injuries didn't happen is a very slippery slope.

I agree, though, I'm not saying let's have TA healthy. I'm saying that TA as he was last year could've given us what we needed regardless in helping us with LeBron.

Even so, I dislike the notion that is always going around of TA's performances not being affected by injuries.

[Hoops]

Yes, injuries are part of the game, so it's a bit hard to discount the Lakers title last year by claiming things would have been different but for KG's knee. That said, the way the playoffs played out last year, I was left with a strong feeling that the champs (in this case, the Lakers) won by default. The Lakers were a good, but flawed team that won the West because...well...someone had to win. Orlando was a flawed team that got a lucky break by facing an injured Celtics team. As luck would have it, they happened to match up well against the Cavs and the rest, as they say, is history.

I know I'm a Celtic homer, but I had no doubt in my mind last year that the Celtics would have beaten the Lakers. And that statement is different than Laker fans saying the same thing about 2008 with Bynum being injured. Boston was king of the hill before KG went out (in contrast, the Lakers had proven nothing before Bynum got hurt) and no team (no, not Orlando) asserted themselves in such a way that proves they deserved to take over the throne. Obviously, as others have noted in this thread, this series will prove (or disprove) these assertions once and for all. I look forward to it.

[MaxwellSmart86]

Sorry guys...but even with a Healthy KG---we had NO Bench...we lost PJ and Posey...and Powe got hurt...it's too many ifs.

Patrick O'Bryant and Mikki Moore...ugh.

[Roy Hobbs]

Sorry guys...but even with a Healthy KG---we had NO Bench...we lost PJ and Posey...and Powe got hurt...it's too many ifs.

Patrick O'Bryant and Mikki Moore...ugh.

I don't think it would have mattered.  The starters are the guys who decide whether we win or go home, and I'd take our starters against anybody.

It doesn't really matter what the hypothetical truth of the matter would have been, though.  Ultimately, it's perception that governs, and if the Celtics win this year, the perception will be that we dominated this three year span, and only lost due to injury.