That was a great series. Boston-Chicago had everything you wanted and then some.The full seven games ... overtimes and close finishes ... star player stepping up ... role players emerging. You name it. Yes, it was truly a great series. But the best first-round series of all time? Let's not go that far.
I'll still take the Warriors' "We Believe" upset over the Dallas Mavericks two years ago and even the Denver Nuggets knocking off the Seattle SuperSonics back in 1994 over this one.
Why? Quite simple, really. When the Warriors put it to Dallas and the Nuggets took it to the Sonics, we were watching two championship contenders get deconstructed and dismantled.
Those series were about the elimination of two championship teams.
The Dallas Mavericks were a title contender in 2007, fired up and seemingly fully motivated after blowing a two-game lead in the NBA Finals the year before. The Mavericks had won 67 games and were supposed to be on a mission.Instead, they were exposed by a quicker and hungrier Warriors team.
Same thing with that Sonics team back in the mid-1990s. Behind Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp, Seattle entered the playoffs having won 63 games, and were thinking one thing and one thing only that year: Beating the Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan ... Winning a title. (Turnover: Steinmetz)
Of course, it never got that far, replaced instead by the Dikembe Mutombo "clutch."
In both of those cases, we watched two teams with championship aspirations get humbled. It was fascinating to see.
That's why Boston-Chicago 2009 doesn't quite measure up.
See, the Boston Celtics aren't a championship contender. Not this year. Not without Kevin Garnett. And that little subtlety right there is the difference. As great as Boston-Chicago was – and it was great – it was missing a vital superstar and the belief that the team he plays for can go on to win a championship.
We don't know yet if Garnett will make an appearance in the postseason. But even if he does, is there anyone out there who really believes the Celtics can get past the Cleveland Cavaliers (eventually) and then get over on the L.A. Lakers?
It just doesn't seem realistic at this point. Unfortunately, once you put into the equation that the Celtics can't really win it all, then their series with Chicago doesn't quite achieve elevated status.
Boston-Chicago had consistently tight games that were wildly entertaining, with rookies and veterans and everyone in between making big play after big play.
It's just that it was missing a little something or other ... like K.G. and one of the teams being a championship contender.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-03-2009 @ 4:00PM
parminlexington said...
Quick correction....I am sure the Sonics were looking to upend the Bulls in the Finals in 1994, but Jordan had already "retired" the first time following the 1993 Finals, so there was no motivation to beat Jordan, just the Bulls.
Also, seems to me anyone in the hunt for a championship can be called a contender, whether you are a 1 seed or an 8 seed..maybe some other teams have better chances of winning, but they are all contenders. I love the Celtics, and while I don't believe they can beat the Cavaliers this year, they are still alive, therefore, still "contending" for a title. I don't think this series was THE best ever, but definitely in the Top 5. But it wasn't the best because no one is contending for a title. The Celtics are. And until they are eliminated (most likely by the Cavs), they are still the champs.
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 4:53PM
rozy2004 said...
Not to nitpick, but the Sonics weren't looking forward to the Bulls that year. In fact, it was the exact opposite, Jordan was gone, they were looking forward to NOT meeting the Bulls.
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 6:48PM
cabbageboy316 said...
As others have noted, the 1994 Sonics were playing in a non Jordan NBA. But I don't get why we're supposed to think the Sonics were going anywhere that year even if they had beaten Denver. They still would have needed to beat Utah, Houston, and then New York to win it all, and I don't see it.
Ditto the Mavs in 2007. A lot of people thought that team was a dubious 67 win team to start, and then they played a team coached by their former coach who knew all their tricks.
Neither of those series remotely compares to this Bulls/Celtics series. Most of the games in the 2007 Dallas series weren't even that close. The Warriors trashed them in 3 of their 4 wins.
The 1994 series? Historically notable due to the 1/8 upset, but 3 of the 5 games were yawners and only the last two games were wild OT affairs. The level of play was nowhere near this current series.
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 6:54PM
JA man said...
This was a Great Series...C'mon the People watching and the People at the games got what they paid for...Now Celtics are going to beat Orlando No doubt but Cleveland is the BIG wall in the way...im not doubting them i am just going to wait and see
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 7:24PM
Dave D. said...
I understand the value in being contrary.
But your reason for this series not being the greatest is about context, not quality.
You're defining "greatest" as "most surprising given expectations.
Everyone else is defining it as the most entertaining, thrilling, and/or competitive.
Either you're missing the point, or you're really reaching.
Reply
5-03-2009 @ 10:14PM
Glenn20 said...
Dave D. hit the nail on the head. It's not that Matt's rationale is necessarily flawed -- it's just that he's using a different measuring stick than the majority. It's also possible that Matt's opinion has been swayed at a sub-conscious level because of his disappointment that the Celtics were the winners.
As Jay Mariotti said today:
"In my book, none of those series featured the exhilarating finishes, relentless theater, killer shot-making, physical scraps, fluctuating momentum and yo-yo emotions of Celtics-Bulls in 2009."
5-03-2009 @ 10:19PM
Dave said...
A 7 game series should be judged by the in games proformance of both Teams & players. Not by a team upsetting another one because any team can flip that Switch & knock off one of the power teams.
Boston & Chicago was one of the greatest 7 game series I have seen, I say that for what was done on the court not by 1 team upsetting the other.
Bulls Fan here btw
Reply
5-04-2009 @ 12:40AM
davulture312 said...
Eh I got to disagree, the Dallas series wasn't that competitive nor was the Seattle vs. Nuggets. They were upsets on a bigger scale then the Bulls but the level of competition was nowhere near the level of the Bulls or Celtics. Look at that first round series, of Mavericks especially. Dirk won MVP and played horrible certifying him as one of the most overrated players in the NBA today. The Celtics had Pierce and Allen and though both played bad at times, Allen scored 51 in Game 6 and Pierce had a couple of big shots. The competitive factor in this series was was beyond any of the series you mentioned.
Reply
5-04-2009 @ 9:01AM
Darek said...
Is this guy kidding? Obviously he has no clue as to what he is talking about. Jordan had retired and the Bulls played well but weren't close to being a lock in the Finals.
Dallas was exposed against the Warriors. Plain and simple. After the Finals were handed to the Heat (Refs), the Mavs choked the next year.
Neither of those series come close to matching the Bulls and the Celtics. Game by Game this series crushes both of those.
The Lakers vs Suns in 2006 was better than either of those two series. The only thing those series had was that this one didn't was the underdog actually winning. But the quality of play made up for that little fact.
This was not the greatest series ever simple because it wasn't deeper in the playoffs! But it is the top series in the last 15 years easily!
Reply
5-04-2009 @ 9:46AM
Pat said...
Dave D. said it perfectly.
It's got nothing to do with the hype, Matt. Your assessment on the absence of KG diminishing this series couldn't be more wrong.
KG's absence is one of the things that made this series great, because with him, it likely would have been a Celtics sweep.
Reply