The NBA got what it wanted this month when the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers both made it through the playoff gauntlets of their respective conferences to meet in the NBA Finals. But what transpired on the court was more than a little disappointing. And a series many believed would result in a Lakers victory, ended up showcasing a deeper, more cohesive Celtics team that won with defense, rebounding and toughness. In fact, they looked a lot like the “boring” Spurs teams that have won four titles in the last ten years. Of course, these are the Celtics so nobody dared utter the “b” word during these Finals.
The Finals went six games, yes, but that fact is severely misleading. Anybody who watched more than one game in this series could clearly see that the Celtics were the superior team, a development that went against most of the common wisdom leading up to the much-hyped matchup. They won the first two games in relatively routine fashion, were surprisingly competitive in front of a raucous Hollywood crowd in Game 3 and pulled off the greatest comeback in the history of the Finals in Game 4. They gave the Lakers another scare in Game 5 before outclassing and embarrassing L.A. in the clincher. They played harder, they played smarter and most of all, they played tougher. They looked every bit the rugged East Coast squad, while the Lakers were West Coast-soft. Game 6 seemed to be the Celtics’ way of validating not only their championship, but also their vast superiority. Had the games all been played on a neutral court, it’s doubtful the Lakers would have won a game.
And so, while the NBA got a little lucky – at least the series didn’t end in four or five – the disparity on the court was readily apparent. Viewers couldn’t possibly have been riveted by this meeting of the NBA’s two marquee franchises. The ratings were better than those of previous years, but this is not a series people will be buzzing about, and it is buzz that really drives the NBA as much as any more quantifiable barometer. So what was the problem? Two words.
Kobe Bryant.
The 2008 NBA Finals were supposed to be the coronation of Kobe. This was supposed to be the ring that Kobe secured without Shaq, the one that elevated him to Jordan status and solidified him as a player capable of lifting a good – not great – cast to the pinnacle of the sport. This was what Kobe wanted when he forced the trade of Shaq a few years back. He wanted the chance to prove that he didn’t need another great player to win; that he, if surrounded by the right supporting parts, was good enough to be the central piece of a championship team. Kobe had been so frustrated by the Lakers’ inability to give him the right complementary players until this year, he demanded a trade last offseason (and was booed on opening night), only to sound like the happiest man in Los Angeles when Mitch Kupchak brought in Pau Gasol in February. Bryant has always been a petulant personality and 2008 has been a microcosm of his time in the league.
But a funny thing happened on the way to immortality. Bryant was certainly good during the Finals. But he was far from spectacular. Tell me, in how many NBA Finals was Michael Jordan merely decent? The answer to that question is zero. Jordan played in six Finals and won six MVPs. Bryant is now 0 for 5 in that category. Not exactly the stuff of legends.
The league’s MVP averaged nearly 26 points per game in the series, but shot poorly and disappeared during long stretches of games. Bryant was credited for making his teammates better all year long and yet everybody – especially Gasol and Lamar Odom – looked soft and overwhelmed in the Finals. It’s hard to imagine Michael Jordan suffering these fools gladly. Some of the credit must go to Boston’s stifling defense, but it’s not as if Jordan never faced a tough defense during his reign. Remember how good and physical those Knicks teams were that Jordan faced nearly every year in the early ’90s? Jordan still owned the end of most of those games.
I’m not saying that Kobe needs to be Michael Jordan to be considered one of the all-time greats. But it needs to be said that he’s not even in the Jordan discussion. And it’s clear that Kobe fancies himself in Michael’s league. Well, I’m here to burst Kobe’s egomaniacal bubble.
You know who else hasn’t won a title in a while? Mr. Zen Master himself, Phil Jackson. Jackson found it very easy to ride Jordan’s coattails to championship after championship. And then he won three rings with the inside-outside tandem of O’Neal and Bryant during his first go-around with the Lakers. Jackson did do a good job with this team and has done a solid job in the past with undermanned squads. Remember the Bulls team in 1994 that won 55 games when Jordan decided to try baseball? Were it not for Hue Hollins’ misguided call in Game 5 of the conference semis, the Bulls would have beaten the Knicks. Still, having lost his last two times in the Finals, Jackson must be learning what a lot of other coaches learned long ago: winning titles ain’t easy.
In the end, the NBA Finals felt somehow cheap. After a very good NBA season with a lot of terrific play and exciting storylines, Celtics-Lakers redux seemed like a poor imitation of the series of yesteryear, when the players were ensconced in the rivalry. Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Gasol, three of the five most important players in the series, were essentially hired guns.
And so, without Bryant to put his stamp on the series – the way Magic and Larry and Jerry West and Bill Russell used to – the Finals looked like a battle of two teams who happened to be wearing the same laundry as their predecessors. The passion seemed fabricated. I’m happy Garnett got his ring (despite his bizarre, postgame, on-court interview), but Boston bought this one. It’s just a shame the NBA couldn’t have gotten the Celtics their 17th title in a more compelling manner.