Conference 7.286::sports_91

    With the Celtics holding the 2nd best record in the NBA, I think rumors
    of their demise are very much exaggerated.

    
    re: .1
    
    The C's do NOT have the 2nd best record in the league, they are now
    tied for 3rd with the Fabulous Lakers !
    
    This is meaningful !?!
    
    The C's are playing the Chutes-side of Chutes & Ladders, slide on DOWN !
    
    - The Doctor

>    The C's are playing the Chutes-side of Chutes & Ladders, slide on DOWN !
    
    ...and the Lakers are right ahead of them!  They switched to SLOWTIME
    for a reason.
    
    Mike

    re .8
    
    Yeah, so that they could slow-torture the Celtics on national TV,
    instead of the usual fast-break, Showtime, a**-whipping they usually
    deliver.
    
    Any way the C's want to play it, the Lakers have an answer !
    
    Stay tuned for the Anti-Celtic Charter, please send mail if you have
    any suggestions for it.
    
    Doc

    The Celtics have slipped a bit these last few weeks without Larry, but
    if/when he gets back things will change.  I wonder how the Fakers would
    do without Magic (Travelling Man of the Year) ?
    
    John "D Cowboys" R.

    LA doesn't look so hot against REAL running teams like Portland, Phoenix, 
    and San Antonio.

    re .11
    
    Which is why the Puns are looking UP at LA in the standings right
    Mikey ?
    
    Life must be really miserable right now huh ?

Yo, Mike, the Lakers' last three games against the Suns (in Phoenix),
Portland (in Portland), and San Antonio?  All Laker wins.  Of
course, Phoenix was the easiest.

Laker_Ken

>           -< So Mike, when was the last time Phoenix beat Detroit? >-
    
    On their last meeting, January 18th.
    
    Lakers belong on the Seniors Tour.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that game.  A 1-pointer, if I recall
right.  The Princess sat out, didn't he?

If the Lakers belong on the seniors tour, the Celts belong
in a rest home!  How'd you like the way Divac and Thompson
schooled Parish and Kleine Sunday? :)

Laker_Ken

    refresh my memory (it's been so long!): when was the last time Divac
    and Thompson "schooled" Mark West and Kevin Duckworth?  I'll be nice
    and leave out Robinson.
    
    Mike

    Yup, Phoenix beat Detriot (tm) without Isiah, but so will any further
    wins in the regular season against Detriot(tm).
    
    Boston's been without Bird, but Detriot(tm) have had Dumars out for
    a while and now Thomas for a couple of months.  They're still only
    1 game behind them in the standings.
    
    I think we'll have to see how the added minutes for McHale and Parish
    take their toll.  Portland is still the team to beat, IMHO...
    
    Portland 37 - 7
    S. A.    30 - 10
    Boston   31 - 11
    Lakers   30 - 11
    Chicago  29 - 12
    Det. tm  31 - 13
    
    The 5 teams are too closely bunched to say 1's better than the other
    right now.
    
    .1 won't get into the Moon debate, the stats prove his ability.  And
    last I checked, Drexler was having an All-Star year.  I guess 1-3
    isn't too bad a percentage...
    
    -Walt

    	Get that pooper scooper ready Doc.  This could be another bandwagon
    that you'll have to clean up after.  8^o

       Are ANY of Dock's 'teams' in 1st place?
                                     Denny

    
    >       Are ANY of Dock's 'teams' in 1st place?
    
    Why, yes.  The Celtics, of course.
    
    Dickstah
    

    re .21
    
    So I take it that you finally admit that the 'bandwagon' charges that
    you moan about are false and without substance, right Denny ?
    
    Speaking of without substance, let's talk about Chris Ford's hairdo
    shall we ?
    
    Doc

�       Are ANY of Dock's 'teams' in 1st place?
    
    All of them, right ???   At least that's the way I thought the
    bandwagon system worked, yes ???
    
    Sorry, Doc, I couldn't resist ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    
    Last hoop game Doc was at he was wearing a Giants hat...

    Was that NY baseball, NY football or SF or Land of the?

    	Ha, ha,,,  That's a good one Paul, especially since he told
    me that no way would the Giants beat the 49ers and he wouldn't have
    to look at my "silly" Giants hat after that game.  So Doc should
    we reserve you a ticket to this year's Giantsmania?
    
    				/Don

    What color is the sky in Doc's world?

    Green?
    
    lEe

    
    Henna color that happens to be in vogue.
    
    
    
    Steve

    Whoa.  This was supposed to be a Celtics bashing note but the only
    carcass being kicked around in here is Midnight's!  Ain't complaining,
    mind you.  I've grown sick and tired of his inveterate, quotidien,
    subjectivist negativity.  Midnight should grow up and be positive, 
    take a walk on the bright side, so to speak.  The stomping he's taking
    in here stems from the negative vibrations emanating from his aura.
    
    MrT

    Dang T. u use dem fingers real poetic_like, truly one of Kipling's
    vein. 

    re .27
    
    ha ha yourself Slusher .... you was the prime motivator behind this
    note being reestablished ....all you did was beg, "Doc, are you going
    to start the file again, come on, I dare ya !"
    
    Been mighty silent dude ....

>quotidien
>    MrT

Hey, T, it's "quotidian"... {Occuring or recurring daily;  commonplace;}

Don't worry, it happens to me all the time when I use it.

    T-man, they aren't bashing me, rather they are taking their fanhood 
    impotency (quite reflective of the Celtics' don't ya think) in here.
    
    As a sports stud among Celtic eunichs, I'm used to such envy. 
    
    BTW MrT, how are those Timberwolves doing ?
    
    Doc

    	Try to help a guy out...  Doc what I said was that if you were
    a *real man* you would put the note in when the Celtics were playing
    well.  You waited until a prolonged losing streak and ended up looking
    like a bandwagon jumper.  Hmm...  I guess a leopard can't change
    his spots, even if'n he wants to.
    
    				/Don

    Slasher, don't bother.  The "Doc" only attacks when his target is
    unarmed.  His best move is jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon.  Gotta
    give him credit for that, he can REALLY move when he has to!  :*)
    
    lEe

    Lee, what bandwagon have I jumped *from* ?
    
    Celtic basher now and forever amen,
    
    Dr Midnight

    	Doc brings up a very good point.  He never jumps *from* a
    bandwagon, but he does some fancy side stepping *to* new bandwagons.
    Hey Doc there's room in my car for this year's Giantsmania trip, you
    longtime Giants fan you.
    
    				/Don

    Keep talking Slusher, you might make sense one day .... you closet
    Magic worshipper ....

    	Keep talking like that and you'll have to find somebody else
    to bring you to the Medowlands to see your favorite team the New
    York Football Giants.
    
    				/Don

    >Celtic basher now and forever amen,
    
    Any a you guys ever thunk about why it is that poor Midnight hates
    the Celtics so much?  What it is in particular about the team's 
    make-up that rankles him so.  I have, and I understand too well, and
    it's a_ugly thing that brood's in Dr 00:00's tiny heart I tellya...
    
    MrT

    Ok, I'll bite.   What is it T?

    I think Midnight is racially motivated in this.  Wants to have his
    cake and eat it too, so to speak.  Either that or it's one helluva
    coincidence now ain't it.
    
    Now, I ain't criticizing, cuz it's a given that many peckerwoods 
    dislike certain all-black teams for being what they are, but is it
    any different to harbors these same secret emotions regarding the
    Celtics, to be driven crazy by the success of white boys like Bird
    and Kevin and Danny and Havlicek and...
    
    MrT

    > to be driven crazy by the success of white boys like Bird
    > and Kevin and Danny and Havlicek and...
      
    Yeah, but it always seems to get forgotten by today's kids that the
    Celtics (under Red Auerbach) employed the first black player, the first 
    black starting five, and the first black head coach.  The sins of the
    city of Boston get applied to the team...
    
    glenn
           

    I'm anxiously waiting to see the defense on this one! ;-)

�    I'm anxiously waiting to see the defense on this one! ;-)

As one of Docker Manyzeros personal physicians (he has as many
physicians as he has teams he roots for), I'm afraid that I would have
to recommend to the court that DrM is unfit to stand trial due to
steadily recurring displays of acute and debilitating schizophrenia,
with a side disorder of paranoia, and just a soup�on of megalomania.

Sorry
Mike JN

    Geez, a renewal of the debate over the supposed racist attitudes shown
    by the Boston Celtics.
    
    Do we have, like, a rathole rotation here or what ???
    
    After we all agree to disagree on this one, we'll have to dredge up the
    old Wilt vs Russell debate, or the Designated Hitter, or Dean Smith vs
    Bob Knight, or maybe even everyone's favorite ... which basketball
    conference was the best during the Eighties.
    
    From there we can move on to other illustrious debates such as John
    Thompson and Prop 42, Arizona and Martin Luther King, Jr Day, Magic or
    Bird, Mattingly or Boggs, and on and on and on ...
    
    I vote for something new to talk about.  Unless it's Tar Heel Bashing,
    that's always in season.  :-)
    
    Bob Hunt

Are SPORTShrooms better than Sex....next on Geraldo!

    They just make you think they are :-)
    
    A&W

    > which basketball conference was the best during the Eighties.
    
    No no Bob, that debate officially ended when MrT came out with his
    turrets backwards after the intense pounding "O" Hendry gave him.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    No no NO, Hunt, we're not set to talk about whether or not the Celtics
    are racist, what's up for grabs is what motivates poor Midnight in his
    inveterate bashing a them - a little Stompshimism, peut etre?
    
    MrT

    	Doc's bashing isn't racially motivated.  After all he still
    clings to the silly notion that Chamberlain was better than Russell.
    
    				/Don

�    	Doc's bashing isn't racially motivated.  After all he still
�    clings to the silly notion that Chamberlain was better than Russell.
                   ^^^^^
                   ?????
                   !!!!!

LET'S GET A GRIP HERE, GENTLEMEN ((and Gentlewomens))

Just because Manyzeros is wrong about SOME things (okay.... most things)
doesn't mean he's wrong about EVERY thing.

Chamberlain WAS better than Russell.

Check the record books.

Phoe shit shlep
Mike JN

> Chamberlain WAS better than Russell.

> Check the record books.

  Except number of championships won


	RATHOLE ALERT!!!!
	RATHOLE ALTERT!!!!
	RATHOLE ALTERT!!!!
	RATHOLE ALTERT!!!


		Bob "Deja vu" Cohen

    How come in the Russell/Chamberlain rathole, it's championships, 
    but it's not for the Jordan/Magic one?
    
    FWIW, Doc's out this week, so he's not around to respond...
    
    -Walt

    
    RE:.56 Out?
        
    > FWIW, Doc's out this week, so he's not around to respond...
    
    Walt,
    
    Is that out of the office, out to lunch or out of DEC?
    
    Inquiring mind want to know!
    
    Edwin

    Time for the Celtics to get their annual butt-whipping by the Lakers.
    Assuming of course, they stagger by the Wolves.

    whoever smelt it, dealt it!

It was a SBD              

    >                        -< Yet another petard! >-
    
    Does this mean that DrM is petarded?

DrM, c'mon down!!!  You're the next contestant on "The Celts are Back!"

    >><<< Note 90.58 by EARRTH::BROOKS "Anyone for a Rocky Mnt Oyster ?" >>>
    >                -< 2nd Installment this weekend ! >-
    
    >Time for the Celtics to get their annual butt-whipping by the Lakers.
    >Assuming of course, they stagger by the Wolves.
       
      This from the same guy who predicted the Raiders cakewalk to the
    Super Bowl!
                                            Denny

    ...and aren't Dock's 6ers tearing up the West?!! I hear they even lost
    to the Kings.
                                    Denny

    How ya doin' Hawk! Mostly noting at night these days. Been too busy to
    keep up with all this stuff.
                                      Denny

Article 1064 of clari.sports.basketball:
From: [email protected] (MIKE BARNES, UPI Sports Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.sports.basketball
Subject: Celtics 98, Lakers 85
Date: 16 Feb 91 05:44:44 GMT
Priority: regular


	INGLEWOOD, Calif. (UPI) -- Robert Parish scored 21 of his season-high
27 points in the first quarter Friday night and the Boston Celtics won
their sixth straight game and snapped the Los Angeles Lakers' 14-game
home winning streak with a 98-85 victory.
	Reggie Lewis added 26 points while Larry Bird, playing on consecutive
nights for the first time since Dec. 19-20, added a triple-double as the
Celtics won at the Forum for the first time in five tries since 1986.
	Boston has won four in a row on the road, including the first three
on its current five-game Western swing. The triumph gave the Celtics a
38-12 record, their best after 50 games since their last NBA title
season of 1984-85.
	The Lakers, who had won 17 of their previous 18 games, had not lost
at home since Dec. 12, when they fell in overtime to Dallas.
	Los Angeles was within 89-81 with 5:49 left on two free throws by
James Worthy. But Bird, apparently recovered from the back injury that
forced him to miss 15 games, nailed a three-pointer, only his fourth
field goal of the contest.
	Lewis followed with two straight baskets for a 96-81 bulge with 2:53
left, and the Lakers never threatened again.
	Bird, who had 29 points Thursday night at Golden State, finished with
11 points, 11 rebounds and 11 assists for his third triple-double of the
season.
	Worthy led the Lakers with 23 points and Magic Johnson had 21 points
and 16 assists.
	Parish was virtually unstoppable in the first quarter, hitting 9 of
10 shots. With their 37-year-old center leading the way, the Celtics
were 15-for-25 from the field, committed no turnovers and led 35-27
after 12 minutes.
	The Lakers trailed 58-47 at halftime, but got within 75-72 with 75
seconds left in the third quarter. However, Lewis netted 4 of his 13
period points in a 6-0 run, and the Celtics carried an 81-72 lead into
the final quarter.
	Terry Teagle came off the bench to score six points as Los Angeles
opened the second quarter with a 12-4 run to tie it at 39-39. But the
Celtics ripped off 11 straight points -- with Kevin Gamble collecting 6
and Lewis 5 -- and Boston was on the way to its 11-point halftime lead.

    Yeah right,
    
    Denny the DrM bash-wagon-jumper - in full effect !

Pretty good game vs. the Blazers yesterday. Larry Sucked Wind in the first half 
but caught on fire in the 3rd quarter. The turning point of the game was the 
offensive interference not called on Portland and then called on the Chief then
they slapped a T on McHale from across the floor.

However they should have played better defense once they had the 11 point lead
in the 3rd quarter. The player that killed them was Reggie who missed several 
in close shots in the 3rd and 4th quarters. Even my wife noticed that he was
stinking up the joint. Is he Hurt? or did he just have a bad game?

Dee Brown was a pleasent surprise sticking the jumper whenever the Portland
defense slacked off of him and playing mucho minutes after the injury to Shaw.
Speaking of which...Does anybody have his status? I've had the same type of 
injury and my guess is torn or strained ankle ligaments. I bet they put an air
cast on him ASAP to keep the swelling down. I figure he'll be out for a few
weeks at least...Ankle injuries suck...

all in all a good game that showed a few weaknesses to Ford and showed him that
Dee brown is a player to be counted on also.


John

    I made my first trip to the Gahden yesterday thanks to the generosity
    of a good friend of mine.  I had a great time and saw a good game
    (although the outcome left something to be desired).  I got a chance to
    see how Clyde got his nickname - boy he is smooth.  Duckworth is HUGE.
    
    Pinkney had some quality minutes yesterday that won't show up in the
    boxscore.  What has happened to Kleine lately?  He and Pinkney seem to
    have reversed roles.  Kleine didn't get much PT, and he certainly
    didn't do well in what he did have.  Losing Shaw 3 minutes into the
    game certainly didn't help the Celts cause.  Who would the Celts use at
    point guard if Brown wasn't able to log all of those effective minutes?
    
    The Gahden faithful sure got nasty after that nocall on the offensive
    interference.

    	Does Cliff Robinson know how stoopid he looks with that haidband.
    I was expecting Bruce Lee to jump on the Gahden floor and start
    kickboxing him.
    
    				/Don

    Ha - Bird was 'on-fire'....
    
    
    Lawwy was what - 9-23, but he was 5-8 from 3 point land, which, drum
    roll please, makes lawwy a wopping 4-15 from the non-3-point field.
    That's pitiful.....
    
    Lawwy's shooting has been off for almost 3 season now - he gets worser
    and worser from the field.  He has glimpses of his old self, but he
    should think about living year-round in French Lick...
    
    Hawk - ummmm, I don't think so.  The C's always benefit from the refs
    calls.
    
    JD

I said Bird was on fire in the 3rd quarter JD.....

I agree that Parrish's interference call was the right call but in the land 
of NBA refs when they blow a call at one end they usually make up for it on the
other end. To blow a call at 1 end and then not make up for it at the other 
end is a 4 point swing. Then to call McHale for the T when he's in the huddle
adds a little insult to injury.

I loved it when the announcers said the Parrish intends to lay for another 4-5
years...He'll be as old as Lee when he retires :-)


Metz

 The thing about Larry is that before his recent injury he was shooting like
 the Larry of 5 years ago and not the last two. His back is bad and if they
 don't do something soon he'll be dead in the playoffs. Reggie's also got a
 bad back so he has hot and cold game Metz. Also the word in this morning
 paper is Shaw is day to day. Portland outscores Boston 16-2 with Parrish
 on the bench there at the end of the third quarter. As my good buddy big
 Russ Thompson would say "Kliene's a waste of skin"...

 mike

    JD, did you see the game?  In the second half, the Trail Blazers went
    to the charity stripe 26 times.  In the third quarter, the Celts were
    into the penalty very early, while the Blazers remained under the 5
    foul limit for the whole quarter.
    
    Hawk's right, Bird did his damage in the 3rd quarter.  He was visibly
    upset with himself in the first half.  When he wasn't in the game he
    was laying down on the floor on his stomach.
    
    Hawk, McHale probably deserved the T.  He was giving the ref and earful
    a few times when he was on the floor, and then during the timeout he
    directed quite a few comments to the ref while the team was in the
    huddle.

    Mike, what happened to Kleine lately?  The guy had been filling his
    role very nicely, yet he hardly gets an PT anymore (and judging from
    his performance on Sunday, doesn't deserve it).  Like I said earlier,
    Kleine and Pinkney seem to have reversed roles.  Not too long ago,
    Pinkney was the one who was buried on the bench and deservedly so.

 I think what happen to Kliene is simple he was alway terribly slow, now he's
 older so he's even slower. People also realized that hey the guy can't hit
 a shot unless it's a foul shot so they stopped fouling him. They realized
 he isn't as strong as they thought so now they mix it up with him. Ford had
 shown more confidence in Pickney than Rodgers did and picks his spot to use
 Eddie better. Kliene in the meantime lost confidence in himself because Ford
 certainly did. At the begining of the year Ford quickly went to using McHale
 as Parrish's main backup once Gamble showed he could cut it at small forward.

 now if Derrick Smith can contribute, Kliene will see less time. Heck I'd
 rather suffer with Stoko's mistake than seeing Kliene get underserved
 minutes...

 mike

    Mac
    
    It cracks me up to hear Celtic fans complain about officiating.  The
    Celts have been getting the calls since the 1950's.  Larry has pushed
    off on just about every fall away and rebound he's gotten - but he
    never gets called.  Parrish travels just about every time he gets the
    ball.   
    
    I saw most of the game.
    
    Mike C.
    
    Larry's boxscores from the field have not been impressive this year.
    Even before the injury he threw quite a buch of 9-23's, but he did have
    some 'vintage' Lawwy games.  
    
    
    Joe Kleine is a waste of skin.  Pinckney is at least athletic.  Kleine
    is a Rick RObey without the personality.
    
    JD

 The begining of the year JD, Larry hardly had any games where he took 20
 shots. The 9-23 games were few aand far between instead of every other
 game like lately. In the begining he was taking between 10-15 shots a night.
 Now due to injuries and teams being more prepared to stop the Celtics from
 running they are froced into a half court game where Bird ends up taking 
 more shots....

 7 3-pointers last night....but I can't tell you what the rest of his line
 was...

 Final was 129 -109 or something like that....

 mike

� 7 3-pointers last night....but I can't tell you what the rest of his line
� was...

I know Bird had 29 Points, and 10 assists.
Sounds like news of his demise has been greatly exaggerated.

Mike JN

PS - Larry Bird is WHITE!?!?!?
     I didn't know that!!!! 
     Isn't there a rule against that or something?

    For every officiating complaint there is from a Celtic fan, there is at
    least one from the Celtic bashers whining about the homecooking the
    Celts get from the refs in the Gahden.  I wasn't complaining about the
    refereeing on Sunday, just pointing out that there wasn't any
    homecooking that day.
    
    The Trailblazers apparently don't consider Larry to be washed up
    judging by the number of times he drew the double team on Sunday.
    
    Bird was 7-10 from the three point line against the Pacers in Hartford
    last night.

	You got to forgive JD there BigMac, he still hasn't tried the 
decaffienated brands like I've suggested.  And he's forgotten the 
incredible home cooking the Knicks dynasty (two championships) had in the 
70's.  Bradley and Dave D would tag team opponents WWF style, while the REFS�
would be talking to Woddy Allen about his new movie.  Talk about home court 
advantage!  One of the reasons the Blazers had so many foul shots was they 
took the ball to the hole more.  To suggest the Celtics got home cooking 
yesterday is ludicrous but certainly not unexpected in here.

				/Don

    The fack of the matter Slusher, is that the C-minus' get some
    incredible home-cooking. And have for decades (Dave Cowens, Robert
    parrish, and Bird got the best cookin') ... so just because *maybe* the
    Septics don't get a "make-up" call (besides those are for the
    playground), means that we have to hear your whining.
    
    Face facts, the Blazers are a better team. And Bird-brain had better
    realize that he can't shoot consitently anymore. I've see several games
    this year, where he's jacked up some very questionable 3-pointers (the
    loss to the Suns is the best example) to put it kindly.
    
    Bird's rep won't save him against the good teams ....

    	Doc, you calling me a whiner is like Charlie Manson calling
    a jaywalker a threat to society.

>    	Doc, you calling me a whiner is like Charlie Manson calling
>    a jaywalker a threat to society.

hahahahahahaha.....

Slasher a whiner?  hee hee hee hee.....

Nah, Slasher doesn't whine.  He'll roar, he'll bluster sometimes, and
he's murder on drunks begging butts, but he don't whine...

'Saw

>>    Face facts, the Blazers are a better team. 

Considering that the Celtics beat Portland last night in Portland, I think
that statement is a bit premature.

		Bob Cohen

    
    Bob, any relation to that "fiesty" owner of the Celts?
    
    
    
    Steve

> Considering that the Celtics beat Portland last night in Portland, I think
> that statement is a bit premature.
    
    Stayed up and watched the second half and overtime of this one.  I like
    the Celtics' size advantage in this matchup.  Parish didn't play almost
    the entire second half and since the announcers didn't say anything I
    figured he was hurt.  Turns out he was just having a horrendous game,
    but McHale was quite capable of handling the inside game himself (a 
    number of blocked shots).  For the most part, Lewis/Shaw/Brown/Gamble
    were able to negate Portland's quickness advantage, and Portland shot
    horribly from the outside.  The Blazers stayed in the game with an
    almost 3-to-1 foul shot advantage.
    
    Dee Brown needs to stay away from holding the ball and take it inside 
    more.  As this guy gets more aggressive, he's going to be a hell of a
    player.  With that leaping ability, the defense can't lay back and hold
    their men; they've got to come after him, opening things up down low
    like the winning jam in overtime by Parish last night.
    
    Once again, I subjected myself to the insufferable Tom Heinsohn 
    until I finally figured out that the game was on a special-edition
    telecast on TNT.  Even though I root for the Celtics, I'm not fanatical
    and just can't handle Heinsohn's whining and crying.  Never thought I'd
    say it, but bring back Gil Santos, please...
    
    glenn
      

    I also stayed up til the end.  I couldn't stand listening to both
    Heinsohn and Couz, but what the heck.  Regarding the 3 to 1 edge in
    foul shots, if you look at the final stats, I think you will see it
    ended up pretty even, with the Celts having more percentage made.
    
    RTG

    re: .93
    
    Gil Santos could probably come back at any time but doesn't want to. 
    His first loyalty is and always has been with WBZ Radio (he's a great
    football broadcaster) and covered the Celtics on TV using vacation and
    personal time to do so.  He gave up the Celtics job because he was
    getting burned out doing it.  He does a little Big East work during the
    college season but only covers games at UConn, Providence and BC so he
    doesn't have to do any overnight travel.  I can't remember how many
    times I heard him do a morning sports report from a hotel room on the
    morning after covering a Celtics game.  Except for the long trips he
    used to fly out on the morning of a game after doing the morning sports
    and that has to be a real grind.
    
    To Gil's credit, there were many times in his career where he could
    have moved up to a network job but didn't do it.  His career would have
    taken him away from his family more than he would have wanted and he's
    shown a lot of loyalty to WBZ, because they took him out of the low
    minors (a relatively small station in the New Bedford area) and brought
    him up to the big time.
    
    Don't look for Gil to be back on Celtics telecasts regularly any time
    soon.
    
    John

    How about those Celtics !
    
    17 point lead, 8 minutes to go ....
    
    
    AND THEY BLOW IT TO THE MIAMI HEAT !!!!!
    
    HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA !!!!!!!!!!
    
    And this is supposed to be a 'contendah' for the East title ?
    
    Yeah sure ......

    ...and how 'bout them Rockets last night! Good game vs. those awesome
    Cadavs!
    ...and how 'bout them 6ers last night! Sure showed the mighty Hornets a
    thing or 2!
    ...and BTW Dock, you forgot to tell us about the 6ers C's game a coupla
    weekends ago. Guess I missed that Note, eh?

    oops, I goofed. The Rockets squeaked by the Kwaks Thurs. They did get
    crushed by Orlando though! 
                               Denny

    Don't expect to see a note in here today by Doc Midnight unless it's of
    the whining variety!
    
    					Steve

    Denny, you was born goofed up ! :-)
    
    Hell of a game yesterday between the Bulls and C's. 136-132 in 2 OT's.
    Bird scored 8 in the 2nd OT after Parrish and McHale fouled out, and
    Dee Brown was trememdous all day. Jim Paxton was un-freakin-conscious
    all day from 3-pt land (6-6 ?), and Pippin played big too. Suprisingly
    it was Jordan who went stone cold during the last 2 minutes and both
    OT's, I think he was 0-10 .... but it was still a very entertaining
    game ..

    
    A few nits. The game was 135-132, Bird scored 9 in the 2nd OT and 
    Paxson was 5-5 from the 3 pt line. A great game!
    
    
    
    Steve

       Who got into Midnight's account? Or did he have a 'sweet pill' for
    Easter?
                                  Denny  :^)
    
    

    PROPER !
    
    Screw the Celtics ! They're going doooooooooownnnnn !!!!

    I think it's time for the 2nd Annual Celtic Blowout Contest ...
    

 
 Celts are going all the way Doc, they've been doing the Bookies' a favor
 with their recent play.....

 mike

    The person who guesses when the Celtics lose in the playoffs will win a
    prize, supplied by me!!!!
    
    Guess the opponent, and the amount of games it takes to do them in. 
    Guess the round, also....
    
    Example:  Indiana, 4-2, Round 1
    
    Go at it.
    
    JD

    > Guess the opponent, and the amount of games it takes to do them in. 
    > Guess the round, also....
    
    Let the contest begin.  (JD, is Indiana in 6 your guess or just an
    example?)
    
    
    NOTER	OPPONENT	 # OF GAMES	ROUND
    
    Yankowskas	Detroit           5               2
    
    
    

    Okay, the contest has started.  Please extract this note are reply
    here.   Entries allowed until right before the first game of the
    Pacers/Celtics entry.
    
    If you think the Celts will win it all - simply put down that they
    won't lose at all.
    
    Depending on amount of entrants, there may be more than ONE prize!!!
    
    My example was just an example....not an entrant.  I won't enter the
    contest.
    
    
    
    > Guess the opponent, and the amount of games it takes to do them in. 
    > Guess the round, also....
        
    NOTER	OPPONENT	 # OF GAMES	ROUND
    
    Yankowskas	Detroit           5               2
    
    
    

    JD, nothing prsonal, but I did run the contest last year.
    
    However, I'll help you with te prize, and suggest that we have a
    tie-breaker ... 
    
    Give us the score of the game that buries the C-minus', and the closest
    combined score will win any tie-breakers ...

    Tough Doc, I have the prizes already.  Enter if you want to.  I'm
    honest and can judge QB talent at least ;-)
    
    You cain help run it, but its MY contest (na-na-na-nana-na!)
    
    JD

           
    NOTER       OPPONENT        # OF GAMES	ROUND
    
    Yankowskas	Detroit           5               2
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit		  6		  2
    
          					 
                                                 glen j.

    NOTER       OPPONENT        # OF GAMES      ROUND      TIE BREAK SCORE
    
    
    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    
    
    Madge

JD

This is too easy...

    NOTER       OPPONENT        # OF GAMES      ROUND      TIE BREAK SCORE
    
    
    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12


I don't know if I'm allowed to enter since I'm not a Celtic basher.  I love the
Celtics, I'm just a realist.

=Bob=  

    Here's an OUt on a limb Guess
    
    M_Air_B	Atlanta		    7		2	No Need

    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	Indiana		  5		  1		105-97

    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	Indiana		  5		  1		105-97

    

    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	Indiana		  5		  1		105-97
    Heiser      Phoenix           7               4             10

    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	Indiana		  5		  1		105-97
    Heiser      Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	Chicago		  6		  3		3
    

    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	Indiana		  5		  1		105-97
    Heiser      Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	Chicago		  6		  3		3
    
                                                 glen j.

    Geez,  7 entries.  At this rate almost everyone might win a prize.
    
    Heck these prizes will be great even for a Celtics fan!!
    
    JD

    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	Indiana		  5		  1		105-97
    Heiser      Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	Chicago		  6		  3		3
    Kirkman     Detroit           6               2             98-89

Detroit looks pretty popular.  Pistons to win it all!!!

    Scott

    Yankowskas  Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl  Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar     Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough  Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	Indiana		  5		  1		105-97
    Heiser      Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	Chicago		  6		  3		3
    Kirkman     Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin      Chicago           5               3             111-104
    
RTG

    
    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    
    Make it Official
    								M_Air

    
    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    
    
    Jim

    
    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    
    Jim

    
    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    King         Portland          5               15            106-91

    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    King         Portland          5               15            106-91
    Needle       Golden State      7               What the hell are these for?

    re j.:
    
    Golden State won't win it all until the 1994-95 season, after they take
    Arturas Karnishovas in the 1994 NBA draft to go along with Lithuanian
    countryman Saurunas Marciulonis.  :-)
                        
    
    py                                     

    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    King         Portland          5               15            106-91
    Needle       Golden State      7               What the hell are these for?
    Riggen       Indiana           5               1 (bird drops)121-119

    re .132
    
    And Megan Yankowskas is the 6th man-uh person off the bench ... :-)

    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    King         Portland          5               15            106-91
    Needle       Golden State      7               What the hell are these for?
    Riggen       Indiana           5               1 (bird drops)121-119
    Childs       WIN IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    King         Portland          5               15            106-91
    Needle       Golden State      7               What the hell are these for?
    Riggen       Indiana           5               1 (bird drops)121-119
    Childs       WIN IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Hausrath     Indiana 	   4		   1		 122-114

    Yankowskas   Detroit           5               2             17
    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    Thurgar      Detroit           4               2             -9
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Schneider	 Indiana 	   5		   1		 105-97
    Heiser       Phoenix           7               4             10
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    M_Air_Brooks Atlanta	   7		   2 (No one else will take atl)
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    King         Portland          5               15            106-91
    Needle       Golden State      7               What the hell are these for?
    Riggen       Indiana           5               1 (bird drops)121-119
    Childs       WIN IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Hausrath     Indiana 	   4		   1		 122-114
    Ashe	 Detriot (TM)      6               2             104-93
    

    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Cappel	 Chicago	   6		   3		 3
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Galvin       Chicago           5               3             111-104
    Reid         Detroit           7               2             3
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    King         Portland          5               15            106-91
    Needle       Golden State      7               What the hell are these for?
    Childs       WIN IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Ashe	 Detriot (TM)      6               2             104-93
    

I think everyone whio had the right game and opponent should get a prize!!11 8*)

=Bob=

    Johnson_Gl   Detroit           6               2             15
    McCullough   Detriot (TM)      6               2             12
    Kirkman      Detroit           6               2             98-89
    Brooks       Detroit	   6				 97-91    
    Ashe	 Detriot (TM)      6               2             104-93
    
    Yeah how do you break this?  I think it's between me and Bob because
    the others spelled Detriot (TM) wrong.  Youze guys decide...

    Boy, this is tough.  The final was 117-13 in OT.  4 point spread.
    
    Brooks is closes by the spread - but forgot to put in the Round #.
    
    Walt's the only one to pick a score over 100.  And he and Kirkman both
    had 9 point spreads.
    
    All five deserve some sort of prize.   I'll ask each of the five to
    send me their mailing (external) addresses (via e-mail) so that I can
    send them whatever I decide to make the prize!  Youze gonna LOVE 'em.
    
    ;-)
    
    JD

    From the first time the Celtics won their first championship in 1957,
    they had never gone more than 4 years without winning again.  They won
    in 1969, didn't win in 1970,71,72 and 73 and then won again in 1974. 
    They won in 1976, didn't win in 1977,78,79 and 80, and then won again
    in 1981.  After last winning in 1986, it's now been 87,88,89,90 and 91. 
    I suspect it's going to be a long time before they win again because
    the rebuilding job is going to be extremely difficult.
    
    John

  JD STICK IT WHERE THE SUNSHINE DON"T SHINE WILL YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 mike

    Mike,
    
    Larry sure went out wif a bang, didn't he (er, I mean wif a clang)  ;-)
    
    JD

 JD, Rodman owns him just like he owns about every other player in the
 league. Lewis had some success against Rodman. 

 Besdies Larry's getting an operation Parade in June 92!!!!

 mike

    Did I win the contest ?
    
    And boy - isn't Mike and Slasher reeeeeel quiet ?
    
    HAHHAHHAHAHAAAAA !!!!!!!

    	I'm still here Doc and am glad to see you've recuperated from
    beating you took in the RUSSELL/chamberlain debate.
    
    				/Don

    Doc,
    
    Send me your home mailing address - the prize awaits you...
    
    JD

 Doc when you catchup you'll see I took my lumps. I don't run and hide...
 I dish it I take I don't hide behind the extremely busy BS etc....

    It's alright Mike. I wanted to see if the Slahser had recovered.
    However, it seems that he is so disoriented from his double-pounding,
    that actually believes that he 'won' the Chamberlain/Russell 'debate'.
    
    Ha ....

	Doc, claiming yourself to be the winner of the debate (the "well 
Bob Pettit scored 50 on Russ" when Russ had a broken leg and didn't play 
was typical of your half hearted effort) is tantamount to Buster Douglas, 
after spending 2-3 minutes flat on his back with his belly up, springing to 
his feet and declaring himself the winner of the Holyfield/Douglas fight. 
Preposterous!

				/Don

    
    Doc, he did win.  As irrefuteable evidence, look at the fact that you
    haven't been in the notesfile for a few days, holing up like you always
    do after a thrashing.

    Yeah Doc, he wasted you....
    
    REK

    re .154
    
    See how you're twisting my words Slosher ?
    
    I put the Russell-Pettit shot in there to sho how silly you was being
    with the Wilt 'choke' line in the 69 finals, when he was injured in the
    4th quarter of the 7th game, recovered enough to play, but was held out
    by a ego-tripping coach.
    
    Of course being the Green Docker that you are, you claimed that it was
    a choke job.
    
    Fine. Then Russ must have choked in 58 right ?
    
    (FYI : Russ did NOT have a broken leg - more like a sprained ankle.
    
    Typical distortion.)
    
    Be consistent - you know that falsehoods can not stand up to the light
    of The Doctor ....
    
    Dr M

    re .155 .156
    
    Sorry fellows, but your known ties to Celtic institutions, and your
    desperate desire to avenge yourself upon me for my many victories vs
    the Jihad hardly makes you credible witnesses ...
    
    Ha.
    
    Doc

    	Hey Doc, you claiming another "Sadaam Hussein" victory?

    Slash, you was the one proclaiming "the mother of all notes" ...

    	Doc, you misunderstood.  I was referring to Wilt and said "Mother
    of all Chokes" 8^o
    
    				/Don

    
    
    Yeah right, thanks for confirming my victory over you, you lame excuse
    for an adversary ....

================================================================================
Note 90.162        The Official Anti-Celtic (Bash) Note v 3.0         162 of 162
EARRTH::BROOKS "Say it ain't so Homey !"              4 lines  23-MAY-1991 14:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    Yeah right, thanks for confirming my victory over you, you lame excuse
    for an adversary ....

	and Iraq won the Persian Gulf War

	and the Patriots won the '86 Super Bowl

	and the USSR won the gold medal in the '80 olympics

	and McGovern won the 1972 Presidential election

	and Napoleon kicked butt in Russia...

	and Bill Buckner was elected mayor of Boston

    Just catching up here and getting a chuckle out of this particular
    subject. The old Russell vs Chamberlain debate. 
    
    Reminds me of the Mantle vs Williams, Super Mario vs The Great Gretzky,
    etc debates.
    
    Wilt Chamberlain was the most DOMINATING player in basketball history.
    For a single must-win game, I would always choose to have Wilt on my
    team. Bill Russell was NOT a dominating player - yet his defensive
    prowess, offensive rebounding skills and team leadership cannot be
    objectively analyzed. Was Russell the greatest? I don't think so. was a
    an important cog in the awesome Celtic teams of the past? Most
    definitely. More so that Havlicek, Cousey or anyone else. 
    
    Yet, here we have a person so blinded by his hatred for the Celtics
    that he refuses to give an inch on the greatness of Bill Russell. And
    we also have a person whose view is so slanted in Celtic green that he
    belittles a man who desreves nomination as the greatest of all time.
    
    Who would I build my team around? Bill Russell. Who would I build my
    All-Star team around for a one shot deal? Wilt Chamberlain. Niether
    choice should detract from the skills of either man. 
    
    Rich
    

Excellent reply Rich, congrats!




Steve

Boy, that pure and objective logic gave me a woody....

GREAT reply!

'Saw

Sonia, Sonia, Sonia....

Wendy, Wendy, Wendy...

And finally, the Height Report....


(Sigh),
'Saw

 While your logic is admirable Rich, it's flawed in the fact that you'd take
 Wilt for 1 game so why oh why did Russell and the Cletics beat Wilt in all
 of those game 7's or 6's how could he and his teammated blow 3-1 leads to
 Russell and the Celtics???

  mike

    re .164
    
    Rich, a good note.
    
    Now find me that man who hates the Celtics sooo much that he'll never
    give Russell his due ! I'll kick his butt for ya !
    
    Doc

    Mike - My point is that Russell was an integral part of the fabric that
    made the Celtics such a great team. Since he was the heart, soul and
    guts of that team, the spotlight falls on HIS head as the greatest
    player of those great teams.
    
    Yet, the strength of those teams was not one player - but the team
    itself. I think THAT is why the Celtics have gone to great pains to
    retire so many numbers - to illustrate that the team concept overrides
    the importance of individual greatness.
    
    Those Celtic teams played like poetry together. Yet, take 'em away from
    that team, stick 'em with someone else and I doubt they would perform
    as well. Bill Sharman, Tom Sanders, KC and Sam, Heinsohn....they are
    all OK but do they match up with Oscar or Baylor or Petit/Hagen from
    the Hawks or Wilt/Chet Walker/Luke Jackson from Philly? On paper those
    names from the other teams should have squashed the Celtics - yet the
    team around the nucleus named Russell created a dynasty.
    
    I maintain that Wilt is the guy to form an All Star team
    around...bringing in players from other teams. And, as I've said, if
    I'm building a franchise, I would build it around Russell.
    
    re Doc
    
    I think that guy your looking for works on 5-3, ne'st pas?
    
    Rich
    

    I'll see if I can find him ... I have never disparaged Russell, even if
    he wore the uniform of the Fungus ... what would be an appropriate
    punishment for the scuz-bucket ?
    
    Lock him in a closet with Slasher ?
    
    Doc
    
    p.s. If the *team concept* was the strenght of the C's, then I submit 
    Rich that Wilt could have won 10 titles with a better supporting cast and 
    front office, right ? After all, the two greatest teams in league history,
    record-wise, had Wilt in the pivot ...
                  

    Better supporting cast, Doc? As I listed before, in Philly he had
    Jackson, Walker and the smooth Hal Greer. In LA he had baylor, West,
    Goodrich. He has as good, if not better support than Russell.
    
    Front office? I wouldn't call Sharman a bad coach (LA) I don't recall
    the Warrior's coach but those Philly teams were tough, well put
    together and well coached. 
    
    I got to see many games in person back then (You never saw the photo I
    had in my office of Russell and Wilt vieing for a rebound) since the
    Garden only sold out for the C's in the playoffs. The thing that
    alsways amazed me about the Celtics was the unselfish nature of their
    game. They would spin my head around with pass after pass to get the
    best shot. Other teams would come in and, say Cliff Hagen or Jerry
    Lucas or Walt Bellamy was hot - they would be the whole offense for the
    other team. But the Celts rarely had a guy score over 25 points. (Pre
    Havlicek). 
    
    

 ok Rich, I'd say we're on the same page now....

    Rich, you know that Wilt only played with Greer et Co for 2 full
    seasons. And Sharman was his coach for the last two years in LA.
    
    What about the other 9 or 10 ?
    
    That's the line of hype that I've been fighting. Now don't give Mikey
    and more reasons to distort reality ...

    	Wilt played with Greer and Co. in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.
    I didn't take new math Doc, but no matter how you cut it that's
    four years.  The Celtics team had the better record in 1965, the
    Sixers had the better record in the following three years.  And
    Rich I wouldn't take Wilt for one game unless that one game was
    regular season and not the 7th game of a playoff series.
    
    				/Don

    
    Just curious Doc, but do you have a picture of Wilt hanging
    on your ceiling over your bed? 8^))))))))))))))))
    
    
    
    Steve

                  
    > I maintain that Wilt is the guy to form an All Star team
    > around...bringing in players from other teams. And, as I've said, if
    > I'm building a franchise, I would build it around Russell.
    
    No offense, Rich, but what does this mean?  I don't understand the
    difference between building an All-Star team with players already in
    the league and building a franchise from scratch.  Does it mean that
    Wilt wouldn't have been as good playing with young kids just coming 
    in and Russell wouldn't have been as good with a team of proven 
    superstars (I thought in the early years the Celtics were close to an
    All-Star team)?  Either way it's a team game, with the same goal of 
    winning a championship, right?
    
    glenn
    

    Glenn,
    
    I am taking a team of basketball players to Rio for the world
    champeenship. I am allowed to take 5 players. At center, I am going to
    take Wilt because I feel he is the biggest impact player of all time.
    
    Now, I have just been awarded an expansion franchise in Des Moines. The
    first player I pick is Bill Russell. I'm looking for leadership over
    the long haul.
    
    Rich
    

    Gotcha, Rich.  I thought this "All-Star" team was to compete in the
    NBA, not in a short-term event like the Olympics.  So in other words, 
    under the NBA system with the goal of NBA championships in mind, you 
    take Russell over Chamberlain, right?
    
    glenn
    

    Hey Rich Brake, I suck at basketball, but would be delighted to go to
    Rio with you and your club.
    
    Sincerely, 
    
    Mark.

    Squawk, I've seen it.
    
    Mark.

    Believe Wilt only led league in assists one yr, how about Russell?
    

PLEASE DINZ!!! STOP!! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!! 

Russell, Chamberlain, Bill, Wilt, Russell, Chamberlain...

ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I'm losin it I tell ya!! HA a aa ha ha hee ho hee ho, call
the cookie wagon! 8^)



Steve

    You know - I really think Chris Ford should have been Coach of the
    Year, and not Phil Jackson.
    
    JD

 or God forbid I say this Dunleavy....he did install a whole new system out 
 there as well as dealing with the pressures of his on court coach ole
 Whinny face...you know the guy who could get Larry Bird's mother to call
 a foul on Larry if'n Larry had a mind to womp that chump in a one on one...


 mike

    I deleted the initial posting.  This version has the TNT games added to
    it.
    
    Mike
    
$!    Command format:   
$!    
$!    $ @celtics p1 p2 p3
$!
$!    p1 = item to search for, such as opponent's name, TV station, day of week)
$!    p2 = forecasting switch; enter Y to enable; N or blank to disable
$!    p3 = if p2 is Y, enter a number from 1-31; 7 is the default
$!    
$ Save_Message = F$Environment("Message")
$ Set Message/Nosever/Noid/Notext/Nofac
$ Say :== Write sys$output
$ dow = "''f$cvtime(""today"",,""weekday"")'"
$ td = "''f$time()'"
$ day= "''f$extract(0,2,td)'"
$ month=f$extract(3,3,td)
$ year=f$extract(7,4,td)
$ file = f$environment("procedure")
$ gametoday = f$extract(3,4,f$time())+f$extract(8,2,f$cvtime("today"))
$ P1 = f$edit(P1,"collapse")
$ If P1 .eqs. "" 
$ then 
$ lookingfortoday = "TRUE"
$ p1 = gametoday
$ Say "Today's Boston Celtics' basketball game: "
$ else
$ Say "Selected Boston Celtics' basketball game(s): "
$ lookingfortoday = "FALSE"
$ endif
$ search 'file' 'p1'
$ is_there = $status
$ if is_there .eqs. "%X08D78053" 
$ then 
$ if lookingfortoday then Say "No game today."
$ if .not. lookingfortoday then Say "No such game."
$ endif
$next_n_days:
$ if P2 .eqs. "" .or. P2 .eqs. " " then goto done
$ if P2 .eqs. "Y" 
$ then
$      at_a_glance = 7
$      if P3 .eqs. "" .or. P3 .eqs. " " then P3 = at_a_glance
$      if P3 .lt. 1 .or. P3 .gt. 31 then goto bad_reply
$ else
$      if P2 .nes. "N" then goto bad_reply
$      goto done
$ endif
$ Say "Boston Celtic games in next "+"''P3'"+" days:"
$ month = f$edit(f$extract(0,3,"''p1'"),"UPCASE")
$ n_day = f$extract(4,2,"''p1'")
$ count = 1
$next_day:
$ n_day = n_day + 1
$ if month .eqs. "OCT" .AND. n_day .gt. 31 
$ then 
$ month = "NOV" 
$ goto new_month 
$ endif
$ if month .eqs. "NOV" .AND. n_day .gt. 30 
$ then 
$ month = "DEC" 
$ goto new_month 
$ endif
$ if month .eqs. "DEC" .AND. n_day .gt. 31 
$ then 
$ month = "JAN" 
$ goto new_month 
$ endif
$ if month .eqs. "JAN" .AND. n_day .gt. 31 
$ then 
$ month = "FEB" 
$ goto new_month 
$ endif
$ if month .eqs. "FEB" .AND. n_day .gt. 28 
$ then 
$ month = "MAR" 
$ goto new_month 
$ endif
$ if month .eqs. "MAR" .AND. n_day .gt. 31 
$ then 
$ month = "APR" 
$ goto new_month 
$ endif
$ if month .eqs. "APR" .AND. n_day .gt. 23 then goto say_playoffs
$ goto test_for_game
$new_month:
$ n_day = "1"
$test_for_game:
$ if n_day .lt. 10 then n_day = "0" + f$edit("''n_day'","collapse")
$ p1 = "''month'" + "-" + "''n_day'"
$ search 'file' 'p1'
$ count = count + 1
$ if count .le. P3 then goto next_day
$ goto done
$say_playoffs:
$ SAY "Playoffs due to start... schedule is TBD!!!"
$ goto done
$bad_reply:
$ Say "Invalid reply."
$ goto done
$ done:
$ set mess'Save_Message'
$ EXIT
OCT-11     LA Lakers 
OCT-12     LA Lakers           Worcester Centrum
OCT-15  at New York 
OCT-16     New York            Hartford
OCT-18     Indiana             Providence
OCT-22     TBD                 GW Forum Tournament (Spurs, Bucks, Lakers)
OCT-23     TBD                 GW Forum Tournament (Spurs, Bucks, Lakers)
OCT-26     Washington          Albany N.Y.
NOV-01	   Charlotte      
NOV-02	at Washington
NOV-05	at Miami               TNT
NOV-06	   Chicago
NOV-08	   Atlanta
NOV-10	at Portland
NOV-12	at Sacramento
NOV-13	at Phoenix
NOV-15	   Philadelphia
NOV-16	at Charlotte
NOV-20	   Indiana
NOV-23	at New Jersey
NOV-25	   Washington          Hartford
NOV-27	   Orlando
NOV-29	   Lakers              TNT
NOV-30	at Atlanta
DEC-04	   Miami
DEC-06	   New York
DEC-09	   Denver
DEC-13	   Seattle
DEC-14	at New York
DEC-17	at Orlando
DEC-18	   Milwaukee
DEC-20	   Utah
DEC-21	at Miami
DEC-25	at Chicago
DEC-27	at Seattle
DEC-28	at Denver
DEC-30	at Clippers
JAN-03	   Cleveland
JAN-04	at Minnesota
JAN-06	   Sacramento
JAN-08	   New York
JAN-10	   Minnesota
JAN-11	at New York
JAN-15	   New Jersey
JAN-17	   Philadelphia
JAN-19	   San Antonio
JAN-20	at Cleveland
JAN-22	   Orlando
JAN-24	   Phoenix
JAN-26	   Detroit
JAN-28	at Washington
JAN-31	at Milwaukee           TNT
FEB-01	at Philadelphia
FEB-05	   Houston             TNT
FEB-11	at San Antonio         TNT
FEB-12	at Dallas
FEB-14	at Houston
FEB-16	at Lakers
FEB-17	at Utah
FEB-19	at Golden State        TNT
FEB-21	   Charlotte           Hartford
FEB-23	at Indiana
FEB-25	at New Jersey
FEB-26	   Indiana
FEB-28	at Atlanta             TNT
MAR-01	   Dallas
MAR-04	   Orlando
MAR-06	   Clippers
MAR-08	at Orlando
MAR-10	at Miami
MAR-11	at Chicago             TNT
MAR-13	   New Jersey          Hartford
MAR-15	   Portland
MAR-17	at Milwaukee
MAR-18	   Cleveland
MAR-20	at Detroit
MAR-22	   Golden State
MAR-25	at New Jersey
MAR-27	   Detroit
MAR-29	   Atlanta
APR-01	   Washington
APR-03	at Indiana             TNT
APR-05	   Chicago
APR-07	at Cleveland
APR-08	   New York
APR-10	   Milwaukee
APR-12	at Charlotte
APR-14	at Philadelphia
APR-15	at Detroit             TNT
APR-19	   Miami

    I'm told the Celtic conference is all abuzz over the play of North
    Carolina rookie Rick Fox.  Rick was high scorer last night for the C's
    and apparently has been playing like a cagey veteran, rather than a
    first year main.  (He went to the foul line around 10 times last
    night.)
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    
    Re: Rick Fox
    
    Saw the Celtics play lasted Saturday night against the Lakers and Fox
    did look pretty good.  Two things that hurt him Saturday - sipped
    majorly at the foul line and got bagged for stupid fouls (could be
    over-zealousness there...)  Other than those things, he impressed me. 
    In fact, the whole team looked pretty good.
    
    
    Cath
     

 I saw the Celtics' box score for their first game with the Lakers over the
 past weekend and Rick Fox had a 4-for-15 line, I do believe.    Looks to
 me like he still has some wet mortar on his trowel.
 
 He did shoot better in their next game, though.
 
 Bob Hunt

    The only good Celtic, is a retired one ....
    
    
    Except ML Carr. The only way he'd be good is to be deported ...
    
    
    To the Moon !
    
    Doc

    If only the good die young ....
    
    
    
    Be rest assured that the sleezebag Red Auerbach will live forever.
    
    Doc

     AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.....  You Gotta like any not having to do with
    bashing the Celts or Sox !!!
    
    Larry Bird has a Big Nose,
    
    Big Game

    Geez, is it time for Doc's broken record again?
    
    lEe

    Records are made to be broken lLe .....

    And never fear Hawkie baby, I'm warming up to The Gooney One ...
    
    Larry Legend !
    
    Ha !
    
    So was the Kiwi Bird !
    
    
    
    ... you know what happened to it !

    
    Tell us, Doc, what happened to the Kiwi?

    Don't know what happened to the Kiwi...  Do know that Mchale
    is a washed up has been though !!
    
    Big Game
    
    Lakers are better w/o Magic than the Celts are with Larry Legend and
    Mchales Navy !!

    
    >    Tell us, Doc, what happened to the Kiwi?
    
    I'm no Doc, but the kiwi is alive and well and living in New Zealand,
    I believe.  They were almost driven to extinction, however, when people
    found out that you could make a great shoe polish out of 'em.
    
    Dickstah
    

       Ah, that explains the Celtic-Kiwi connection. They must use Kiwi
    polish to make them sneaks they wear so black.
                                         Denny

I love Kiwi, only problem is the furry stuff gets caught in my teefs when I eat
them.

       Does Kiwi Vanderweigh still play for the Knicks??
                                       Denny

    Larry turns 35 today so if any of us see him today please wish him a
    very HEALHY birthday......
    
    REK

    Everyone had to figure that this topic would get revived by Doc. 
    Afterall, his beloved Lakers had their star retire, just went through a
    horrendous road swing, and put their starting center on the disabled
    list.

    Personally,  I think it's great...  I may stick around after football
    season just to input to this topic..  
    
    larry has a big nose,
    
    ;^)
    
    Big Game

    re .211
    
    Yet, the Lakers are still near the top of the Pacific Division, a fact
    not lost on Jihad member Mike "Vlade" Heiser ....
    
    The Lakers' play is proof positive of what class and pride can do for an
    organization.
    
    Do you think the Septics could do the same ?
    
    NOT !

�    Do you think the Septics could do the same ?
�    
�    NOT !
    
    Well lessee, Doc.  The Celts have been without Shaw, Brown, and McHale
    for most of the season so far and yet are still near the top of the
    Atlantic Division.  Seems to me they stomped on the Lakers at their
    last meeting as well.

    Funny, *I* thought that the Celt's win over the NY Knicks gave
    them first place.
    
    Tonight is the first meeting between Denver and the Celt's and
    the papers are having as field day touting Mutombo vs. Parish.
    Guess radio will have to be good enough.  Don't have SChannel.
    
    Kev
    

    Young star on rise will school old fart with weird jersey number. 
    
    Then again, Parrish (as the only Vulcan in the NBA) may ride wave of
    good feeling over ST VI to a solid performance ...

>   horrendous road swing
    
       Oh I don't know.  4-3 is better than 2-5, especially 
    playing games on back to back nights 2x in the same road
    swing.  They just ran out of steam at the end.  
    
    
    						 glen j.

Actually, they had 3 pairs of back-to-back games on this trip.
7 games in 11 days.  4-3 looks damn good, especially when you 
consider they didn't have Divac for any of the games, and were
without Campbell and Tony Smith for some others.  

After that "horrendous" road trip, they're tied for first place
in the best division in the league.

Laker_Ken

    Besides the Lakers current problems, Houston had to put Hakeen on IR
    (activated this week), Golden State has returned to earth, and 
    Philadelphia is a 1 man team.
    
    Let's see, did I forget any other NBA teams?
    
    Mike

    Mike -
    
    The lakers are 7-3 in their last 10 games - what current problems are
    you talking about?  They have won 3 straight, and are in first.  Seems
    like they are reallys struggling with these current problems...
    
    JD
    

    Re: -1
    
    I was referring to their recent road trip and injury problems.  

    Larry Bird has a Big Nose  
    
    
    (Hi Dinsmore)
    
    BG
    
    

    Yeah, but he does have a big nose...

    re .219
    
    Yeah Vlade, you forgot to mention that the Puns are in 4th place.

    Hawk, I prefer simply calling McHale "Freak".
    
    As in that Dudley Moore movie where he is an ad man. He did an ad fo
    this movie called "The Freak".
    
    The ad says,
    
    
    
    " It won't just scare you - it'll f--- you up for life !"
    
    Sounds just like McHale to me !
    
    Doc

    
     Too funny...  !!  I really think someone should start a Celts
    topic.   
    
    
    Big Game
    
    Larry has a Big Nose and McHale if a "Freak Of Nature"

    I didn't want to steal Armen's thunder if he ever checked into here,
    but he IS a freak of nature...
    

    Wilt has the rings, littleoldjohnnie doesn't .....
    
    Try a new tack ...
    
    Doc

    	Doc, the Russell led Boston Celtics are "Lords of the Rings".

    figures he only comes in here when the boys are struggling

    The boys (perfect description) have been been spippin' pond scum for a
    while, and I don't expend time putting 1,00's of notes in like they
    deserve.
    
    Anyhow Mike, let's bury the hatchet and enjoy the C's gentle,
    brick-like descent to the bottom of the Atlantic eh ?
    
    
    Doc

    	Hey Doc, maybe you better take a trip to the Pacific and clear
    a spot on the ocean floor there first.  Or are they not your favorite
    team anymore?
    
    				/Don

    Speaking of the Pacific (toughest division in the NBA), one wonders if
    Chicago would have the NBA's best record in they were in that division.
    
    Afterall, they do have a losing record vs. Pacific division teams.
    
    Mike

C'mon Slasher you know that the Whosinfirst team has allway's
been Doc's fave team.


Steve

    ... another craven reach by a Greenie fan .....

    And I see nobody cares to challenge my p-names. Good to see that
    reality is setting in with the JIhad ...

Maybe if we actually cared Doc?



Steve

    SPORTS fan: "Who's your favorite team, Doc?"
    
    Doc: "Who's in first?"

    But how many, nah, never mind...
    

    How many craven Jihad weeines does it take to get my goat ?
    
    
    
    They caint count that high .....

    First of all, both Doug West and Mark West are still playing so they
    can't be compared to Sam & KC Jones.
    
    Secondly, Lance Parrish has never played against Kareem.

       Did anyone else notice that none of Dock's 'teams' happens to have a
    better record than the Celtics? Unless of course he's picked up a new
    one lately!
                                     Denny

    Remember that rumor about Doc owning a Celtics jacket...  He must have 
    bought it when they were in first.

    Celts still suck...
    
    
    Pistons suck more... but that's the way it goes... haha...
    

    Actually, I think the Celts are gradually putting together some
    youngsters that will contend in the future.  Bias aside, they waited
    too long to do it.

Say what you want, but most teams that are in a "rebuilding" stage generally 
suck pretty bad. While the transition from the Old Guard to the new is not
fully complete, you cna see where they are going. That they can still be one of
the better teams in the league while this is goin on says a lot, even if they 
are a shadow of the team they were 5-6 years ago.

Tom

    Mike, do you mean Len Bias, or "Doc" bias?  :*)
    
    lEe

    
    Wee Wally Puppet to the rescue again... see .241 and then the puppet
    appears in .242.
    

    Who's rescue?  Heiser's maybe...
    
    Yeah, puppet all right... How many championships have the Celts won?
    16? 17?  Probably puts a hole in Doc's argument... heck of a puppet,
    huh?

    Larry Has A *BIG NOSE*  !!
    
    ;^)
    
    
    BG

    The better to store nickels, Big Game.
    
    lEe

    And I'll bet he can get a few rolls up there, LEe
    
    BG

    
    I really don't care who was the better player because that would depend 
    on your criteria (and there are solid criteria that favor Wilt), but if 
    you're strictly into championships, Wilt pretty much said it all when 
    he stated that he didn't feel he would have matched Russell's 
    championship totals with the same Celtic cast around him.  In the mind
    of the key principal in the debate, the "surrounding cast" argument is
    not a significant variable.
    
    glenn
    

    	Well said Waugamain.  In response to JD's note in the Piston
    topic, take the four seasons 66-69 when Wilt had the better team
    (assuming the anti-Jihad will use the regular season record as the
    measuring stick), and see what he did.  One, ONE championship to
    Bill's three, THREE.  All four years their respective teams met
    head to head with Wilt coming ahead only once, ONCE and Russ
    prevailing thrice, THRICE.  I would take Wilt in the regular season,
    but if I had to play a game where my life depended on it Russ would
    be my starting center.  I can only assume that champeenships are
    more important in college basketball, and excellent losses mean
    more in the professional ranks.
    
    				/Don

       Yeah, that's all well and good, but Wilt got all the Girls!!
                                      Denny

    Not only did Wilt get the girls, GIRLS, but he got a lot of money,
    MONEY, too, TOO!
    
    haWK
    

>    Not only did Wilt get the girls, GIRLS, but he got a lot of money,
>    MONEY, too, TOO!
>    
>    haWK


You might check and see if he has our Red Sox tickets too......    

    	So therefore a HOFer at the end of his career (Sam Jones, KC Jones
    etc.) is a truer measure of the team's strength than regular season 
    record?  Right now the Celtics with three sure HOFers is much better
    than say, Phoenix (who we know has one guy who definitely *not* make
    the HOF).  Interesting logic.
    
    				/Don

    	The 68 and 69 teams were deep and talented?  That's the time
    frame we're talking about along with 66 and 67.  Are you implying
    (like Doc) that the 68 Sixer team with sixty wins was inferior to
    the Celtics?  Not that I should be surprised.  Wilt wilted in 7th
    games both years (68 and 69) to an inferior Russ lead team.  Unless
    we use some JD/Doc method of measuring talent to claim otherwise.
    
    				/Don

    
    > I do realize one of the great myths of Celtic history was how they were
    > vastly outmanned and overachieved.  When in reality they coasted
    > throught the regular season, and then used superior talent to go on to
    > victory.
    
    There's no way that this is true in Russell's last two seasons (hint:
    those two seasons alone eat up two of the 13 years that Wilt would 
    need just to match Russell's 11 titles).  Absolutely no way.  I'm
    sure even Doc will tell you that those teams were superior, but
    of course then we'd have to hear all of that moaning and groaning about
    Butch van Breda Kolff along with it.
    
    I've yet to see anyone step up to bat to challenge Wilt's own assessment 
    of the championship debate.
    
    glenn
    
                                           

    
    Lemme see, a Laker team with a Elgin Baylor (argueably the best forward
    of his time), Wilt (argueably the best center of his time), and Jerry
    West (argueably the best guard of his time) was outmanned, in an era
    when bench strength was not as important as it is today.  OK, JD
    (Justlike Doc), makes sense to me.
    
    Brews 

    Brew s-
    
    Lets see, who'd the Cetls have?
    
    Russell - maybe the best of all time?  
    
    Hondo Havlechek - one of the greatest forwards of all time - and
    out-stated Mr. Baylor.
    
    Cousey? - one of the greatest point guards of all time.
    
    K.C. Jones - a hall of famer.
    
    Sam Jones - a hall of famer.
    
    Was Satch Sanders still around?  Heinsohn??
    
    Who else.
    
    Yep Brews - them poor Celts were really outmanned....
    
    JD

    	Like a true writer JD you take what I say and butcher it.  You
    have a future in sports "journalism".  Didn't say they were lunchpail
    underachievers, did say Wilt's team in his last four years going
    against Russell were better, and that's a fact.  
    
    				/Don

    JD,
    I don't ever remember the Celts of 60-66 as being billed as
    overachievers. Never. I lived through those chameenship years, and
    IMO those teams were superior to every team that came down the pike.
    What made them great was the ability to ward off all pretenders to the
    throne and keep winning. It's tough to stay on top, especially
    mentally. Now they weren't vastly superior, just better. They had
    the occassional runs from the Royals, Hawks, Lakers, and Sixers, but
    beat them because the had developed the TEAM concept far better than
    others. Led by THE MAN in the playoffs, Bill Russell.
    
    Now the '68 and '69 Celts were inferior, not vastly, to the Sixers and
    Lakers, but still inferior. And the cream rose to the top, again led
    by the MAN, Bill Russell.
    
    JMHO,
    MikeL
    

    Russell, Sam Jones and John Havlicek were the only constants from
    66-69.  Cousy retired after the 1963 season.  Heinsohn retired after
    the 1965 season.  KC Jones retired after the 1968 season.  Jo Jo White
    and Don Chaney were just starting their careers.  Larry Siegfried
    played some.  Satch Sanders was a constant from that era but I cain't
    remember if he played all the way through.  Throughout that era, but
    especially the 68 and 69 teams, the Celtics were held together by good
    trading (they were famous in that period for picking up and
    rejuvenating veterans and castoffs, such as Don Nelson and Bailey
    Howell) and good coaching - first by Auerbach and then by Russell - and
    in a period where the ownership was always in turmoil.  Havlicek didn't
    really step to the forefront until after Russell was gone.
    
    I will agree that from 1957-65, the Celtics pretty much out-talented
    everyone.  In 1966, the age was starting to show and the Sixers were
    starting to get good.  1967 was the transitional year with Auerbach
    having retired.  1968 and 69 were the only years in which the Celtics
    probably should have been beaten by more talented teams.  They were old
    and ripe for the taking, but no one ever did it.  Those were
    championships won on "Celtics Pride" more so than any other and if you
    talk to the players and coaches who were around for lots of those
    championships, those rings are the rings they wear.  I also think those
    are the only years in which you can even remotely say they
    overachieved.  I certainly don't think they ever, ever overachieved in
    the 1980s.
    
    John

FRom Peter Vecsey's column in USA Today:

"Obviously, Magic Johnson opted for NBC over the Lakers because 
he wanted to appear in the playoffs. He predicts the network goes 
all the way..."

    	No JD, the Knicks won because Wilt as usual wilted in yet another
    7th game, being outplayed by a one legged Willis Reed.  The Celtics
    in 69 were neither overly deep nor overly talented, but they did
    have Russell.
    
    				/Don

    What cracks me up is how the Jihad is breaking their neck seizing on
    Wilt's quotes. I also remember Wilt quoting many an expert pointing
    out the talent differences between his team's and Russell's.
    
    Has anyone noticed that Slash seizes on the last three years of
    Russell/Chamberlain era, when it was a 10-11 year period ? 
    
    What about the other eight ?
    
    As for the undertalented Celtics :
    
    Cousy, Russell, Sharman, and the Jones boys, all in the Hall Of Fame.
    Heinson, Sanders, perenially all-stars.
    
    Contrary to what Bruce said, the C's (to their credit) were one of the
    first teams to emphasize bench play. Frank Ramsey pioneered 6th man and
    'swingman' play, then Hondo followed. Oh yah, he's in the Hall Of Fame
    too.
    
    From 57-69, the C's had two coaches. 
    
    On the other hand, Wilt played under at least 5 coaches with three
    teams. Guy Rodgers was a fine point guard with the Warriors, but did
    they have any players who consistently played on a level with the
    above-mentioned Septics ? Then Wilt played with Nate Thurmond, but whom
    else ?                           
    
    More later ....

    JD, if you cain wait until the weekend (because my machine will be down
    until mid-day tomorrow) I will post the lineups for the Celtics if
    you'd like.  Gladly.  Unless of course you're just asking the question
    to cause trouble.
    
    I have admitted in the past (and will admit again) that the Celtics
    were a talented team and probably had a better supporting cast than the
    Chamberlain teams of the same era - except for the 1968 and 1969 teams.
    In fact, except for the 1968 and 1969 Celtics teams, I don't think
    anyone can ever rationally say that the Celtics ever overachieved. 
    How's that?
     
    If Chamberlain can be faulted for anything, it's that he didn't really
    rise to the occasion in the big games and didn't make his supporting
    cast better.  Russell did that.  Given that, I would rather have
    Russell on my team than Chamberlain because I think a great player must
    be measured by more than just stats.  This whole argument about Russell
    vs Chamberlain shows the fallacy of attempting to compare two
    individual players in a team sport, and I'm willing to bet the same
    arguments will go on in the future about Michael Jordan and Magic
    Johnson.  Their teams are different, their supporting casts are
    different and their circumstances are different.  I prefer to
    appreciate those players as they are/were and enjoy their good points
    without comparing them.
    
    If that drums me out of the Jihad, then so be it.  If you notice a tone
    of resentment here, you're exactly right.  There is.  I resent being
    lumped in with all the non-objective Celtics and Boston fans.
    
    John
    
    PS - I don't think the Celtics have overachieved except for 1968 and
    1969.  I don't think the Patriots have ever overachieved.  I don't
    think the Red Sox have ever overachieved except for 1967.  The Bruins
    are documented overachievers because they annually overcome a large
    (often, and documented by the NHL, the *LARGEST*) number of injuries in
    the league.  Is that objective enough for all of you?
                                                                 

                                
    > What cracks me up is how the Jihad is breaking their neck seizing on
    > Wilt's quotes. I also remember Wilt quoting many an expert pointing
    > out the talent differences between his team's and Russell's.
    
    So what?  Wilt's statement dealt with 11-for-13, not the talent 
    disparity.  I agree with him on both points.  Please address the
    issue, 11-for-13.  JD has done so by indicating that Wilt doesn't know
    what he's talking about half the time, which sounds sort of like the
    Mike Tyson defense strategy...
    
    > Has anyone noticed that Slash seizes on the last three years of
    > Russell/Chamberlain era, when it was a 10-11 year period ? 
    
    Because we're trying to establish a championship comparison against
    11-for-13, not whether or not the Celtics generally had better talent. 
    Of course they did.  But the point is that Russell didn't win
    championships only *twice* in his entire career regardless of
    surrounding cast, and Chamberlain didn't in more years than that even 
    when everyone (except maybe JD) concedes that his teams were considered 
    superior going into the playoffs.  It shouldn't be too hard to follow 
    the logic here unless you're deliberately obfuscating.
    
    Question: would Wilt have won 11 of 13 championships with the kind of
    talent around him that Russell had?  Honest opinions (I'm not asking
    for formal proof, this is a friendly sports debate), please, not "we 
    can't go back in time"-style obfuscating...
    
    glenn
    

    >	I don't think the Patriots have ever overachieved. 
    
    Save maybe for a glorious few weeks in late December 1985 and early
    January 1986.  A team that wins three straight road playoff games 
    can't help but be playing over their heads.  (However if you meant for
    an entire season, I'll agree.)
    
    
    py

    	Oh yeah Doc.  Cousy, Sharman and KC Jones played huge roles in
    the 68 and 69 Championships.  HUGE!  From here on out the regular
    season shall not be used to measure a team's talent.  We'll have
    to check with JD and Doc to see if the team had any talent first.
    Is this okay with everybody?
    
    				/Don  

 Celts are goin' down tonight in Hartford.   Sir Larry The Younger rules.
 
 Bob Hunt

    	To answer your question Glenn, if my life depended on a game
    and I could take the 60's Celtics and have either Russell or
    Chamberlain as my center, I would take Wilt because I secretly have
    a death wish.
    
    				/Don

	I know Monday seems a long way off for the instant gratification
    types JD, but if you can wait until then John will enter the lineups.
    Now using JDlogic the '90 Broons� did not choke because the Edmonton
    team they lost to was loaded with future HOFers.  Correct?
    
    			   	/Don

    John I NEVER equated you with the Jihad, you objectivsm precludes that.
    
    As for Wilt, John can you really say that WIlt *didn't* raise the level
    of his team's play ?
    
    The Philly Warriors, Sixers, and Lakers all posted better records
    *after* he came than they had before.
    
    Perhaps Wilt was the big reason why those teams could even extend the
    Celtics like they did eh ? (This directed to Glenn and Slusher)
    
    As for the Laker teams, as JD pointed out, Baylor and West were moving
    (gracefully for the most part) into their dotage.
    
    The trio only played in 20-something games together their first two
    years ... Wilt blew out a knee his first year (?) as a Laker, Baylor
    and West went down at differnt times, eventually Baylor's knees finally
    gave out, and he retired 9 games into the 1972 champeenship season.
    
    Glenn, Wilt has said a lot of things about winning and losing over the
    years, but tend to go with the weight of evidence that points to Wilt's
    contention that his supporting casts weren't as strong as Russell's.
    Also, he has (either for PR or simple kindness) been kindler and
    gentler in his commenatry about the NBA.
    
    You steel haven't explained why you chose to go after a coupel of
    quotes out of 10,000 ....

    	I guess Wilt drops that kinder, gentler mode when he talks about
    Kareem, eh Doc.
    
    				/Don

    
    > As for Wilt, John can you really say that WIlt *didn't* raise the level
    > of his team's play ?
    > 
    > The Philly Warriors, Sixers, and Lakers all posted better records
    > *after* he came than they had before.
    > 
    > Perhaps Wilt was the big reason why those teams could even extend the
    > Celtics like they did eh ? (This directed to Glenn and Slusher)
    
    Irrelevant.  No one has questioned Wilt's greatness, Doc.  [Hint:
    11-for-13 (1957-69) against 1-for-4 (1966-69).]
    
    > As for the Laker teams, as JD pointed out, Baylor and West were moving
    > (gracefully for the most part) into their dotage.
    
    West was 30 in 1968-69.  Baylor was 34 (Chamberlain was 32, Russell
    34).  West and Baylor were all-NBA first-teamers in 1968-69.  Dotage 
    indeed.
    
    > Glenn, Wilt has said a lot of things about winning and losing over the
    > years, but tend to go with the weight of evidence that points to Wilt's
    > contention that his supporting casts weren't as strong as Russell's.
    > Also, he has (either for PR or simple kindness) been kindler and
    > gentler in his commenatry about the NBA.
    
    Best spin I've seen on such a damning quote I've seen yet.  Wish Dan
    were still around; bet he coulda topped it.
    
    > You steel haven't explained why you chose to go after a coupel of
    > quotes out of 10,000 ....
    
    I chose the only quote of Wilt's I know of that goes directly to the 
    issue of championship play (11-for-13).  I don't care if Wilt says he's 
    the greatest ever.  All things considered, I'd agree with him.  But 
    unlike yourself, Wilt has addressed the championship issue.
    
    glenn
        

    	JD, where do you get this "all Boston teams are thought of as
    lunch pain bunches" garbage?  Like I said before Boston was good
    at the end of Russell's career, but Wilt's teams were better and
    seeing that the big point of contention is that Wilt never had better
    teams than Russ, I thought it should be addressed.  Wilt's 7th game
    performances in the 1968 Conference Finals, the 1969 Championship
    Finals and the 1970 Championship Finals were weak and certainly
    not supportive of the arguement that poor Wilt never played on a
    talented team ('cept 68 and 72).
    
    				/Don

     
     I just want to make it clear that JD isn't bashing the Celtics or
    Bill Russell just like he doesn't bash Michael Jordan or the Washing-
    ton Huskies. 

    Doc,
    
    I guess what I mean about Russell's elevating the level of play of his
    surrounding cast is something I've read about both him and Chamberlain.
    
    With Russell being such a great defensive player, it enabled the other
    players to gamble on defense, and to a certain extent, be thinking
    offense while on defense, because they knew Russell would be back there
    to cover up for mistakes.  In addition, Russell was a great rebounder
    and outlet passer, and all this together made the Celtics the
    dominating offensive force they were.  They seldom if ever had a great
    scorer, but they had tremendous offensive balance and were a terrific
    fast break team that could really light it up in a hurry.  They knew
    their limitations as they got older and transitioned into a terrific
    half-court team in the later stages of Russell's career.  The Heinsohn
    coached teams, especially with Cowens at the top of his game, were also
    great fast break teams.
    
    Chamberlain was a great offensive player.  One of the problems with a
    great offensive player that doesn't seem to happen with a great
    defensive player is that it becomes one guy doing everything and
    everyone else is standing around - whether it's in admiration (I'll bet
    that's happened a lot with Michael Jordan) or an overreliance on one
    guy, a dominating offensive player has a longer term detrimental effect
    on a team.  One reason may be that everyone likes to play offense and
    handle the ball, and not everyone likes to play defense.  I know Kevin
    McHale has taken some shots from teammates over the years for being the
    "black hole" on offense - because once he gets the ball, no one ever
    sees it again.  A great offensive player can have a bad effect on
    morale that doesn't seem to happen with a great defensive player.
    
    JD -
    
    Regarding the Bruins, yes, they usually are talented.  What they don't
    have (and haven't had since the Orr-Esposito days) is a lot of goal
    scoring.  They overachieve in two ways - they do overcome a lot of
    injuries, more so than any other NHL team (ask the NHL who usually
    loses the most man-games to injury); and they don't have a lot of goal
    scoring, so most of their games are defensive struggles.  It doesn't
    hurt them so much in the Adams Division, but in playing teams like
    Edmonton and Pittsburgh, it does.  Goal scoring is often equated to
    talent, when it's not the only component of a good hockey player.
    
    Of course, you can argue that in overachieving, the Bruins are
    overcoming the incompetence of their management, because they don't
    want to spend money for great players, and the highest paid players are
    usually the goal scorers.  Those who say the Red Sox overachieve I
    think say so because they never have enough pitching, and in that sense
    when they do well they are also overcoming the incompetence of their
    management.
    
    John

    Slash, lay of them SPORTShrooms ! I never said that Boston *always* had
    better teams. I admit that *including* coaching, front office, and top
    to bottom roster, the 66-67 and 67-68 Sixers and the 71-72 Lakers were
    superior to everyone else. The 1969 Lakers were the NBA equivlant to
    this year's Bills (except that the Bills had better coaching). Now, if
    you wnat to ignore (IgKnorr ?) the entire team concept that you are
    espousing like mantra fine. But your T-hyprocisy will wilt (no pun
    intended :-) in the light of Midnight truth and Honest Objective
    Analysis  ...
    
    
    And that's a fact.

    
    > I admit that *including* coaching, front office, and top
    > to bottom roster, the 66-67 and 67-68 Sixers and the 71-72 Lakers were
    > superior to everyone else. The 1969 Lakers were the NBA equivlant to
    > this year's Bills (except that the Bills had better coaching).
    
    The team that took a 2-0 lead in the Finals, returned for the final two
    games in LA with a 3-2 lead, and still lost?  How can you not include
    that team with the rest?
    
    glenn
    
    

    Glenn, the format in that season was 2-2-1-1-1, not 2-3-2.  But, one
    other thing about that season is that they finished 4th in their
    division in the regular season and never had the home court advantage
    in any playoff series.
    
    If you want to call it overachieving (I don't) the Celtics also get
    that reputation from their comebacks from 3-1 deficits in playoff
    series, which they've done at least twice if not thrice.  While not a
    lot, it's more than anyone else.
    
    John

    Main o' main, I think some people should go out and rent some videos
    over the weekend of the champeenship games of the late 60s & early 70s...
    
    Hawk
    

    Doc,
    I'll assume you mean the 66-67,67-68 sixers and the 71-72 lakers
    were superior to everyone else during those particular years, not
    overall, since that's a rathole we'll never agree upon.
    And speakin' of the 72 Lakers, if it wasn't for a monumental choke
    by the Chicago Bulls in the final game of their playoff series ( 
    ol Butterbean Love, stormin' Norman and Jerry sloan) agin the Lakers,
    we'd have crowned that team( heavy favorites) as the all-time choke
    artists. alas, the Bulls caved in at the end of the fourth quarter.
    
    MikeL
    
    

    Dunnot use my name in vain Doc, specially when used in context with
    failure to play within the team context.
    
    My Carolina Blue Blood can settle for nothing less than total team
    play, including such staples as passing up the 18-footer for a
    17-footer, a 17-footer for a 16-footer, and a lay-in for a slam dunk.
    
    HTH,
    
    
    - ACC Chris

   >> My Carolina Blue Blood can settle for nothing less than total team
   >> play, including such staples as passing up the 18-footer for a
   >> 17-footer, a 17-footer for a 16-footer, and a lay-in for a slam dunk.
    
   >> HTH,
    
    
   >>  - ACC Chris
    
   Which usually leads to garnered champeenships, n'est-ce-pas?
    
    MikeL
    
    

    The Celtics came back from 3-1's twice. The Lakers once, and I think
    the Bullets and maybe the Sixers once.
    
    As for the Bulls, Wilt said in his first book that Chicago probably
    deserved to win that series, and he felt especially bad for Norm
    (Stormin' Norman) Van Lier ...

    Well there's one thang we'll agree to Doc,
    That Van Lier was the heart and soul (not Sloan) of the 70's Bulls.
    
    MikeL
    

    JD
    
    Cammyhoney (tm) is a goal scorer, sure, but he's really been the only
    one they've had since he got here, other than Bourque.  My argument has
    been if you look at Edmonton and Pittsburgh objectively and compare
    them to the Bruins objectively, the Oilers and the Penguins had more
    offense, top to bottom, than the Bruins did in that period.  Da Broons
    have dug their own grave by not getting enough goal scoring to help out
    Neely and Bourque.
    
    John

 How you guys can sit there and try to defend a worthless looser like Wilt
 is beyond me. The guy carried stones that were about as big as specks of
 sand....

 Why you other guys even bother with the other two is beyond me. They always
 start this crap when they've got nothing better to do....

 Russell was Great
 Russell was Good
 Let us Thank him
 for our Championships...

 Amen.....

 It was nice to see you anti's pay homage to RED though...must have killed ya...

 mike

    JD, I think we're in more agreement here than you think.  I agree
    they've been one of the best teams in the league.  I think they needed
    more than one other good goal scorer.  I think they overachieved in
    terms of overcoming injuries.  I sort of think they overachieved in
    overcoming their lack of goal scoring but I also think their lack of
    goal scoring was/is a self inflicted wound, just like I do with the Red
    Sox and their lack of pitching.  I never think the Red Sox overachieve
    though, except for 1967.  The Bruins do - but not as much as the local
    media and the Hockey Krishnas think.
    
    How's that?
    
    John

    Red A. is a classless geek.
    
    Boerwinkle ROOOOLLLUUEESS !!!!

    
    > But I defy for any Jihad member to tell me the Celts weren't talented.
    > Springfield is full of those untalented Celtics.  
    
    Where has anyone said otherwise?  [Sidebar: it's inconsistent to hype
    this talent in the context of Wilt-vs-Russ and then to tear it down as 
    "overrated because they were Celtics" in other contexts.  I know it 
    hasn't happened here, but it has elsewhere and inevitably will again.  
    Specifically, I don't know why the names of players like Tom Heinsohn
    and Satch Sanders are being brought up in this debate.  Frankly, they
    weren't that great.]
    
    I think I might have the edition of Sports Illustrated that covered the
    1968-69 Finals (I know I read an account of that series somewhere in the 
    last few years).  I'll try and find it and see if we can get a
    contemporary account of the events that transpired.  I rest comfortable 
    in my belief that if that series were more recent and fresher in our 
    memories, that we wouldn't be hearing about all that Celtic talent but 
    rather, almost certainly, about another Laker disappointment, or as JD 
    usually prefers, "choke". 
    
    glenn
    

    Am I wrong but didn't the starters ('69) look lika thised:
    
    Lakers                             Celtics
    
    
    Chamberlain                        Russell
    Baylor                             Sanders
    Hawkins                            Howell
    West                               Havlicek
    Goodrich                           Siegfried or Williams (Hambone)
    
    MikeL
    Who could be way off base
    
    
    Goodrich

Da broons aren't overachievers. They've been killing themselves for years by
playing in the wimpy garden and getting a type of player that doesn't fit in
with the rest of the league. 

When the broons step into the '90s (or even 80s) they'll be able to compete with
the big boys....


Metz
 

    
    > I've heard the talent stuff for years.    Hey, and I'll agree, in 69
    > the Lakers choked.  Did I care then?  Nope.  Do I care now?  Nope.
    > 
    > But just a mention of defiance sure does get the old green hairs
    > standing on edge, don't it. ;-)
    
    I didn't care either.  At the time I was a fan of the Baltimore Bullets 
    and Earl the Pearl Monroe.  I have no special affection for the Celtics
    of that era.  But the truth never hurts...
    
    glenn
    

    The core of the Celtics over thenasty years was as follows:
    
    Bill Sharman	57-61
    Bob Cousy		57-63
    Tom Heinsohn	57-65
    Jim Loscutoff	57-64
    Bill Russell	57-69
    Frank Ramsey	57-64
    KC Jones		59-67
    Sam Jones		58-69
    Tom Sanders		61-69
    John Havlicek	63-69
    Larry Siegfried	64-69
    Don Nelson		66-69
    Bailey Howell	67-69
    Wayne Embry		67-68
    
    The 68 Celtics started Russell, Howell, S. Jones, Nelson and Sanders,
    with Havlicek as 6th man and Siegfried, Tom Thacker, Mal Graham and
    Wayne Embry getting significant minutes.  They finished 8 games behind
    Philadelphia which started Chamberlain, Luke Jackson, Hal Greer, Chet
    Walker, Billy Cunningham and Wally Jones in various combinationJohn
    Green, Matt Goukas and Bill Melchionni also got significant minutes. 
    In that season, Philly had a 3-1 lead over Boston in the Eastern Finals
    and then the Celtics won the next 3, 2 in Philadelphia, to win the
    East.  Then the Celtics beat the Lakers in 6 to win the crown.
    
    For 68-69, add Jim Barnes and Emmette Bryant, deleting Mal Graham,
    Wayne Embry and Tom Thacker.  Chamberlain had been traded to the Lakers
    joining Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Mel Counts, John Egan, Keith
    Erickson, Bill Hewitt, Tom Hawkins and Fred Anderson.  All games were
    won at home except the final game.  The Lakers blew 2-0 and 3-2 series
    leads.  The real accomplishment for the Celtics that year was surviving
    3 playoff series all without the home court advantage.
    
    The only other time Chamberlain faced the Celtics in the finals was
    63-64 when he was with the Warriors, who'd just moved to San Francisco. 
    Most of the time, Chamberlain faced the Celtics with a Philadelphia
    team, either the Warriors or the Sixers.  Those teams were not as
    talented as the Celtics teams.  The Lakers team in 68-69 was close and
    I'm not really sure how to call it.  The 67-68 Sixers were close and
    again I'm not sure how to call it.
    
    The real choke isn't so much the 68-69 Lakers but the 67-68 Sixers. 
    The Celtics beat Chamberlain-led teams in 59-60, 61-62, 63-64, 64-65,
    65-66, 67-68 and 68-69, losing only in 66-67.
    
    John
    John

    Lousy data lines sort of scrambled my last reply.  The first line
    should of course be "the dynasty years."
    
    John

       To Dock, they're definitely 'thenasty years'.
                                            Denny

    	Thank you John.  Wasn't Mal Graham the guard who came down with
    some wierd diesase and had to retire after his rookie year?  I think
    I read where he overcame his illness and is now a lawyer.
    
    				/Don

    A real thigh-shuddering line-up, those '68 and '69 Celts teams, eh Doc?
    
    Glenn, don't remind me of the Bullets and Earl Monroe.  As a Knicks fan
    in those years, the Pearl was a heartbreaker.  Of course, I was
    'static when he came over to us. :-)  Gotta admit though, those
    Bullets-Knicks playoff series were the most hard-fought and
    entertaining basketball games I've ever seen, and mostly listened to...
    
    Hawk
    

    Mal Graham did have some sort of disease, became a lawyer and is now a
    judge in the Boston area.
    
    John

    
    I checked and I did have the Sports Illustrated featuring the 1969
    championship series.  John Havlicek was on the cover with the title
    "Hero Havlicek of the Miracle Celtics".  For some strange reason, there
    was very little coverage of Games 6 & 7 (they probably had much tighter
    deadlines back then).  There was also very little mention of Wilt or
    Russell (who apparently wasn't playing even close to a full game in the 
    last season of his career, even sitting out at crucial junctures to 
    handle his coaching duties), other than to say that they offset each 
    other in the series.  This was the series of Havlicek and West, with 
    West coming up with one of the greatest playoff performances of all 
    time.  Really makes you wonder where Wilt was, as outside of the play 
    of Havlicek and West this was an imperfect, sloppy series that was
    completely up for grabs...
    
    The article did say that this was supposed to finally be the Lakers' 
    year, but among other things they were done in by a lackluster 
    performance by Elgin Baylor in the finals, who'd had a fine regular 
    season but was worn down by the finals.  The Celtics were similarly 
    tired and ragged by the end but still managed to outlast everyone from 
    their fourth-place regular season finish.
    
    Another interesting comment contrasted the solid fan support of the 
    Lakers with that of the Celtics, which even as late as 1969 was not
    good.  After the 0-2 start, a lot of Celtics fans didn't bother to
    show for Game 3.  They did come out big for Game 6, giving an emotional
    farewell salute to Sam Jones (Russell didn't announce his retirement
    until later that summer), the hero of Game 4 with his buzzer-beating,
    rim-rattling shot that erased a 1-point deficit and kept the Celtics 
    in contention.  It was Jones' last hurrah and pretty much his only
    contribution in the series...
    
    glenn
    

    	I thought Sam Jones had over 20 points against the Lakers in
    game 7 before fouling out (with the Laker fans giving him a standing
    ovation), and I thought Russell announced his retirement the day
    after winning the finals?  Didn't MrT's favorite football owner
    have the Fabulous Forum's rafters filled with balloons to celebrate
    the 7th game victory?  8^)
    
    				/Don

       Yup, that was the balloon game slash. They KNEW they were gonna win
    it! Didn't Nellie make some kinda outrageous shot in that 7th game too?
                                         Denny

    Nellie's shot (which ended up being the last Celtics hoop before the
    Lakers started a late run to make it a 2-point game) hit the back of
    the rim, bounced almost as high as the top of the backboard and went
    in.
    
    John

	Denny, I believe the Celtics had built a 20+ point lead (that's 
when Jones fouled out) and Wilt got an "injury".  Using Mel Counts at 
center the Lakers got to within either 4 or 2 points and very late in the 
game.  Don Nelson let one go that bounced straight up off the rim and in the 
hole (as God had intended).  Jerry West was the MVP of the series and to 
date is the only player on a losing team to be a Playoff MVP.  Wilt whined 
that he was ready to go in the game and wasn't allowed to, conviently 
forgetting to mention that the Celtics whopping lead had been built while 
he was in the pivot.

				/Don

    Slosher, I thought you were going to mention that it was Wilt's fault
    that Nelson's shot went in eh ?


    re. Sam Jones' game-winning prayer

    Actually, the way I heard it, Jones basically threw up a shot hoping
    that Russell could snare the rebound and follow up.

    

    It wasn't until after the fact that he realized that Russell wasn't
    * even in the game* - that Russell benched himself to have 5 good
    foul-shooters in just in case someone drew the foul.

    Of course /Don will tell you that this was of course Wilt's fault ...

    As for the injury - well, more Jihad propaganda. According to some of
    Wilt's teammates as well as Wilt, Wilt tried to get back in shortly after 
    the injury, and again with a few minutes left and Van BredaKoff snubbed him.

    BTW, the Septic lead wasn't 20+, but more like 14-16 points.

    Funny isn't it ?

    1) Baylor's weak Final's performance is forgotten by Slash and Penny Rieu,
    because it doesn't fit the choke "theory" of Wilt.

    2) Wilt 's injury is considered fake when convenient.

    3) Wilt's attempted re-entry is either dismissed, or the same people
    (including /Slusher in an earlier incarnation of this note) will
    inexplicably turn around and say that Wilt wimped out and never tried
    to get back into the game.

    Sad ....

    Speaking of conveniently forgetting, those '68 & '69 Celts starters
    makes for many a thigh-shuddering experience, eh Doc? 
    

    	HUGE difference between 16 and 20 point leads (4).
    
    	I can't blame Butch for not putting Wilt back in because the
    Lakers were showing life with Counts and lack thereof with Stilt.
    
    	So Russ was smart enough to put in five good foul shooters?
    Pretty good coaching move if you ask me.
    
    	Sam Jones must've been very, very religious because I remember
    quite a few game-winning prayers in his career.
    
    				/Don

    Was that Sam Jones shot you all are talking about a real long well
    beyond today's 3-point line 2-hand set shot?  If that's the one that I
    vividly recall, no way that was a pass to anyone...
    
    BTW, Slush and Penny :-), are you guys' thighs a-shuddering like mine
    over those awesome '68 & '69 Celtics starting line-ups?
    
    

    re .331
    
    Hawkette, I never said it was a pass. Jones said he was hoping that it
    might go in, but was much more hopeful that someone would rebound it
    (there was about :02 left) ... adn if the hot doesn't shake, arttle,
    and roll in, the C's are down 3-0.
    
    And aren't you shuddering over the Laker starters in that series ?

       Sheesh, everybody knows the story of Wilt and his 'injury', some
    just cain't handle it that's all. Given his playoff history I don't see
    any question about it.
                                             Denny

	Hawk, I look at Emmette Bryant and Larry Siegfried and I need
    a roll of bounty!

    Jerry West is better known for a long-range shot at the end of a
    playoff game.  It took place in the 69-70 Finals between the Lakers and
    Knicks.  It won a game for the Lakers and perhaps JD can fill us in
    more.  The Sam Jones shot was a long one, but I don't think it was
    quite as long as the West shot, which was out around half court.
    
    John

My thighs are shuddering so bad I got a cramp in one of them.....

    > The Sam Jones shot was a long one, but I don't think it was
    > quite as long as the West shot, which was out around half court.
      
    The Jones shot in Game 4 (rescuing the Celts from a 3-1 deficit, not
    3-0) was a set play that was supposedly devised from an old Ohio State
    play that John Havlicek and Larry Siegfried drew up for Russell in
    practice a few days earlier.  The shot was the one the Celtics wanted, 
    but the Lakers defensed it well and Jones had to get it off while off 
    balance (I don't think it was that long, maybe a twenty-footer).  
    According to the article I read, I don't think it was Jones who was 
    hoping that Russell would get the rebound once it became clear that it 
    wasn't going to reach the middle of the hoop, since the play was devised 
    to go to Jones.  I think it was someone closer to the basket who forgot 
    that Russell wasn't in the game, probably Havlicek...
    
    I don't know what Jones did in Game 7 or the full story with the
    Chamberlain situation (but Chamberlain did not have an impact series by
    any means, anyway), as the article had few details on that game.  I
    thought it did say that the game was close (within a couple of baskets)
    for a longer time than was recounted here, like maybe the last ten
    minutes or so.
    
    glenn
    

    It seems this little gem has been overlooked in the great
    Russel/Chamberlain debate:  ~/~
    
              <<< CAM::$1$DUA5:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPORTS_91.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< CAM::SPORTS -- Digital's Daily Sports Tabloid >-
================================================================================
Note 90.285        The Official Anti-Celtic (Bash) Note v 3.0         285 of 337
SHALOT::HUNT "This space for rent"                    3 lines  21-FEB-1992 14:11
                     -< Hot Hornets Headin' For Harftord >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Celts are goin' down tonight in Hartford.   Sir Larry The Younger rules.
 
 Bob Hunt
    

    	John, not to refute the master, but...  8^)  That Jerry West
    prayer tied, I believe the game with the Knicks (game 3?), but New
    York won the game in overtime.
    
    				/Don

    I didn't remember what the West shot did, but I remember it came
    against the Knicks in 1970, which is why I asked JD to clarify it.
    
    Ninj
    

    That 63-footer, JD, was just before half-time.  He did it with his
    broken (or dislocated?) thumb heavily taped.
    
    As far as that line-up, what makes them great is the combination of
    desire/heart and talent.  What this silly debate is about boils down to
    the fact that there are great players with talent alone, and ones that
    added heart to their (usually lesser) talents.  The latter ones are the
    ones usually with the rings...

	Once again JD tries to put words in my mouth.  JD, READ THIS NOTE 
CAREFULLY.  The arguement made as to why Wilted doesn't have more rings 
than fingers (like Russ does) was because Russ *always* had the more 
talented teams.  I'm not saying the Celtics were huge underdogs, I'm not 
saying they overachived tremendously, I'm not saying Wilt's teams were 
megastars.  What I *am* saying is that from 1966 to 1969 Wilt had better 
teams than Russell (using the regular season as the indicator, which I 
believe is much more accurate than using the DOC/JD method of talent 
evaluation), not far superior, not vastly talented, but BETTER.  In those 
four years Chamberlain won 1 title and Russ won 3, with Bill's team twice 
defeating Wilt's team in crucial 7th games.  

			 	/Don

    I've always said that a championship is a championship and every
    championship is equally important.  In its time, a championship is an
    impressive achievement.  Since there is no way to objectively compare the
    worth of two championships from different eras, I prefer to just say
    they're all great and leave it at that.  (Or as my mentor says any win
    is beautiful and there's no such thing as winning ugly)
    
    As a Celtics fan, it doesn't matter to me how they won.  It doesn't
    matter to me whether they overachieved or underachieved (though I will
    argue in 1968 and 1969 there was some overachievement there - but I
    can't really by how much).  It doesn't matter to me what cutthroat
    tactics Mr Auerbach may have used to win these titles.  It doesn't even
    really matter to me who was the better player - I'd rather have had
    Russell on the Celtics than Chamberlain - because there are the 16
    banners hanging from the rafters, 8 in a row and 11 out of 13 - these 11
    from the Russell era.
    
    Of course, it means I have to admit the equivalent greatness of the
    Yankees and Canadiens, the two greatest rivals of other Boston teams,
    in the interest of consistency - but I gladly do it because it enables
    me to acknowledge the greatness of the Celtics.
    
    John
    

    	So therefore you'll agree with me that Russ was the greatest
    winner in the NBA?  Take a look at his first championship team,
    then take a look at his last.  Nobody's the same (not even the coach).
    He was the one constant in an incredible dynasty.  Wilt was with
    that 76er team from at least 1965, so by 1968 he and they should've had a
    pretty good idea what was what.  I guess the new Celtics that came
    aboard in 68 and 69 weren't as hampered as poor Wilt.  How can I
    argue with the statement you make that despite what we say and write
    we all still feel the way you say we feel?  I caint, except to say
    where's your proof?
    
    				/Don

    	HAHAHAHA�  You slay me JD.  You talk all around the subject
    that I've tried to narrow down.  You even bring up Jabbar and the
    '74 series.  In three straight years 1968, 1969, 1970 Wilt had the
    chance to silence all critics by coming up big in crucial 7th games.
    He didn't.  Why did he score 2 points in the fourth quarter of the
    7th game of the 1968 Eastern Conference Finals?  Why was Mel Counts
    able to do what Wilt couldn't do in the 7th game of the 1969 
    Championship Series?  And why did he let a one legged Reed silence
    him after he had an awesome 6th game in Los Angeles in the 1970
    Championship Series?  It has nothing to do with what hat I wear
    or what Hawk is thinking, or whether Jabbar had a great series in
    1974.
    
    				/Don

    re .342
    
    HAwk, West's shot defintely came at the end of regulation. Dave D. went
    into a swoon when he saw it go in.... and like Slash said, the Knicks
    still pulled it out in OT ....:-(

    
    re Hendry
    
>   (Or as my mentor says any win is beautiful and there's no such thing as 
>    winning ugly)
    
    Did *I* tell you that John ?
    
    Gee whiz .... :-)
    
    Doc

    
    It sounds like JD and the Slasher are in violent agreement, then-- you
    gonna come clean soon too, Doc?
    
    glenn
    

    Nice try Glenn. But in fact JD and I are basically working the issue
    (as they say in DEC Speak) in a simular fashion. ~Donny is tossing red 
    herrings out in a vain attempt to stem the thrashing he's taking.
    
    As JD said, let's see the stats ... I know that in total head-to-head
    comp, Chamberlain both outpointed and outrebounded Russ, and likely
    killed him blocks as well (trouble is that the stat guy compiling them
    can't get every single game total in that category, since it didn't
    become an official stat until 1970 or so ....
    
    Gee, it's quite out there ...
    
    :-)
    
    Doc

>    As JD said, let's see the stats ... I know that in total head-to-head
>    comp, Chamberlain both outpointed and outrebounded Russ, and likely
>    killed him blocks as well (trouble is that the stat guy compiling them
>    can't get every single game total in that category, since it didn't
>    become an official stat until 1970 or so ....
 

  BFD Doc, when it counted when they needed the big play Wilt was on tht bench 
 or no where to be found while Russell was out there making the play. Get all
 the woodies you want over the stats but they're no better than a semi when com-
 pared to 11 out 13 championships. Now that's real woodie material....   

 Given that Wilt was his team's main offensive weapon of course he outpointed 
 Russell. Given he blew more two foot bunnies than any one else in the league
 his rebounding stats are inflated.

 When they had the greatest players of the game at the the league's 35 th
 aniversary back in the 70's. Russell was voted the best Player of all time..

 nuff said...

    
    > Nice try Glenn. But in fact JD and I are basically working the issue
    > (as they say in DEC Speak) in a simular fashion. ~Donny is tossing red 
    > herrings out in a vain attempt to stem the thrashing he's taking.
    
    Good one, Doc.  The argument started with the simple question of how
    Wilt could have matched Russell's 11-for-13 when Wilt dropped more than 
    two championships with better teams, head-to-head against Russell and
    the Celtics in championship playoff competition (that's a point you've 
    yet to address, btw).  Then the red herrings really did start flooding
    in-- stuff like "Celtics fans always say they have no talent", a
    position which not one person in here has endorsed, and which is
    irrelevant even if it had been.  Well, as I said, I was a Bullets fan 
    yet I still recognized the merits of team play, which Russell 
    exemplified with his superior passing and defensive skills (areas which 
    represent about half the game but which are conveniently neglected by 
    the statistics you're asking for).  That opinion was only strengthened 
    when I heard Wilt himself say that Russell's game better fit the team 
    concept at the highest caliber of play, the concept that brings 
    championships in basketball.
    
    glenn
    

    	I cain't really top Mr. Waugamain's factual and superlative
    missive, but...
    
    1. I never said Wilt's teams had superior talent, but he had equal
       or better talent from 66-69.
    
    2. If Wilt could dominate Russell why didn't he in the 7th game
       of the 1968 Eastern Conference Finals?  He scored a whopping
       two points in the fourth quarter, with the game on the line.
    
    3. Billy Cunningham broke his leg in the first round of the playoffs
       in 68 against the Knicks.  The 76ers built 2-0 and 3-1 leads
       against the Celtics sans Billy.
    
    4. I forgot one of Wilt's biggest chokes.  Fifth game against the
       Knicks in the 1970 Championship Series when he was outplayed
       by a 6'6" Dave Debusschere, after Willis Reed went down with an
       injury.
    
    				/Don

       Wilt's 57 rebound game was in Philly on Thanksgiving Day 1960. In
    typical Wilt fashion, the Celtics won the game 132-129.
                                                 Denny

    JD, you oughta know that individual efforts mean squat.  Just ask all
    the Boggs bashers.  They'll tell you that a near .500 OBP doesn't mean
    anything to helping a team win.

    
     The point it would seem to me is that the man is a 'numbers hanger'.
    
     What I want to know is where has anyone called the Celtics a bunch of
     'lunch pail toting over-acheivers'? Sounds a bit like those phantom
     numerous notes wishing somone would clock Isaiah.

    	Boggs and Chamberlain had something else in common too!  8^o

�    I know what you are talking about.  But, Boggs isn't the reason the Sox
�    haven't won a champeenship.  
    
    So you're agreeing with Slasher that Wilt was the reason his teams
    didn't win championships. ~/~

    
    I'm not being critical of your opinion of Wilt, JD, because unlike
    Doc's I feel that by and large it's an accurate one, but I do think
    it's amusing that in almost every other case you take the extreme
    opposite position, which is effectively "to the victors go the 
    spoils".  Time and time again we've heard that an individual player 
    is the best because he's got the "champeenship" rings (Magic, Gretzky, 
    to a lesser extent even Phil Simms), regardless of surrounding cast.  
    The explanation is always that the great player, the best player on his
    team (a definition that fits Russell), makes those around him great.  
    Yet in the case of the Celtics' dynasty, it's the all-around talent 
    that made the team, with the individual contribution of their greatest 
    player downplayed in spite of the massive turnover that took place on
    the Celtics over the course of Russell's career...
    
    I've found the attitude of many of the Celtics' faithful over the years 
    to be overbearing, too, especially considering that most of these people 
    were apparently not around in the 1950s and 1960s.  Still, those that
    did see Russell and those Celtics teams on a regular basis have a
    reason to be proud.
                      
    glenn
    

    	I am proud Glenn.  For two bucks you could get a seat in the
    second balcony and see a pretty darned good team (and a darned good
    center too).  Wilt was the better player until the playoffs started.
    
    				/Don

    /Don,
    How bout them Friday night doubleheaders at the Gahden?
    
    Took the train many a time with my cousins and buddies and
    went to the Celts' game in the 60's ( saw my first Celt game
    vs. Royals in '61 wif Pop)
    
    funny story about the Celts in the old days when you could always
    get in at game time no problemo and sit wherever you want.
    My high school buddies and I went to a Celt game in 1970 I believe,
    when Rich Johnson (who's he) was the quintessential bench warmer
    for the Celts who had recently been arrested ( and subsequently
    vindicated) for passing counterfeit money. 'Twas a lazy Friday night
    with about 3,000 in the seats and we were sitting about 20 rows behind
    the Celtics bench. During a timeout, Rich Johnson, on the fringe of
    the huddle, was daydreaming and looking up in the stands . All of a
    sudden, one of my buds stands up and yells to get Johnson's attention.
    "Hey Rich!", he yells and as Johnson looks up towards him, and adds
    " Ya got change for a twenty?"  Well all the people within earshot
    crack up, and Johnson's eyein' my bud with a look that could kill.
    Priceless. Ah the good ol' days.
    
    MikeL
      
    

       Me too! My dad used to take me to see all the Wilt-Russ games. 2nd
    balcony, no problem getting tickets. 
       I got playoff tickets as late as '76 the day of the game! It'll be
    like that again when Bird retires and the yuppies figure the Garden
    isn't 'in' anymore.
                                   Denny

    With the way the Celtics have been playing lately they may be "out of
    fashion" before Birds retires. Here's hoping the Celtics continue in
    their current ways for a very long time.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

�    No, I'm not agreeing to that at all.  The Celts won because they were
�    the better team.  Obviously, that's something hard for Celtics fans to
�    understand.
    
    I guess I missed your point on the Boggs comment.
    
    Any, as an outsider I think what is hard for Celtics fans to understand
    is your definition of better team.  /Don clearly stated he based his
    definition of better team on the season records during the time frame
    in question.
    
    Are Hall of Famers in the Hall because of the Champeenship Rings, or
    did they get Champeenship Rings because they were future Hall of
    Famers?

    re: HoF and champinoships
    
    There are players that got recognition because they won championships
    and based on that and career stats are in HoF. However, players with
    the same stats who have not won championships may be less likely to
    make it into the HoF. Now before y'all jump on me I am not claiming any
    statistical study to back me up, just a gut feeling.
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    	Yeah those Celtic/76er games were happenings.  Probably the
    only time you had to sit in *your* seat.  8^)  You'll never see
    attendance like that again though.  The NBA is "happening" for the
    yuppie crowd whether Bird is there or not.  You may see some decline
    in crowds, but you'll never walk up to the ticket booth on game
    day and get a good seat like you used to.  8^(
    
    				/Don

    Playing on a championship team, being in a major media center and
    playing in a position with readily identifiable stats all help someone
    make the Hall of Fame.  For example, in baseball, look at the relative
    lack of middle infielders in the Hall.  In football, look at the
    relative lack of offensive linemen in the Hall.  These are among the 
    reasons why I downplay the value of being in a Hall of Fame.
    
    I think many of the Celtics Hall of Famers fall into the category of
    being in the Hall of Fame only due to having played on great teams.
    Note that I'm not saying they weren't talented but I am saying that
    perhaps not all of them deserve to be in there - just like not all
    the Celtics players with retired numbers truly deserve it.  If you
    left it up to me, it would be Cousy, Russell, Havlicek, Cowens, Bird,
    McHale and Parish *ONLY* with retired numbers.
    
    John
    

    	I disagree about Cousy.  He was on some Celtic teams that quite
    frankly choked in the playoffs.  Russell was the missing piece and
    as I said before the lone constant in the 11/13 string.
    
    				/Don

    When did Cousy retire??
    
    The Crazy Met
    

    Bob Cousy came to the Celtics in the early fifties and retired after
    the 62-63 season.  His first season in Boston was Auerbach's first
    season in Boston.  Cooz went to Holy Cross (played on their National
    Championship team in the late forties) and had the entire New England
    area excited about college hoops, so there was a lot of pressure on
    Auerbach to draft him.  Auerbach infuriated the press by saying "why
    the hell should I draft that local yokel" - in sort of the equivalent
    of the Patriots insulting Doug Flutie.  Anyway, Cousy went to a team
    that folded before the season started and the Celtics ended up with him
    in that team's dispersal draft.  He ended up playing his entire career
    with the Celtics except for his brief comeback in the late sixties as
    player-coach of the Cincinnati Royals.  Even to play, Red took the
    Royals for a player in trade.
    
    I don't know that much about their early history prior to the first
    championship, but the first Celtics teams were pretty awful.  They
    gradually got better but it really took the arrival of Russell to put
    them over the top.
    
    John

      I think the first Celtic team had Chuck (rifleman) Connors on it.
      Red picked Cousy's name outta a hat in that draft!
      Cooz also coached at BC didn't he?

    Chuck Connors was on that first team.  He broke a backboard dunking in
    the first game at Boston Arena.
    
    The dispersal draft came down to Cousy and 2 other guys - Max Zaslofsky
    and Andy Phillip.  The Celtics and the other 2 teams couldn't agree on
    who was going to get whom so they put the names in a hat.  Auerbach
    didn't want Cousy and got him anyway.
    
    Cousy did coach at BC for a while after his retirement as a player.
    
    John

    re .380
    
    John, Conners broke a backboard with a 2-handed set shot.
    
    I see the Greenies went down to the Nets - BIG.
    
    Where is ole Denny when you need him ?
    
    Doc

    re Glen
    
    Russell's superior passing skills ?
    
    Gee Glen, isn't Wilt the only center to EVER lead the league in assists
    (in an era that featured Wilkins, West, Robinson, Rogers, and Greer) ?
    
    I guess that was selfishness eh ?
    
    Doc

       I realize the Cs are one of the worst teams in NBA history Dock.
    Thing is they're Still better than at least 2 of your teams and have
    less losses than the 3rd. And come see me when they lose TWICE IN 1
    WEEK to the Nets like a certain team we know did.
                                     Denny

    
   re .363
    
    I don't have a knee jerk reaction to everything you write, JD.
   It just bugs me when you paint Celtics fans and/or Bostonians
   with that same broad brush that you use on Jordan Fans and
   Washington Huskies fans. Not everyone is a media sap.

   
    

�    I see the Greenies went down to the Nets - BIG.
    
    You know what they say about payback...

�    I never imply 'all'.  
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Good one, JD.
    
�    As for the knee jerk reaction - it certainly seems that way.  I dont'
�    remember a note - whether about Jordan, the Celts, the Olympics, hoops
�    in general or woman's road races where you haven't given me a berating.
    
    If, as you say, you are generally just trying to yank some chains, than
    aren't you expecting a reaction, JD?

 Yeah Doc so what's your point.? Wilt did it once just to show he could. He
 certainly didn't do it his entire career. Which further illustrates the point
 that he was an individual plaer first, team player second....

 for all his gift's he was a bum....

Speaking of Wilt, I heard on the radio this morning that he was admitted to the 
hospital with irregular heart beat.  Anyone have any further details?

=Bob=

    
    I think maybe Wilt has been reading this file! 
    
    
    
    Steve

    
 >>   As for the knee jerk reaction - it certainly seems that way.  I dont'
 >>   remember a note - whether about Jordan, the Celts, the Olympics, hoops
 >>   in general or woman's road races where you haven't given me a berating.
    
   
      For a self-confessed 'chain yanker' you sure are awfully sensitive.
      I don't berate anyone at least not intentionally I just happen to
      not agree with you on the subjects you mentioned. No big deal.
  
      BTW-Starting fom last to first notes 242,238,234,232,229,228 and 208 
          are just a few of the notes where I haven't given you a 'berating'.
    

    
    From what I heard Wilt was attending the Lakers game when his heart
    started to "flutter" irregularly.  Must've been eying those Laker
    Girls, and he hadn't had a fix of his particular addiction in hours.
    
    Dickstah
    

    ...or maybe he got a 1969 7th game flashback.

Bill Russell has a more irregular heartbeat than Wilt Chamberlain.

j.

    You cain have it !

I read somewhere a few years back that Wilt's "normal" EKG is very
similar to someone who has had a myocardial infarction (or as Todd on
Swersky's Sportstalk would say, a "heart attack").

Last I heard, Wilt was doing okay....

'Saw

    
    Make your reservations NOW for the nexted(tm) Celtic Banner Hanging
    event!!!!!
    
    The regeneration of Larry Bird was an unquestioned success!!!!  He
    returned to the parquet floor yesterday and totally dominated the
    game!@@@@@!!!!
    
    'bounds, assists, 3 pointers!!!!  He did it all!!!!!!
    
    Parade in June!!!!!!!!
    
    I remain,
    ~/~
    
    Kev
    
    ;^)
    

    Yeah, the Celtics will hang another banner ...
    
    
    
    and the Kings will have a parade in June !!!!

    BTW, Dock, how'd the speech go?  Didja wear the elevators that I highly
    recommended? :-)
    
    Hawk
    

    	Go easy on Doc there Hawk.  He's still getting over the thrashing
    he received in the "Russell/Chamberlain Debate II".
    
    				/Don

    HAHHAHAHAAAA 
    
    Slasher, you spin like a George Bush aide on a merry-go-round !
    
    Hawk, I think it wnet OK ...I've done better UI think, but people say
    they got some things positive out of it all, and I'm glad.
    
    I think it was videotaped (cringe) ....
    
    Doc

    
    Well, Hawk, the Celtics managed to achieve a small measure of revenge on
    the hated Air and Co. yesterday in the Garden.  With Bird out, they put 
    in what was probably their most intense effort of the year, particularly
    on defense, in holding the high flyers to a season-low 86 points. 
    Jordan had 26, but really never got a rhythm going that he was able to
    build on, missing a lot of shots in addition to making a handful of
    sloppy passes and turnovers that resulted in a number of the Celts' own 
    fast break points.
    
    The best part about it was that my dad was able to score a couple of
    tix to the game so I attended my first regular season Celtics game 
    since I think Pete Maravich was around (I guess I've just never had the
    urge to scramble for the few tickets that have been available in the
    Bird era).  We were disappointed after hearing on the way in that Bird
    wasn't going to be playing, but not for long.  Continuous five-minute
    standing O in appreciation of the Celts' effort during a TV timeout in 
    the middle of the fourth quarter was impressive...
    
    glenn
      

    DocWatch I Day 1.  8^)

    I didn't see the game, but my gut feel says that a big factor in the
    win was Larry not playing.  He tires too quickly against the
    up-tempo teams such as the Bulls so that when the team turns to him for
    leadership in the latter stages of the game, he tends to try to do it
    all, and he ends up forcing the play/shot...
    
    I'd be surprised if Bird plays after this season, excepting the
    Olympics, of course.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he announces
    his retirement in the very near future, especially now that the
    playoffs are around the corner, to fire-up the team...
    
    Hawk
    

                        
    > I didn't see the game, but my gut feel says that a big factor in the
    > win was Larry not playing.  He tires too quickly against the
    > up-tempo teams such as the Bulls so that when the team turns to him for
    > leadership in the latter stages of the game, he tends to try to do it
    > all, and he ends up forcing the play/shot...
    
    I made this comment too, that having Larry out was almost a blessing in
    disguise.  The team defense was excellent, which is what you've got to
    have against a team like Chicago, but which is pretty tough to
    maintain with The Trio out there all at once for extended periods.  
    Reggie Lewis in particular did a nice job on Jordan, as well as can be 
    expected.
    
    Yesterday's game was as well played by the Celtics sans Bird than
    has been seen in a long time.  I think that with proper expectations
    from Bird he can continue to be effective in his spots, if he's not
    always trying to do the kinds of things he was able to do regularly 
    five years ago (mainly taking a lot of shots).  I'd be surprised if he 
    retires after this season, I really would.  I think he feels there's 
    something left, and there's also a lot of money on the table...
    
    glenn
    

    re .406
    
    Great note Hawk !

 I wish they'd try him as the sixth man...

    Then where will the stiff McHale play?
    
    Mark.

    Looks like the Kincks (TM) are hearing the footsteps of the Celtic
    stampede.  Poor Kincks, it must be tough to play with your hands firmly
    wrapped around your throats.
    
    Lucky for them, the Celts had some many IR problems this year. 
    Otherwise, they would be 10 games up on the Kincks.
    
    Mike

       Anyone see the skit on SNL about the 'wall'? Showed a bunch of
    ladies looking for names on a Vietnam Memeorial-type wall. That's what
    it looked like at first anyway. Turns out it was 'Wilt's Wall'. Too
    funny!
                                 Denny

    Denny, I saw the same skit on Living Color last night.
    
    Woman was showing her daughter and then, proudly, points out, "And
    there's Mommy's name, dear".
    
    Rich
    

    That was ILC, Denny.  It was funny, but funnier were:
    
    - The Al Sharpton & Louis Faracahn (sp?) comedy hour
    - The blind date skit
    
    And of course the super bowl repeat, Men on Football.
    
    	--dan'l

       oops, youse guys is right of course. Getting my comedy confused!
                                Denny

    Just what was the shape of the uh, Wilt Memorial ?

    Looked like the Vietnam Memorial, Doc.
    
    Rich
    

    Grr... missed it because the C's game was on and I thought it was
    preempted... just saw the end (so to speak...)
    

    The blind date skit was hilarious.  Watched it while working at the
    bar, and this black guy regular customer of mine was having a hard time
    staying seatward!  I dunno which was funnier, the skit, or this guy's
    reaction... :-)
    
    Hawk
    

Article 4065 of clari.sports.basketball:
Path: shodha.enet.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ub!rutgers!stanford.edu!bcm!wupost!uunet!looking!clarinews
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.sports.basketball
Subject: Lewis named NBA Player of Week
Keywords: basketball, men's professional
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:06:33 GMT

	NEW YORK (UPI) -- Reggie Lewis, the swingman who averaged 28 points a
game in leading the Boston Celtics to a 4-0 record, Monday was named the
NBA Player of the Week.
	He also averaged 6.8 rebounds and 4.0 assists a game for the week
ending Sunday.
	Lewis, the Celtics' leader in scoring, steals and minutes this
season, began the week with a season-high 38 points last Tuesday against
the Cleveland Cavaliers. He had 35 points and shot 15 for 19 from the
field in Sunday's victory over the Charlotte Hornets. For the week,
Lewis shot 46 for-75 from the field and 20 for 25 from the foul line.
	Other candidates for the award were the Los Angeles Clippers' Charles
Smith, Miami's Glen Rice, Portland's Terry Porter and Sacramento's
Lionel Simmons.

    That's it...the Larry Bird Holy Green Swaet Socks Jihad is officially
    disbanded.
    
    Long Live The Reggie Lewis Holy Green Sweat Socks Jihad. 

    	I've been thinking about reviving the Green Dockers.  What do
    you think MikeC?
    
    				/Don

Well,  I'd have to be in on a Reggie Lewis Jihad.  I've been a fan of his since
he was a gangly frosh on the Norhteastern Husky squad - and lighting up the 
nets in the NCAA tourney!

JD

    Reggie Lewis and Dee Brown are the reason why this year's Celts are a
    fun team.  Then, you have Parish & McHale who continue to amaze, when
    healthy.  Pinckney's shown major improvement (any MIP award
    consideration?) and Gamble just works hard.  Although I don't expect
    them to get to the Finals, I'm not surprised at how well, overall,
    their season went...
    
    BTW, remember all the fun the anti-jihads had a couple years ago when
    Chris Ford was named the head coach?  Been awefully quiet in that
    regard since... :-)  Personally, I think he's a fine coach, and much
    better than KC and Rogers put together...
    
    Hawk
    

    So will we see Reg-gasms in place of Birdgasms ?

    	Doc, the day you stand tall will be the day I stand skinny!

    Birdgasm is already (tm)'ed, I now (tm) Reg-gasm and Deegasms ...
    
    
    And we all know that Don likes to fake 'em !

    How cain anyone, including you Dock, dislike Dee Brown?
    
    Hawk
    
    P.S. My daughter adores Dee.  Wears his number and everythang.  Any
         bad-mouthing of Dee I consider a personal threat to my daughter,
         and I don't take kindly to anyone hurting my daughter...  :-)
    

Slasher at least you cain become skinny! 8^)

 I didn't realize we went anywhere.... ;^) How'd the Knicks make out last night?
 Frigin Tank spent more time talking about worthless baseball games and promo-
 ing one of drinkathons at some club. What amazes me about these C's is that
 even Dan can't gripe anymore about them being "the ref's darlings". 

 This club could make the finals if and it won't happen unfortunately Bird
 came back and became the sixth man. I also worry about Bagley making the
 wrong pass or taking the dumb shot. Reminds me of Ainge in that respect.

 

    
    Mike, the Knicks won 93-90. 
    
    Tanks a boob.
    
    
    Steve
    

    re: the Dee dunk poster
    
    I had to laugh when I saw this sketch hanging on my daughter's room
    wall, right next to her Dee Brown posters and pictures.  At first
    glance, it was this figure with it's arm over it's face while airborn
    and dunking the ball (ie. the Dee Brown "see no evil" slam dunk).  A
    closer look revealed long hair in a ponytail and a bandana haidband.
    Obviously, that was my daughter!  I had to laugh... :-)
    
    Hawk
    

    
    
    You guys really think Dee Brown is that good?  I know he's still
    developing, however, he fails to impress me as being anywhere near 
    one of the top guards in the game.  
    
    Face it, if he hadn't taken the slam dunk contest last year, he'd still
    be an unknown.  
    
    /Jeff

�    You guys really think Dee Brown is that good?  I know he's still
�    developing, however, he fails to impress me as being anywhere near 
�    one of the top guards in the game.  
    
    Considering that he is only in his second year and still learning the
    point guard position, I'd take him on my team.

    No /Jeff, Dee isn't *that* good.  But, he's got personality! :-)
    
    You're right, that if he didn't win the slam dunk contest, he'd be an
    unknown.  But, not here in Boston.  Not like a Michael Smith, or any of
    the other recent deadbeat 1st round picks.  Dee was a likeable, right
    from the beginning....
    
    Hawk
    

 � Dee was a likeable, right from the beginning....
 
 Yeah, the Bahsthan police department loved him.   He got his own personal
 guided tour of the paddy wagon.
 
 Bob Hunt

    
    >> Yeah, the Bahsthan police department loved him. He got his own
    >> personal guided tour of the paddy wagon.
     
      
       That wasn't the Bahstin Police Department that was Wellesley's.
       There's a huge difference. Wellesley is an upper-middle class
       white enclave so it's police aren't quite so jaded as Bahstin's.
       If the Bahstin police had suspected Dee of being an armed robber 
       he might very well be dead now.

    Yeah, Wellesley's cops aren't jaded.
    
    Cop 1: "Saw a poster of a black guy who committed robbery."
    
    Cop 2: "Just got a call that a black guy is in front of the Post
           Office."
    
    Cop 1: "Must be the same guy."
    
    Cop 2: "Let's arrest him now."
    
    Cop 1: "And let's appraoch him with guns drawn."
    
    Cop 2: Yeah, you know how they can be."
    
    Yup, those Wellesley cops sure are unbiased.
    
    Rich
    

       Kwak likes Dee cause Dee's also a computer geek!
                                  Denny 8^)

    
    I guess the question is.. are the Celtics better with Bagley or Brown 
    at the point?  (Right now, not next year or the year after)
    
    Can't argue about the new Celts being more likeable than the old,
    though.   Bird is just too cockey and arrogant for my liking, and 
    McHale's whinning on the court still drives me nuts.
    
    Reggie and Dee are pretty moddest and I hope they stay that way.  
    
    /Jeff

    
     re .441
    

    There's a difference between being jaded and ignorant. Jaded is 
   a cop pulling you over and when you roll the window down he says,
   "What are you f***ing stupid ?". Which happened to me when I lived
   in the South End. Ignorant is taking the word of some woman who
   probably couldn't tell Spike Lee from Lawrence Taylor that the black
   man down at the Post office *might* be the guy who pulled the robbery
   and then getting all excited because you get to act just like the cops 
   on tv.
    

�    I guess the question is.. are the Celtics better with Bagley or Brown 
�    at the point?  (Right now, not next year or the year after)
    
    Good question, Jeff.  And one that Chris Ford will have to find an
    answer to for the playoffs.  Bagley is playing much better than most
    fans expected (judging from the reaction in the Boston Celtic
    conference).  Brown has made some stupid mistakes in crunch time lately
    (he travelled in 2 consecutive games, the first of which probably cost
    them the game).

 Hey Mac, you telling me that Bagley never made a mistake that cost em a
 ballgame?

 For me it's an NC I go with Brown. His offense and defense are better and
 he's the best we got for the future so baptism under fire I say. Also a
 healthy Bird does take pressure off any point guard they put out there.
 Heck I'd give Douglas the minutes over Bagley although Bagley is more
 accustomed to running the club.

 Jeff you just wish you had players like Mchale and Bird. Sure the Cavs got
 a nice squad but these two guys are stars of different magnitude. You just
 jealousy that's all...

 ;^)

    
    McHale is not a star anymore.  You can keep him.  His problem is, 
    he doesn't get preferential treatment like he used to and he's 
    confused... (and washed up!)

    re .429
    
    Relax Hawk, I'd never hurt your daughter. In fact, I'll marry her to
    signify the bonding of two families (if Karen Derry doesn't mind a
    little bigamy :-) - so do we have a deal ?
    
    re Rich
    
    Your son has good taste - at leats if he avoided the black sneakers.
    
    Doc

    Sorry, Dock, my 11 year old daughter's already too tall for you, and
    she's still growing...  :-)
    
    Hawk
    

    
    You got me Mike... it must be jealousy..  I mean how can ANYONE not
    like Bird's dynamic personality?  
    
    Thanks for helping me see the light..  ;-)
    
    /Jeff
    
    p.s. I'll be looking forward to the Cavs taking it to the Celts in the 
    playoffs.. EEEEEEeeeeehlo is back, so Reggie's gonna get shut down.  
    

    
    Ehlo's a stiff.
    
    
    
    Steve

 What's wrong with his personality Jeff? Mchale still got the best low post
 game around and still plays defense. Granted he's slower but he still can do
 it better than Nance and Hot Rod...

  mike

    Like Ali before him, it ain't braggin or arrogance when you're that
    good.
    
    Mike