Thursday, November 15, 2007

the streak

On Tuesday, October 16, the Cleveland Indians won Game 4 of the ALCS. Since then, none of the three major Boston franchises have lost.

- the Red Sox took the last three games of the ALCS, and then swept the World Series in four games.
- the Patriots have won three games in a row, as part of their 9-0 start to the season
- the Celtics have won their first 7 games of the NBA season

The latter is the most surprising. Apparently this is the best start since 1972-3.

Which is kinda weird, seeing as there was this guy named Bird who played on the team throughout the 80s, along with a few other pretty good guys.

I don't think this team is as good as the '86 Celtics. Of course, the entire league is flatter now - there are more teams and the average team is, IMO, worse. Individual players are better than they were in the 80s, but team play is a lost art.

The Celtics have the advantage of playing in the awful Eastern Conference. They won't play the Spurs or Suns until February. Of course the streak won't last that long, as they have a stretch in December where they play the Pistons and then go on a four-game West Coast road trip right after Christmas. The last game of the four is at the Lakers, and it's the second game in two days.

Of course, the Lakers might have gotten rid of Kobe by then, so who knows?

I'm talking about the Celtic's winning streak, which we all know isn't going to last, to avoid talking about another streak, which I don't want to jinx.


Jolene said...

How did you know about my 7-game winning streak in Fantasy Football?

Wait, that's not what you're talking about? Never mind, then. (And of course I probably just jinxed myself.)

By the way, apparently the local soccer team is doing well too, or so I hear (that's really about all I know about it). I kind of feel bad for the Bruins. Do they even still exist?

whispers said...

Gratz on the winning streak. My FF winning streak has crashed in the past two weeks. Curiously, "playing the defense against the Colts" was the right move and would have given me two victories instead of two losses. Who knew?

The whole MLS thing started after I left New England, so I've never really gotten into the "Revolution". Maybe if they would pick up Prince. I still remember the old "Tea Men" of NASL, which has to qualify as one of the lamest team names ever. Not that I like "Revolution": teams should not have collective nouns as a name: no Jazz, Heat, Galaxy, Magic or Revolution for me, thank you. The usage of "United" in soccer is, however, given a pass due to its illustrious (and often obnoxious) history (I'm thinking of Man U. when I say 'obnoxious').

I also think the Lakers and Jazz should be forced to switch names. There are no lakes in L.A. and no Jazz in Utah. There's a big freaking lake in Utah and plenty of jazz in L.A. (This is a stolen joke from decades ago, but I don't remember from whom.)

Jolene said...

teams should not have collective nouns as a name

YES! Thank you. I have always hated that.

And I think teams should always change their names if they move to a new city. I mean, why should the Indianapolis Colts be able to claim all the history of the Baltimore Colts? It's not like the people of Indianapolis were fans of the Colts back then. Do they remember that era fondly? Of course not. But the people of Baltimore do. The original cities should always get to keep the name and the history (like with the Browns - isn't that what happened there? Much better way to do it).

Jolene said...

So after all the day games on Sunday, I was certain I had jinxed myself with my comment up there, because all my players were underperforming or scoring points for my bench. But Randy Moss saved me. That man can do everything!

Still, I think I should probably stop talking about FF - can't hold off the jinx forever.

Landru said...

By the way, could both of you please start bragging on the Patriots?

Just a small favor. Thanks.