Legacy of the Tyranny

As Sully retired to the locker room last night, I'm sure many Celtics fans were writhing about the officiating while fans of other teams were popping their corks in exultation. I've never once, in my time on this and the BDC board, blamed a Celtics loss on the officiating. Not in one single instance! In fact, I've actively and consistently disparaged that practice because I feel that a truly competitive team should never allow a game to be close enough for a call or two to to affect the outcome. In my view, the principal story of last night's game was not the officiating or even the loss. I believe the main implication of this game involved a very important link to the past.

I firmly believe that—whether it's the loss of a game or poor officiating or an injury or a suspension or even the death of a player—any misfortune befalling the Boston Celtics provides entertainment and gratification for legions of people (including the press, fans, and opponents) to a much greater extent than is true of any other team in the league. Simply put, the Celtics have always been the gold standard for hatred in the NBA—even during a two-decade period devoid of Celtics championships.

And that gold standard had its birth and reached maturity during the Tyranny of 1956-1969. Many would argue that Red Auerbach fanned the flames of acrimony by not focusing on making friends as much as on winning during that time. I happen to believe it was all the winning that people hated and envied, and Red was just a convenient symbol of all that winning, while being no more of a bad guy than the universally deified Vince Lombardi would become.

Hatred of the Celtics during the Tyranny gave birth to annual predictions, from all quarters, of their demise. And the Celtics of the Tyranny years were nearly perfect in making a mockery of those predictions—which simply reinforced the hatred and the dire prognostications. The effect on the Celtics was to circle the wagons....to become stronger and increasingly unified in their "us against the world" approach to success. And both the enmity toward the team and the team's collective instinct for deflecting all the scorn have perpetuated through the years.

It has been 45 seasons since the end of that era. And there have been some memorable eras of Celtics success since 1969. But make no mistake about it. The Tyranny created the Celtics' enduring identity. The Tyranny continues to be the the leading root cause of the hatred of the Celtics that seems to have become a birthright of so many. People who weren't even alive during the Tyranny have joined the throngs who, for 45 years, have been obsessed with trying to find ways to belittle or even deny the facts of the Tyranny.

But the Tyranny occurred, and its impact will never be duplicated. The Celtics celebrated their retirement of the Tyranny trophy not by the drinking of champagne but by the deflating of balloons. Oh, pretenders from around the league will win battles with the Celtics.
But the war was won many years ago. And, for better or worse, the current iteration of this team is branded by the legacy of the Tyranny.

So I am gratified that, even in its current state of flux and frustration, the Celtics have a wagonmaster who will not shrink from a challenge but will meet it by circling the wagons in the time-honored Celtics tradition. Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of any action that could endanger an opponent (although I do not believe the opponent was in danger in this instance). But I'm grateful that Sully put himself at risk by notifying the league that the Boston Celtics will not march to the Stepfordian tune of "That's Entertainment" and will not cave to the wussification of the NBA.

Go Celtics!

Sam

Said with much more eloquence than I did in my post game rant....but captures the same sentiment.

I hope the NBA doesnt neuter people like Sullinger, as the league already has a slanted playing field towards stars and offensive minded players. But we need both to have a healthy league and sport. Long live the blue collar guys.

As much as I appreciate, respect, and even idolize the Russell Celtics, I have to disagree.

Even if you agree that Sully made an honorable symbolic stand, what does that matter when the team plays as poorly as they did in Denver? Isn't the actual play of the team far more important than sending a message with a couple of hard fouls? Is being ejected over flagrant fouls a noble gesture or a stupid one that takes a valuable member of the team off the floor for the rest of this game and potentially all of the next?

Sullinger played 14 minutes against Denver before being ejected. In his previous game, he played 19 minutes before fouling out. If he wants to help his team, he needs to do a better job of staying on the floor. If you want to make a stand, do it against Miami, Indiana, or even a division rival, not a lottery team that isn't even in your conference. Great, you sent a "message" to the rest of the league, but you also just got passed by the Brooklyn Nets in the standings.

If you watched either of those games Outside, you would know that Sully wasnt taking any kind of "stand" - he was playing good hard basketball.  Of the 3 flagrant fouls on Sullinger - only the elbow on Farid was a good call.  The other two were hard basketball plays- period.

Elbows happen in basketball, its part of the game - especially against a guy like Farid, who plays hard on offense, yet cries to the refs when you meet his force with force.  And if you choose to do some flying two handed dunk to embarrass your opponents when you are already up 20+ points - you better be aware that you might end up on your ass.

Regardless of alliances, I am not sure how any fan of the sport of basketball can be in favor of the current trends in the pro game.

The first flagrant 1 didn't even look like a foul to me. He got all ball. I think the refs just blew it.
And the second flagrant 1 looked like a hard foul delivered in the course of shooting. It didn't look like it was intentional as far as I could see.

Outside wrote:As much as I appreciate, respect, and even idolize the Russell Celtics, I have to disagree.

Even if you agree that Sully made an honorable symbolic stand, what does that matter when the team plays as poorly as they did in Denver? Isn't the actual play of the team far more important than sending a message with a couple of hard fouls? Is being ejected over flagrant fouls a noble gesture or a stupid one that takes a valuable member of the team off the floor for the rest of this game and potentially all of the next?

Sullinger played 14 minutes against Denver before being ejected. In his previous game, he played 19 minutes before fouling out. If he wants to help his team, he needs to do a better job of staying on the floor. If you want to make a stand, do it against Miami, Indiana, or even a division rival, not a lottery team that isn't even in your conference. Great, you sent a "message" to the rest of the league, but you also just got passed by the Brooklyn Nets in the standings.

Outside,
I have to disagree with you.
First, your argument of Sully's gesture being noble vs stupid is wrong. He, as we all know, plays hard all the time, he's a physical player. So, rough play happens almost every time he's in contact with an opponent. And he's not a dirty player. Does he have to second guess himself "Will I get ejected?" every time he tries to prevent a layup or a dunk?
Second, don't forget he is practically a rookie, therefore is treated as such by the refs.
Third, despite the fact that basketball is a team sport the stand of the team almost always start with a stand of one individual player.

As for the actual fouls he committed last night, to call them flagrant was a joke. I can't recall the last time an offensive foul was called flagrant when the offender was trying to muscled out defender. The first one happens in almost every NBA game and if the defender clearly goes for the ball, misses and slaps arms instead, it's just a foul. Similar foul, BTW, was committed against Bass in the first half, the main difference was Bass' arms were hit intentionally to prevent an easy basket.

AK

MrKleen,

But the point I get from your posts and Sam's post is that you're in fact celebrating that Sullinger was willing to take a stand, send a message, or whatever you want to call it.

And if you choose to do some flying two handed dunk to embarrass your opponents when you are already up 20+ points - you better be aware that you might end up on your ass.

What is that, if not sending a message?

We're likely to disagree on this topic. Your take is that it's classless to do a flying two-handed dunk when you're up 20+ points; my take is that if you don't like it, then don't get down by 20+ points. If all you have left is hard fouls, then your bag of tricks is weak indeed.

I'm fine with hard, physical play, but I don't pine for the old days when men were supposedly men and fistfights were a regular occurrence. Guys like Jim Loscutoff and Clyde Lovellette had basketball skills, but they were kept on their teams because they were willing to throw elbows, knees, and punches against more talented players on other teams. I find little difference between those guys and Bill Laimbeer except the teams they played for.

For me, I also have to say it's personal. I wasn't the greatest player in the world, but I was pretty good, and as a 6-9 center who could rebound and score, I was the focus of many an unskilled goon, and I had my playing days ended thanks to "gamesmanship" by a lesser player who would do anything to slow me down and wound up blowing out my knee. That's what desperate, lesser players do -- get dirty and foul hard.

I disagree with some of the things the league has done, but I don't think the game is "wussified." The game is a lot better off leaving guys like Loscutoff, Lovellette, and Laimbeer in the rearview mirror.

I am sorry to hear of your injury and dirty play is not something I celebrate, but meeting force with force is often the best deterrent.

Bill Laimbeer is probably a bad example, as he was one of the dirtiest players in history.  But what little I know about Loscy - flies in the face of your comments.

Sam can speak to this better than I - since he played before I was born/aware of basketball - but from what I have read and seen, he was an enforcer, not a dirty player.  Red didnt send him in to hurt Wilt on a big scoring night - he sent him in to remind someone who was throwing his elbows towards Cousy, Russ or others that, behavior like that was not going to go unchecked.

On top of all that - Jarred Sullinger is NOT a dirty player, nor is he really an enforcer.  He is a big kid who plays hard and somehow in the modern NBA - that equal flagrant fouls every night.

If you think the game is fine in its current state, you leaving more than Loscy, Lovellette and Laimbeer behind.  You are also leaving Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Kevin Willis, Alonzo Mourning, Charles Oakley, Wes Unseld and Charles Barkley behind as well.  Some of the greatest players in the history of the game (not just enforcers you mentioned) were extremely physical by today's standards.  You dont have to admit it...it's patently true.

Sinus,

I'm not arguing whether the foul calls against Sully were correct. What I'm arguing against is how those fouls are being portrayed and celebrated in the posts by Sam and MrKleen.

As far as the plays go, I don't think the first one was a flagrant, but the second one definitely was, and considering that he already had a flagrant and knew a second would lead to an ejection, getting the second flagrant 23 seconds after the prior one was a dumb play on his part.



I also have no problem with Faried's dunk. It's not a big deal, and it's not something that called for retaliation.

You want to fight back? Get your team back in the game. Do the hard work of playing well and cutting into the lead. You don't want Faried getting that kind of dunk? Then don't stand ten feet back from Lawson and let him throw any pass he likes and don't just stand there and allow Faried to cut through your defense and get to the rim unimpeded. Getting thrown out is just abandoning your teammates.

In Sullinger's defense, this is likely a symptom of the Celtics' biggest weakness -- they have no center. Whether it's Asik or somebody else, they desperately need a rim protector so that Sullinger isn't picking up needless fouls and getting frustrated so easily.

Sullinger is tied with Mario Chalmers for the flagrant foul point "lead" with five. One more, and he'll be suspended for a game.

We could go back and forth on this all day. I disagree with your comment about Bird, McHale, Willis, et al. I disagree with your contention that force is best met with force, which brings to mind the old adage about wrestling with a pig ("never wrestle with a pig -- you get dirty, and the pig likes it").

It's obvious we have a difference of opinion, and I'm not going to sway anyone who sees it differently. I just wanted to voice a different opinion on the matter.

Outside wrote:You want to fight back? Get your team back in the game. Do the hard work of playing well and cutting into the lead. You don't want Faried getting that kind of dunk? Then don't stand ten feet back from Lawson and let him throw any pass he likes and don't just stand there and allow Faried to cut through your defense and get to the rim unimpeded. Getting thrown out is just abandoning your teammates.
.

So once you get beat on a play, or fall behind in a game - all bets are off and you must endure any measure of embarrassing, humiliating play without a response?

This is the same argument that we had as it related to the famous Kevin McHale / Kurt Rambis play. And maybe it is an East Coast / West Coast thing. But sports have a code of honor and if the refs wont police it, the players will.

Maybe you had enough talent to never have to play that way - but there has been room in the game for both freak athletes and hard workers for more than 65 years, but recently the NBA has clearly drawn a line in the sand and the Refs have been instructed to protect certain players and styles of play over others.

No, it is not an East Coast/West Coast thing.

There is a clear distinction between hardworking and dirty. I like Sullinger's play overall, and I don't consider him a dirty player.

But the type of thing you advocate here -- retaliation for a perceived embarrassing, humiliating play -- is not "hard working." First off, it wasn't an embarrassing, humiliating play other than that they should be embarrassed and humiliated for playing such soft defense. Here's the play.



My observations:

1. Faried got the rebound and is almost the last man up the court, yet all he does is run in basically a straight line toward the rim and receive a lob.

2. Instead of hustling to get in front of Faried, Olynyk trails Faried on the entire play.

3. Lawson receives the outlet from Faried and waltzes up to the three-point line where he can throw any pass he likes because the closest defender is 7-8 feet away and backing up.

4. Although everyone except Olynyk is back, no one seems to notice Faried or do anything about him. What's the point of getting back if you're not going to do anything?

If you play defense like that, you have no right to take exception to what follows. You deserve it.

What you're talking about is retaliation for that type of play, but that has nothing to do with the refs and a code of honor. It's not up to the refs to police that type of thing. It's not up to the refs to prevent a team from dunking and getting layups because your defense stinks. And this has nothing to do with hard working players, because hard work is exactly what is called for here but was missing from Boston's play.

I have no problem with delivering hard fouls when someone tries to score inside. I was a passionate defender and claimed the key as my territory, and I did everything in my power to make you think twice before bringing it inside. That has nothing to do with retaliation or dirty plays.

You want a code of honor? Then live up to the code of playing tough defense on every play. What I saw was a team that played horribly soft defense and allowed the Nuggets to do pretty much as they pleased. Take exception to your own play, not to the Nuggets accepting your open invitation to score at will.

Outside,

I'm just curious. In what year did you become a fan of the NBA? Because the way you characterize the Russell Years doesn't coincide with my observations. First of all, fistfights were most decidedly NOT a "regular occurrence" or anything close to it. They actually occurred relatively seldom. The play was routinely rougher than it is now, but the roughness was more a function of the play (rebounding, setting picks, etc.) than of bouts of fisticuffs. The refs in those days let a lot more rough stuff go than is the case today; and, if that doesn't mean the league is wussified, I don't know what does. Just as one example of many possibilities, does the term "hand check" ring any bells with you. How about "protection of stars?"

I attach little-to-no importance to the symbolism of Sully's play, as I think the heat of the moment caused Sully to prevent more of the humiliation on his watch. Had I thought it was a matter of symbolism, I would have cited the fact that, if his Celtics were in serious trouble, Red Auerbach was too old to play, but he almost routinely got tossed to galvanize his players. And the shock value of his strategy worked more often than not. Should Red have been criticized for depriving the team of 20 minutes of his wisdom and leadership by getting tossed so they would summon the motivation and adrenalin needed to win a game they almost surely would have lost otherwise?

Lest you err by depicting Clyde Lovellette as primarily being kept around because he was primarily goons, go check Lovellette's record and discover why he's a hall-of-famer. As for Jim Loscutoff, a check will reveal that he averaged 12 points and 11 rebounds per 36 minutes in his career. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be happy if you call Lame Beer anything you want because I think he was a jerk of a player.

Anyway, I expected a dissenting response on your part, and I thank you for providing some balance to the conversation.

Sam

Sam,

Thank you for providing a forum where my dissenting view can be voiced, although on some level, it's disappointing to be predictably dissenting. I wish I could be less predictable, but as a great philosopher once said, "I yam what I yam."

Outside, I don't believe you're at all predictable. What you tend to provide (in my opinion) is a balanced opinion. In this case, the comments were so one-sided that I felt a more balanced opinion would probably be a negative one. This forum would be a far less interesting and knowledgeable one without you as part of it.

Sam