"Playoffs!!!!!????": an existential diary (Part 2)

Let's take this opportunity to mull over some fun facts:

1.) Basketball is loved by many countries; many of which are non-English speaking.
2.) Because of this, many broadcasters from these countries are invited to cover the NBA Finals and call the games in their native tongues.
3.) English is the Philippines' second language. In fact, it is impossible for Brits and Americans to get lost in Metro Manila, as most of our road signs, newspapers, magazines are in English.
4.) Therefore, the average Filipino understands basic English.
5.) ABC sports uses neither literary English nor old medieval English in its broadcasts.

Now...explain to me why we need Quinito Henson and Chino Trinidad to call the most intruiging NBA Finals since the last time MJ was involved? Seriously. I still cannot understand why we need those two idiots to be there every goddamned year to ruin every exciting moment with irrelevant trivia on what NBA-related personality has a neighbor who has a wife whose a Filipina. After being treated to Marv Albert (the real voice of postseason basketball, as far as I'm concerned) in the Lakers-Spurs series and the delightful comedy trio of Mark Jackson, Jeff Van Gundy and Mike Breen in the Pistons-Celtics series, we now have to put up with this shit. Un-fucking-believable.

Haven't we Sky subscribers suffered enough? First they get rid of Basketball TV to introduce us to the riveting action of darts, now we're forced to watch the Lakers and the Celts in "mute" just to keep ourselves from throwing heavy objects on the TV. Between this, soaring Meralco rates, and Willie Revillame's ugly, humorless, and pathetic excuse for a face, the Lopezes could really just suck my ass.

ANYWAY, we have a real matchup in our hands now. None of those anti-climactic Spurs-Cavs, Spurs-Nets mismatches that just sucked out the lives of otherwise memorable seasons. We actually have two number one seeds going at it, and they happen to be L.A. and Boston.

Game one lived up to the hype. It was a tightly contested game that was highlighted by Paul Pierce's Reed-like heroics. And then it suddenly hits us: "wait...so is Paul Pierce okay?"

One of the most frustrating things about sports is that it's too contingent on injuries. We've had some of the best matchups ruined because one of the teams didn't have some players in full strength. I remember feeling cheated during the 1995 NFC Championship between the Niners and the Cowboys because, despite it being a dream matchup "on paper", Troy Aikman was injured in ten different places in his body and several of their defensive players were out of comission. The niners win seemed meaningless. We should have seen all of Dallas' studs against all of San Francisco's studs. Only then, we'll KNOW who DESERVES to win.

To this day, you'll read about Bill Simmons convincing people that we didn't really get a true matchup in the 1987 NBA Finals because Kevin McHale was playing with a broken foot. The thing is, I can relate. I HATE it when we don't get to KNOW conclusively who the best team is, whether it's because of bad officiating or of injuries.

This Lakers-Celtics matchup DESERVES a healthy Paul Pierce. We NEED to know who the better team is. We NEED to know if Game 2 was really a fluke...if Kobe will continue to struggle being guarded by Posey, Pierce, and Allen, with KG and Perkins waiting for him near the basket...we NEED to know if Pierce can earn his place in Celtics history as one of their true greats.

I was in such a high after the Lakers finally eliminated those annoying Spurs that I didn't even have an answer to a friend who asked me a day before game one, "Who are you rooting for?" Who will I root for? I was just excited with the matchup. I was just ecstatic that I won't have to see Manu Ginobilli flailing his arms and falling out of bounds while the guy guarding him stands motionless. I was too busy explaining to people why I think the Lakers will win and why it won't bother me to see KG finally win one either.

I was too busy being an outside observer that it didn't even occur to me to root for anyone. It's usually a lot more fun when you have a rooting interest in games you watch. Otherwise, it's just like watching a documentary about lions attacking gazelles.

I already had my answer before Game one, but the game itself showed me why I made the right decision. I chose to root for the Celtics for a number of reasons: (1) My objective pre-series analysis convinced me that the Lakers will win because they had the Zen Master while the Celtics had Doc, and the Celts limped their way through the pathetic Hawks, the ridiculously one-dimensional Cavs, and the dysfunctional Pistons, while the Lakers breezed through Denver, Utah, and the reigning champs. Therefore, the Lakers are the favorites. It's no fun rooting for the favorites. (2) As much as I like this particular Lakers team and LOVE the idea of a more mature more "together" Kobe, I still think it's at least 50 times more rewarding to see KG, Pierce and Allen finally win one.

This Celtics team is very much flawed, in fact I've been watching basketball forever and haven't seen a team with homecourt advantage all throughout the playoffs and still be THIS maligned. They have an emotional leader (KG) who is as fragile as it gets when the game is close. They have a sharpshooter whose decline is now being witnessed by millions as it happens. And they have a supposed clutch player who's inconsistent in the clutch...and, of course, his knee might be swelling right now as I type this.

That's why it makes sense to root for them. It makes sense to root for imperfection because you want the laws of nature to be bent once in a while. And sports is the one thing that can defy the laws of nature.