Beantown Letdown

"Your reign at the top was shorter than leprechauns." — Notorious B.I.G.

That's one of my favorite Biggie lines of all-time. And, as you know, any time I get the opportunity to quote Biggie or Jay-Z in a column, I'm going to take it.

And no Biggie quote sums up how I feel about the Celtics better than that one. And when you consider the fact that we're talking about a team that actually employs someone to dress like a leprechaun, well, leading with that quote becomes a no brainer.

That's because, as of right now, the Boston Celtics are a good team. But they are no longer a great team.

As proof, look no further than their loss to the Lakers yesterday on ABC.

There is no way, against any team, that a great team loses that game.

The Lakers are a great team, the defending champs, and the best team in the Western Conference. There should be no shame in losing to a team of that caliber.

That's how I view yesterday's loss when I look at it through the eyes of a good team.

But to look at it from the perspective of a great team, well, there's no way you can view it like that. There's no way a great team would ever blow a double-digit fourth quarter lead at home on national TV against a fierce rival.

When I look at the game yesterday, I didn't see two great teams battling it out. I saw one championship caliber team trying desperately not to lose to an inferior opponent.

And that's exactly what happened. Greatness triumphed over goodness.

Right from the get-go, the Lakers proved that they were the only great team in the building yesterday. They "lack toughness," yet came out and picked a fight before the opening jumpball. They "lack toughness," but they overcame an 11-point, fourth quarter deficit on the road against a team that embarrassed them in the same building to win a title two seasons ago. They "lack toughness," but were able to win despite their best player playing one of his worst games of the season.

The reason the Lakers won: they are a great team. The reason the Celtics lost: they are not.

Great teams go for the jugular right off the bat and never let the other team get into a rhythm. The Lakers were up 30-19 after the first quarter.

Great teams finish games. The Lakers outscored the Celtics 24-16 in the final quarter, including limiting the Celtics to just four made baskets in the fourth quarter, and none in the final 3:54 of the game.

It was in the second and third quarters where Boston showed that they are still a good team. They outscored the Lakers 54-36 in the middle quarters of the game, making it about impossible for the Lakers to get anything going offensively, which is no easy task.

But anyone who knows basketball will tell you, great teams are not made in the second and third quarters.

The inability to close out games has been a real problem for the Celtics this season, especially lately. Since Christmas Day, the Celtics are just 6-11. In those 17 games, they have been outscored in the fourth quarter 13 times, and tied twice.

Forgive me for saying it, but great teams don't outscore their opponents in the fourth quarter 12% of the time. They just don't.

And that's why the Celtics are a level below the elite teams in the NBA right now.

I'm not saying that they can't get back to elite status. For all we know, this five week stretch could just be a blip on the radar, an aberration. Maybe they really are a championship caliber team and they are beset by the same problem that seems to plague every great team since the Jordan-era: Boredom.

But intensity was the calling card of the great Celtic team that won the title in 2008. Their inability to ever get complacent, even for a second, is what made them great.

As a fan, I hated it, and even dedicated a scathing column to this topic and had a name for it and everything. I called it Kevin Garnett Syndrome. It basically says that a team or player will go out of their way, usually in a classless fashion, to embarrass their opponent.

So far this season, the only thing embarrassing about the Celtics is their inability to close out games.

For a team that boasts three first-ballot hall of famers and an all-star point guard, how is it possible that they cannot find ways to close out games? Literally every single one of their rotation players has a ring. That is the biggest indicator of all-time that they have a roster full of guys that knows what it takes to win.

Yet, here we are, more than halfway into the season, and the Celtics have a fourth quarter closing percentage that would make even an up-and-coming team like the Thunder embarrassed.

Maybe it is boredom. Maybe when the bright lights come on we'll see the Ray Allen that we saw against the Bulls last postseason. Maybe we'll see Finals MVP Paul Pierce, the guy who outplayed the best player on the planet in a seven game series for the NBA title. Maybe we'll see the K.G. that used to be able to dunk. Maybe we'll see the Rasheed Wallace that plays inside the three-point line.

Or maybe, just maybe, we've seen the last of all those players.

Remember when this "big three" team was assembled in the summer of 2007? There was no team in NBA history that was set up with a "win now" roster more than that team.

Well, they delivered. They did "win now." But it's not "now" anymore. It's two and a half years later. If you would have asked me heading into the 2007-08 season, "Is this Celtics team going to be great three years from now?" I would have said, "Probably not."

Here we are, a few months away from the three-year anniversary of the assembling of the "big three," and I ask you, "Can this Celtics team ever be great again?"

Unless you're from Boston, I have a feeling your answer now is the same as mine from three years ago.

Probably not.