Well, the Celtics are off to their best start since 1985-86 (the last of the Bird era champions), and already there is speculation about whether or not they can win 70 or more games. I'll give you that they appear TODAY (I emphasize today) to be the team to beat in the Least, er, East. And the trio of Garnett, Allen and Pierce is formidable. Heck, I thought they'd easily win the Least, darn it, East. But seventy wins doesn't seem likely to me.

First off, getting to even sixty wins in today's parity-ridden NBA is tough enough. Last season, Dallas and I think Phoenix were the only teams to reach at least 60. Neither team made the Finals, by the way (For you conspiracy theorists, yes, I think Phoenix should have beaten the Spurs). It may be more feasible in the East (there we go!), but the Pistons needed only 53 wins to earn the top seed in the conference. They too failed to reach the Finals. So Boston better take note; it's not how you start, it's how you finish. Even the 1996 Bulls admitted the 72 wins meant nothing without a ring.

Secondly, an injury to any of the Big Three means, at the very least, major trouble. And history has shown that Pierce and especially Allen are prone to injuries. The rest of the Celtics are not as deep as the '86 team was; that team featured Bill Walton, Jerry Sichting and Scott Wedman, who may not have been household names (except for Walton) but who kept the machine rolling when any of their Big Three went down. If any of this Big Three gets hurt, who steps in? Tony Allen? Brian Scalabrine (I don't know how to spell it)? This team is toast if there's an injury.

Both reasons tie together. The most consistent message in the sports world is "Avoid injuries in the regular season, because the championship is all that matters", or some variation of that message. The Celtics could very well win 70 games, but what if, at the end of victory 70, Garnett lands on someone's foot and is out for the first round. The Celtics get bounced as a result. History doesn't fondly remember big regular season winners who fail in the Playoffs; look at the Mavs last year. If you need deeper history, the Celts provide it; remember when they won 68 games in 1972-73? Probably not, as the eventual champion Knicks bounced them in the conference finals (although John Havlicek was injured; wait, there's that injury bug again!).

In summation, seventy wins is a near impossibility in today's NBA. When the Bulls won 72, they had expansion teams that year (one of whom, Toronto, was a divisonal rival) and thus had more cupcakes on the road to 72. History also shows that the big winners of yesteryear (the '72 Lakers, the '73 Celtics, those and the '92 Bulls) traditionly have come either as a direct result of or shortly after expansion. The Celts could be in line for about 50-55 wins, but enough of this 70 crap! As they always say, that's why they play the game!