Not much to read in today's piece. It looks like Dan wrote most of this piece before the game and stuck a paragraph in about the game. He would have been stuck if the Celtics managed to win, but it was a safe bet, though, that they would lose to the Heat.
This column is a chance to reel off a bunch of stats and complain about the current state of the Celtics. Nowhere does he bother to offer any analysis beyond their abysmal record or to suggest how things could be improved. That is Dan's analysis for you. About as deep as a puddle.
Dan also takes this opportunity to trot out some of his distant and irrelevant cast of characters. This time it is Clive Rush and Butch Hobson. Some of the graybeards who post can tell the young whippersnappers all about these two. I am guessing most people under thirty had to look these two up.
But the most annoying dated reference for this writer was "Thanksdad", referring to Paul Gaston, the owner when the Celts last went into the tank. Dan's use of it always has a connotation of a moral failing, as if anything Gaston did was tainted by the fact that he happened to inherit his wealth. I realize fans don't like him for his time as owner, but how he got his money isn't relevant to his decisions. I would like to know what Dan expected Paul Gaston to have done with his family wealth. It's a fact of life for some people and not a sign of moral weakness.
Note: In second to last sentence changed "inheritance" to "family wealth" and fixed typos.