Celtics vs. Bruins: Which team excites you more?

We're used to the Red Sox and Patriots ruling their respective sports, but the Celtics and Bruins? Two years ago, they were both cellar dwellers, but now they're at the top of their respective conferences. So which team has this town more fired up? Is it the defending champions out to the best start (21-2) in team history? Or the surprising upstarts beating everyone with an exciting style of play and buoyed by young playmakers and lockdown goaltending?

We posted the question to Gary Dzen, Boston.com's resident Celtics blogger, and fellow Boston.commer Matt Porter, a Bruins blog contributor who has been pushing for some love for the spoked-B's since before they were any good. The two dropped the gloves and traded haymakers over whether Boston fans should bleed green or black and gold. Sure, comparing pucks to basketballs is like apples and oranges, but they made a lot of valid arguments and had some fun with the topic.

After reading their e-mail exchange, vote in our survey in the upper-right corner and let us know who won this little throwdown.

From: Matt Porter <mporter@globe.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Subject: Celtics vs. Bruins
To: Gary Dzen <gdzen@boston.com>

All right, Gary, since you won the coin toss and elected to receive I'll start 'er off. Why are the Celtics better than the Bruins offensively?

From: Gary Dzen <gdzen@boston.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: Celtics vs. Bruins
To: Matt Porter <mporter@globe.com>

Most teams have one dominant scorer. Some teams have two. The Celtics have three players with 18,000-plus points in their NBA careers. Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen have each been their team's leading scorer at some point in their careers. Each is capable of going off for more than 30 points on any given night.

As a team, the Celtics are averaging 100 points per game, good for ninth in the league. And it's not that they're incapable of scoring more. It's just that their league-best defense has a tendency to slow some games to a grind.

Rajon Rondo has proven himself to be more than a capable distributor, and his backup, Eddie House, is a gunslinger with a lot of range.

And let's be serious. Are we really comparing NBA offense to offense in hockey? Hockey?!?

From: Matt Porter <mporter@globe.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: Celtics vs. Bruins
To: Gary Dzen <gdzen@boston.com>

Well well, someone sounds a little dismissive. Not a surprise, actually; people who lack understanding often get like that. We're not talking basketball, when you can have a Big Three to carry you. The best hockey teams keep rolling capable players over the boards, and that's what the Bruins do every night.

Sure, they have the stars; Marc Savard is one of the most gifted playmakers in the game, and Phil Kessel is on pace for well over 50 goals. But David Krejci has scored 15 points in his last nine games and is on pace for a 75-point season. Blake Wheeler and Michael Ryder are excellent finishers. Milan Lucic is a beast. Patrice Bergeron, Chuck Kobasew and Marco Sturm can all light it up. The defense, with Dennis Wideman, Zdeno Chara and Matt Hunwick, feeds the puck up the ice and can let 'er rip from the point.

The Bruins have scored 3.41 goals per game, most in the Eastern Conference. Their power play is second in the East (23.5 percent) and they have 10 players on pace for 40-point seasons.

You want offense? The Bruins will shoot you out of the building. But their defense is even better.

Claude Julien's charges wear opponents down by skating hard, but they do all the little things that make a team successful. Blocking shots. Getting in passing lanes. Winning faceoffs. And laying out some thunderous hits.

They've got players known for their defense -- Chara, Patrice Bergeron, Stephane Yelle -- playing their usual games, but the thing that makes the Bruins so scary is how everyone has bought into the coach's system. The maturation of Dennis Wideman into one of the league's top all-around defenseman is one thing, but I mean, Phil Kessel is killing penalties now. He was benched during last year's playoffs for his lack of defensive effort.

The B's have killed off 56 of their last 60 penalties (93.3 percent), which is just a ridiculous number. They've only lost four games, but of those four, one was by more than one goal (Editor's note: Since Matt wrote this, the B's were handed their fifth loss, and it was by more than one goal). Oh, and Tim Thomas and Manny Fernandez are the best one-two goalie tandem in the league.

Your move, G-Dzen.

From: Gary Dzen <gdzen@boston.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: Celtics vs. Bruins
To: Matt Porter <mporter@globe.com>

Good points all, Porter, though I'm still waiting for Tim Thomas to play like, well, Tim Thomas (2.71 GAA career). But it's not even necessary to bad-mouth the Bruins to make my point. On defense, the Celtics let their play speak for them.

The Celtics are so good defensively because each and every player on the roster has bought into Doc Rivers's (and assistant coach Tom Thibedeau's) scheme. And because if a guy isn't giving maximum effort, Kevin Garnett will take his head off (just ask Glen Davis).

Everyone knows Garnett is a defensive stud, but Paul Pierce is playing the best D of his career. Rajon Rondo (2.27 steals per game, fourth in the league) is one of the best on-ball defenders in the league. Kendrick Perkins is a beast. And Tony Allen has filled the James Posey role as a defensive stopper off the bench.

Let's talk a little bit about sample size. The Bruins have played at this level on defense (admittedly a high level) for 27 games. That follows a season in which the B's barely snuck into the playoffs as the eighth seed in the Eastern Conference before losing to the Canadiens for the 547th time.

On the other hand, this group of Celtics has played lockdown defense from jump street. Led by the NBA's defensive player of the year in Garnett, the Celtics held opponents to a league-low 90.3 points per game last season. Opponents shot 41 percent against the C's last season, two percentage points lower than any other team allowed.

In 22 games so far this year (here comes that sample size thing again), the Celtics have allowed 90.95 points per game, second to only Cleveland. Opponents are shooting a league-low 41 percent against the C's. And because they've proven they can do it for an entire season, as well as the playoffs, you can expect them to keep it up.

What I really want to talk about is this sudden surge in Bruins fandom. You've been to the games. Are these newly-minted pinkhats really going to stick with this team? What's going to happen when the Bruins inevitably hit a rough patch? I hope the return policy at the pro shop is good until after the first round of the playoffs ...

From: Matt Porter <mporter@globe.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Subject: RE: Celtics vs. Bruins
To: Gary Dzen <gdzen@boston.com>

I knew it was coming.

I commend you for holding out this long, Gary, I really do. Pink hats be damned, I'm tipping my cap for a second.

The "sample size" argument? I have no comeback for it, not against a guy arguing on behalf of a team currently defending its title. The Bruins haven't won a playoff series since 1999, and were one of the worst teams in the NHL two years ago. Meanwhile, the Celtics have been there, done that. But even if they don't hoist the Cup this year, the Bruins have arrived.

What you don't realize about last year is this: With the banged-up team they had, the Bruins should have been satisfied with just making the playoffs. When they pushed the Canadiens -- the best team in the East -- to seven games, it was a humongous accomplishment. With a solid core -- Chara, Savard, Kessel, Lucic -- in place, the Bruins cut the calcifying Glen Murray, the mediocre Andrew Alberts and the underwhelming Peter Schaefer, added a key vet in Stephane Yelle and two scorers in Blake Wheeler and Michael Ryder, and most importantly, they got healthy. Patrice Bergeron and Manny Fernandez were non-factors last year, and Chara, Savard, Marco Sturm and Dennis Wideman were playing hurt at the end of the year. How many playoff rounds would the Green win without Pierce?

Sure, the B's haven't won anything yet, but the Celtics' 20-2 start won't mean anything unless they get past the LeBrons and Kobes of the league. They haven't had a significant injury, so it's hard to judge their depth (don't tell me Scal and Patrick O'Bryant can handle real minutes on a winning team). This year, with Andrew Ference missing significant time, the Bruins subbed in Matt Hunwick, and he's been one of their best defensemen. The young guys continue to step up, and the B's don't miss a beat.

Now, you're really going to talk about bandwagon Bruins fans? Have you seen the crowd at the Celtics games lately? It's just like it was in 1986 -- all suits. Like most American sports teams, the Bruins have been selling pink jerseys for more than a decade, but I don't see too many around the Garden. And as one commenter on our Bruins blog said the other day, if a girl wants to wear a pink B's jersey, why should I care? The fact is, Bruins fans are a die-hard bunch. Hockey is cold, hard-hitting and fast-paced, and when you love the game, it gets in your blood. The old adage, "there's 20,000 Bruins fans, and all of them go to the Garden" might not be true anymore if the team keeps winning, but the real fans won't care.

The reason right now feels so good is because it feels organic. The Celtics collected their talent. They signed Ray Allen, signed Kevin Garnett, signed James Posey, Eddie House and Sam Cassel and P.J. Brown and boom, Titletown. The only homegrown products were Rondo and Pierce. The Bruins? Nearly everyone has spent a few years with the organization.

With Bergeron, Hunwick, Kessel, Kobasew, Krejci, Lashoff, Lucic, Nokelainen, Sobotka, Wheeler and Wideman all 26 or younger, the Bruins are built for the long haul.

Can you say that about the Celtics?

From: Gary Dzen <gdzen@boston.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: Celtics vs. Bruins
To: Matt Porter <mporter@globe.com>

Hooold your horses. When your NBA Finals MVP is home grown, as well as your starting point guard and starting center (that's 3/5 of the starting lineup, or 60 percent, to save you the math), you're not exactly hiring a bunch of mercenaries. Sure Garnett and Allen were recently acquired, but the team was able to develop enough young talent to trade for those all-world players. Something to be said for that.

Also, if you want to talk organic, the Celtics' unofficial mascot last season is a perfect example. Celtics fans adopted the disco-dancing Jumbotron character Gino and made him nationally famous. That's a grass-roots effort Barack Obama would be proud of.

I'll end with this: The Bruins have come out of absolutely nowhere this season, but that raises the question: How long have the Bruins been absolutely nowhere? The Celtics have always been one of the most recognizable franchises in sports, akin to the Red Sox, Yankees, and Dallas Cowboys.

Seventeen and counting.

From: Matt Porter <mporter@globe.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Subject: RE: Celtics vs. Bruins
To: Gary Dzen <gdzen@boston.com>

Fine, you win. But let's keep something in mind here: The Bruins are the once and future kings of this town.

In the '60s, when the Celtics were winning eight straight titles, the Bruins were suffering in the dregs of the NHL. Then, Bobby Orr came and changed the game, (or, in your words, "came out of nowhere") and the Bruins became the lifeblood of the Boston sports scene. If they keep winning and playing the rough-and-tumble brand of hockey that cuts to the core of the B's fan base, they will rule again.

Just like your boy KG says . . . Anything is possible. And Bruins fans believe it.

THAT'S IT! I'd like to thank the panel, the academy, and everyone who made this possible. So, thanks Gary.