By Chad Finn, Boston.com Columnist

Today's media column, on Sean Grande's upcoming gig as a fill-in voice on Red Sox radio broadcasts, can be found here. Of course, there's also another team he's associated with -- he's been the excellent radio voice of the Celtics for 12 years. So of course we asked him for his thoughts on the Celtics-Knicks series in advance of Friday's much-anticipated Game 6.

1. The Knicks won the first three. The Celtics won the last two, and the New York tabloids smell blood. Overall thoughts on the series heading into Game 6 and the status of the particular teams?

Grande: "I really think the series, from the beginning to now, has always been about the Knicks. The time over the past few years when the Celtics were the primary story has sort of come and gone like a lot of things. We're learning about the Knicks. We know the Celtics are playoff-tested. You know, Game 5 wasn't flawless. Compare it to Game 5 at Miami last year. That was one of the great performances of the era. The Celtics turned the ball over in the second half too much [Wednesday] night. You had some guys play well, but they hardest thing to do in professional sports is to close out another team. Even harder is when you have to close out a team that has guys like the Celtics have on it. That's why this continues to be a test. From a storytelling standpoint, last year in Game 6 we had a game for the ages, a league-changing, legacy-changing performance. Now, this weekend, it's guess what, Carmelo, you're up."

2. LeBron evolved into someone who dominates the game almost at will, and in various different ways. Carmelo is a scorer, and when he's off, the Knicks suffer. But he's an extraordinary talent. Is he capable of rising to the occasion in Game 6 the way LeBron did last year? Or is that too much to ask of him?

Grande: "It's not dissimilar, the series that he's having, to the series that LeBron had in '08. If you look at the numbers, everyone remembers Game 7 from LeBron. He was shooting in the 30s in the first six games of that series. I think we've seen that when Melo moves the ball, he's an MVP candidate and the Knicks are a really, really dangerous team. When he stops trusting his teammates, it's different. It's interesting, because in the games over the weekend in Boston, he was trusting his teammates, and they weren't making shots and it wasn't working. And what happens in that situation is two things: You stop trusting. And I think people confuse selfishness with, I am my team's best player. I have to do this. Selfish is the wrong word. It's, 'I've got to take this burden on myself.' You know, everyone is expecting me to do this. Great players are stubborn. Rondo is the best example of that. You stop Carmelo a couple of times, and he thinks, ''ve got to work harder. I've got to try harder to make this happen.' To him, It doesn't matter how many you miss. The next one is going in. I think it's been a really fascinating year for Carmelo. His moment is at hand now. I can'tt even imagine what MSG would be like on Sunday if they have to come back. The stress is going to be unbelievable. And there's a great irony. The greatest pressure game in this era, I'll ask you. What's the greatest pressure game the Celtics have played in the last six years?

3. I tend to think of the more recent stuff first, but it's probably either Game 6 of the Finals in 2007-08, Game 7 against the Lakers two years later, or are you thinking of something more subtle. The Hawks series?

Grande: "That's it. II go back to Game 7 in '08 against Atlanta. Because if the Celtics lose, Doc's fired, Kevin Garnett's legacy is forever tarnished, so much changes if they lose that seventh game. Even though they ended up winning easily and were the far better team, the consequences of losing were extraordinary."

4. Isn't that essentially what the Knicks are facing right now?

Grande: "Absolutely. Everyone was laughing at me because I bring up Phil Jackson to the Knicks. 'Mike Woodson is a coach of the year candidate, how can you say that?' In this scenario, if Mike Woodson doesn't win this series, you'd better believe there's going to be conversation about it. Losing to an inferior team, talent-wise, after being up 3-0. You don't think there will be stories in the New York post on Monday about Phil Jackson if the Knicks lose the next two games?"

5. Not at all. I'm surprised it's not in the New York tabs already. But here's my question: Is the why-not-us stuff legit? Is it possible for the Celtics to actually make this happen? What did you expect in Game 5, and how do you see Game 6 unfolding?

Grande: "I thought it would be the same closing thing we've seen the last few years. The Celtics would have that 8-. 10-, 12-point lead and not have the energy to hold it. That's something we've seen the last three seasons. I think the Knicks probably go up [tonight], but can they withstand the run? It's interesting, because last year in Game 6, you had one of the great crowd moments in Celtics history in the sixth game in getting hammered. Now you have a chance to repay the crowd for that night and their loyalty during this crazy season by giving them that Game 6 win you couldn't get last year. It's just going to be crazy, go-nuts atmosphere in there [Friday] night."

Be sure to join our always scuffin' Friday chat, during which we'll discuss whether Clay Buchholz is the new Gaylord Perry, the Celtics can pull off this why-not-us? sequel against the Knicks, and the Bruins are a good as they looked Thursday, as well as the usual media matters. Check in below to join the fun.

By Chad Finn, Boston.com Columnist

John Ryder has been named host of WEEI's pregame and postgame Red Sox coverage. The station also announced Wednesday that Lou Merloni and Sean Grande will periodically fill in for play-by-play announcer Dave O'Brien.

They replace Jon Rish, who resigned as host and fill-in broadcaster April 8 after choosing not to accept a pay cut.

Ryder, a Lakeville native who has been with WEEI since 1998, is a regular contributor to the evening "Planet Mikey" show. He also hosts "Red Sox Review" and "Celtics Rewind" after the teams' game broadcasts.

“John has done a stellar job in every role we’ve had for him and has absolutely earned this promotion,” said Jason Wolfe, vice president of programming for Entercom Boston. “He’s hosted the pre- and postgame shows for the Sox many times before and was a natural choice for us to fill this important job."

Grande, the radio voice of the Celtics since 2001, and Merloni, a former Red Sox infielder and current midday cohost on WEEI, will take turns stepping in for O'Brien on Monday nights. O'Brien is the play-by-play voice of ESPN's "Monday Night Baseball'' television broadcasts.

"Sean’s play-by-play experience speaks for itself,'' said Wolfe. "He’s one of the greats in the industry right now, and Lou’s expertise is second to none. There’s no baseball man in Boston who knows the Sox better than Lou."

By Chad Finn, Boston.com Columnist

Bring it back to Boston.

If the Celtics can do that – if they can win Game 5 tonight in New York, in front of the Knicks' raucous, desperate home crowd, with a roster that doesn't match up talent-wise to its opponent's and no true point guard to be found, if they can win with supergunner J.R. Smith returning to the Knicks' lineup and the official end of the New Big 3 Era likely hanging in the balance – well, then I might start to believe the mission is not impossible.

Might.

But they have to bring it back to Boston. Win this Game 5. Force the talented, soft Knicks to come back to TD Garden with the momentum against them. Win Game 5 in a fashion that frustrates the Knicks, makes them wonder why they haven't been able to finish off these creaky, outmanned Celtics, and stirs some old ghosts.

It's that warm recollection of that time nearly a decade ago when certain other long-tormenting sports ghosts were exorcised that has some Celtics fans dreaming of a comeback for the ages against the Knicks.

No NBA team has ever come back from a 3-0 deficit to win a series, yet a few friends of mine, and probably a few friends of yours too, have co-opted a familiar refrain in clinging to any shred of faith that the Celtics can win the series:

Why not us?

That, of course, was the 2004 Boston Red Sox' rallying cry after falling behind, 3-0, to the Yankees in the American League Championship Series. Eight wins later, they were World Champions for the first time in 86 years, and amid the celebration and catharsis, we realized that reality had trumped even the most improbable dream.

A Celtics rally against the Knicks wouldn't approach such history or meaning. But it might be more improbable.

I always believed the 2004 Red Sox (and the 2003 Red Sox, for that matter) were the superior ball club to the Yankees, their only disadvantage being the weighty burden of history. The Celtics, in terms of pure talent, are not close to the Knicks at this point.

Kevin Garnett is shooting 44 percent from the field – and that's the best on the team in this series. Paul Pierce is averaging more than five turnovers per game. Avery Bradley is averaging more turnovers (2.25) than assists (2.0), and certain members of the New York media have delighted in calling him Average Bradley. So far, he's provided no reason for rebuttal.

Save for their performance in overtime in Game 4, when old Jason Terry finally became the Jason Terry of old in the season's 86th game, the Celtics have not done a whole lot to inspire faith.

They punted away Game 1, lost by 16 in Game 2, came out with a surprising lack of fire upon their emotional return to their home court in Game 3, and blew a 20-point Game 4 lead (with Raymond Felton outscoring them, 16-14, in the third quarter) before prevailing in overtime.

In Game 5, in the relative comfort of Madison Square Garden, it's hard to imagine that Carmelo Anthony will miss 25 shots again, or that the Knicks will foolishly let the Celtics' mediocre-at-best ballhandlers off the hook from time to time by relenting on the pressure, or that J.R. Smith won't be a factor in his return from a one-game suspension.

Common sense suggests the Knicks should win, and without much suspense.

But if Jeff Green is at his best, and Pierce has a vintage flashback in him, and Brandon Bass continues to frustrate Anthony, and an unexpected contributor arises, and somehow the wily old Celtics steal one ... well, the task ahead will still be daunting. That is a lot of ifs.

But the why-not-us hardwood miracle also becomes plausible.

They'll be bringing it back to Boston on a two-game winning streak.

So beat them tonight, and make the Knicks wonder whether they can beat you once over the next two. Plant those seeds of doubt. Remind them that the franchise hasn't won a playoff series since 1999-2000, when current ancient benchwarmer Marcus Camby was 25 years old and his teammates included Patrick Ewing, Larry Johnson, and Charlie Ward.

Put a real scare into them. Turn their smart but fickle fans against them. Make them wonder, if only for a fleeting moment, why Kenyon Martin demanded they dress for a funeral that might end up being their own.

Bring it back to Boston. So at the very least, we can salute your never-quit will one more time while discovering whether the Knicks are devoid of such a trait themselves.

By Chad Finn, Boston.com Columnist

It feels better than 18-7, doesn't it?

I mean, 18-7 is obviously nothing to sneeze at. The Red Sox, who open a three-game series Tuesday night against a much-hyped Blue Jays team that is already 9.5 games back in the American League East standings, own the best record in baseball, with at least two more wins and two fewer losses than every other team.

They did not collect their 18th victory last year until May 17, their 38th game. By starting so well and proving so likable – they collectively get it off the field and get after it on – the 2013 Red Sox have already put significant distance between the promise of this season and the misery of the past one.

For that we owe them a collective tip of the ball cap. It's nice to have a team again that generates cheers and good cheer alike.

It really has been an exceptional start by almost any standard other than, oh, I suppose the 1984 Tigers, winners of 35 of their first 40. And yet compared to recent history – the Sox were 11-14 at the 25-game benchmark in each of the past two uniquely miserable seasons – it feels like, I don't know, 21-4 or something.

Does that make sense? Maybe that doesn't make sense. Let's try it this way: Because of the circumstances of the past couple of seasons, the start actually feels better than it is. And it's pretty great.

Their record is excellent, their effort in resuscitating this franchise has been beyond excellent, the way they've won has enhanced the fun.

Know what else? While a four-game series against the hapless Astros, who are a Choo Choo Coleman away from being the '62 Mets, might exaggerate what a team is capable of, all of it seems entirely legitimate. Real. Sustainable.

I don't mean this particular pace – the Red Sox have a .720 winning percentage, which over 162 games translates to 116.64 wins (and, thus, 45.36 losses, I suppose). Now I don't think even the most optimistic among us expect them to come anywhere close to tying the 2001 Mariners and 1906 Cubs for the most wins in a single-season (116).

The Baseball Prospectus playoff odds this morning put the Sox's chances of making the postseason at just 72.4 percent – worse than the Yankees (74.4), actually – with a simulated win total of 88.5.

That 88-89 win range was a fairly frequent projection by those of us who believed this team was the antithesis of the Jays, one that didn't look great on paper but had sneaky depth and would mesh on the field. Now, I believe this is a 93-94 win team, and such an expectation is not unreasonable. Heck, it might be conservative. In other words, I like their odds of beating BP's odds.

Of course we know some aspects of this are not sustainable. David Ortiz's instant return to form – he did have a higher OPS than Triple Crown winner Miguel Cabrera last season – has been a stunning, pleasant surprise. But, just a hunch, the .516 batting average and 1.400 OPS probably aren't sustainable. (And Ted Williams thought .406 was a big deal.) Clay Buchholz (5-0, 1.19 ERA) won't challenge Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA or Denny McLain's 31 wins, both from 1968. Ryan Dempster won't maintain a 12.9 strikeouts-per-nine innings ratio.

But there's no reason those players won't remain significant, even essential, contributors, particularly Buchholz, who now has the maturity to go with the stuff and should contend for the AL Cy Young award.

And many of the good things that have happened are sustainable. We all marvel at Mike Napoli's production, but his current .883 OPS is pretty much his norm – he was at .812 last year and 1.046 the year before. Dustin Pedroia has an .831 OPS this year. Career, he's at .830. Jon Lester has found his 2008-11 repertoire and form, and the results (4-0, 2.27 ERA) are no surprise. Jacoby Ellsbury hasn't hit for power yet, but he leads the league in steals and has played superb defense.

Andrew Bailey is what he was in Oakland, and suddenly, that trade doesn't look so bad. The bullpen is deep and versatile, and the rotation has Allen Webster waiting in Pawtucket should injury or inconsistency strike. On and on it goes, with many Red Sox players achieving at an impressive yet reasonable level. And the few underachievers – gotta lay off those sliders away, Will Middlebrooks – are capable of getting hot when others falter. The Red Sox are built to last, with quality depth up and down the roster, extending even to Pawtucket.

This is precisely what Ben Cherington had in mind when he brought in so many established, respected upper-middle-class caliber players this offseason. It's not a star-studded team, but it's a deep team with valuable players in appropriate roles, David Ross being another prime example. There is no roster fodder, no Aaron Cook/Daisuke Matsuzaka types taking the mound every fifth day with little chance of giving the team a chance.

The remodeled Blue Jays, with their collection of stars, were the vogue pick to win the AL East this year. As they encounter the Red Sox for the first time since April 6, I'm already ready to set my own odds and say it, 25 games into the season:

The Jays are not close to the team the Red Sox are and will continue to be, straight through the summer, to September and beyond.