More like Nightmare Week. Or Horror Week.

Tonight it’s the World Champion Celtics, and the good news is nobody from Boston likely to get more than 40 points in the Knicks’ third straight marquee loss. This one will probably be the most lop-sided because the opponent won’t have one guy trying to show off.

I think this week has been an embarrassment at the self-titled World’s Most Famous Arena, especially Monday when Kobe Bryant slapped up 61 points and was serenaded with chants of “MVP! MVP!”

Are you kidding me? In New York City? In mid-town Manhattan? What the heck ever happened to the passionate, sophisticated New York sports fan? When did New York turn into Kansas City, and MSG become Arco Arena?

I’ll actually tell you when. When the Knicks P.A. guys started screaming and singing (“Steph …..on….Mar…bur….eeeeeee”) and when they began to hand out Thundersticks. I distinctly remember Jeff Van Gundy returning to the Garden one night and saying it made him sick to see Thundersticks at MSG.

If you walk in the sixth floor concourse on the 34th Street side of the Garden you pass the press room, which has been named for John F.X. Condon. His name is on the door. He was the p.a. voice of the Knicks and Rangers forever and he was so great at it because he was so simplistic. He would make every announcement with the same enthusiasm (very little) and would never bark or sing or make a big deal out of a 10-foot jumper. And he would probably puke if he were alive today.

Anyway, Sam, I want to know how you feel about how Kobe’s 61 and LeBron James’ 52 were received this week at the World’s Most Overrated and Fraud-filled Arena. I have a few more thoughts I’ll share later on the actual greatness of the achievements.

I want to add, though, that this would never happen at a Rangers game. OK, at the end of a season the crowd once cheered Mario Lemieux because they were being derisive against a dreadful Rangers team and wanted everybody fired. But for years, not only did they curse and jeer and boo every visiting superstar, but they would cheer when a Lemieux or a Jagr or a Gretzky or a Bossy was announced as a scratch. They didn’t even want to see those guys. They just wanted their team to win. Which is the way it’s supposed to be in NYC. Not at Arco Arena.

10:36 p.m., Sam says:

I agree, Carp, that it’s disappointing to see the Garden fans cheering for big stars from other teams but I also think it’s a little unreasonable to compare how Knicks fans react to how Rangers fans are. I think you can fairly make the case that Knicks fans have endured more strife and insanity over the past 10 years than any other franchise in New York (and maybe in the entire country).

When you consider the long list of Isiah Thomas’ debacles – including the off-court stuff that made the Knicks a literal laughingstock – it’s not hard to see why Knicks fans might look elsewhere for basketball inspiration. As someone who has loved the team for a long, long time myself, I certainly found myself doing it, too. Watching the Knicks was just sickening – not only because of how bad they were, but because of what they were representing.

All that said, chanting MVP for Kobe was a little over the top. And while there were plenty of cheers for LeBron on Wednesday, the Garden did have its moments where it sounded like the old days when the Knicks were rallying and even in the lead in the second half. It was a tease – of what the future might look like if LeBron comes, and of what the Garden might sound like if the Knicks can actually build on what they’re doing right now.

In short, I wasn’t pleased by the past two games at MSG but I also wasn’t embarrassed. The fans were only reacting to what the franchise produced. Considering the disasters the Knicks have perpetrated, I think that’s only reasonable.

CARP SAYS:

That said, and I still think it’s pathetic, whether it’s warranted by the recent history of the Knicks or not, how difficult do you think it is for an NBA superstar to throw up a big number in a given game? And how selfish is it?

I mean, Kobe comes in here knowing the Knicks can’t and won’t defend him, knowing the Knicks will play a game that gives the Lakers (and Cavs and Celtics and Wizards) loads of possessions, and starts firing. He took 37 shots in 37 minutes (plus 20 free throws). He came in and started heaving, and when the ball started dropping, he kept on heaving. He was fantastic. Great. But was it selfish; did that style help the Knicks stay in the game? What if he didn’t shoot quite as well (22 of 37 including 3 of 6 on threes)?

I thought LeBron’s game was much more complete (40 shots in 44 minutes, but also 10 rebounds, 11 assists, two blocks whereas Kobe had only three assists, no rebounds, no steals).

My point is this: I think any great offensive NBA player, from Bernard King to Bob McAdoo, through Iverson and these current guys, and especially the Magic Johnsons and Michael Jordans, can throw up a big number on any given night. But that usually, or generally, or theoretically hurts their team. Maybe if Kobe actually got his teammates involved, the Lakers would have blown out the Knicks. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Bryant made it about him. Or that he was capable of having that huge night against that defense. I’m just not as impressed as a lot of people seem to be.

I don’t think Kevin Garnett will be as selfish tonight, and I’d bet that the Celtics will win by a larger margin than the Lakers or Cavs.

And you’re right Sam. It’s not fair to compare fans to Rangers fans. They’re totally unique in a mostly-fantastic way.

11:46 p.m., Sam says:

I mostly have zero problem with guys like Kobe or LeBron (or Jordan or Bird) putting up big numbers in a game. I take a pretty simple approach to things like that: If Kobe is your best player and best scorer (which he is), and he is in a groove on a given night (which he was) and he’s being relatively effective (which he was), then I’m happy with him taking a lot of shots (which he did).

If Manny Ramirez is your best hitter and you have a chance to bat him nine times in a row, wouldn’t you do that? I probably would. Or at least seven or eight times. Same thing with Kobe/LeBron. If they’re on and feeling good, I’ve got no problem with them shooting all night.

By the way, LeBron’s performance was significantly more impressive for me. If you add in his assists, he essentially affected more than 70 of his team’s points, plus shared the ball and played decent defense. That only Kareem and Wilt have gone for a 50-plus point triple double in the past makes it even more impressive.

So now comes word that Barry Bonds failed a couple of steroid tests, not to mention a compelling (if somewhat gross) transcript of a conversation between his good buddy and his personal trainer, in which injections into Bonds’ rear end are discussed.

Here’s my question: Does this put the Bonds as a Hall of Famer talk to bed once and for all?

For me, it absolutely does. I was against voting for Bonds even before this, but now I’m locked. I don’t care that he might have been a HOFer “before” the cheating and I don’t care that he’s the greatest HR hitter in history. He cheated. And you don’t get into the HOF by cheating. At least not with my vote.

CARP SAYS:

I didn’t need this evidence to make my decision, but I’m sure it will affect other voters. I was feeling that I wouldn’t vote for Bonds anyway—and again, I have been on record in the past saying that the decision on BB would be tougher than the one on McGwire for the very point you brought up: That Bonds was headed to the Hall anyway, before he cheated, back when he was a skinny, power-hitting, gold-glover who stole bases. He was the whole toolbox.

But I didn’t need more evidence that he used drugs. The whole “flaxseed oil” excuse was almost enough. The whole story about the mistress saying he used was almost enough. All those leaked stories by investigators about the gross usage of steroid-like substances and testosterone that are used for animals were almost enough. There were piles of evidence in the book about Bonds’ usages. And then there was, for me, the clincher: That Greg Anderson, his trainer, went to jail twice for refusing to testify against Bonds.

If a man is innocent, you don’t risk jail time to avoid testifying. If he didn’t use, you go on the stand and say he didn’t use … The only reason to not testify or cooperate against an innocent man, I guess, is that you like jail. That is all the evidence I needed.

But I am sure than some voters, especially some younger voters, will say “hey, everybody was doing it” and then add that to the “he already was a Hall of Famer before he cheated” argument and will vote for him. It won’t be a shutout. But I don’t see Bonds going to Cooperstown.

And what do you think, Sam, will happen with Clemens if nothing is ever “proven” about his usage? He was a no-doubter Famer when he was skinny, too.

12:56 p.m., Sam says:

I’ve seen enough to already close the book on Clemens. For me, the HOF is as much about gut as it is anything else and my gut tells me Clemens is as guilty as Bonds. The same theory applies here.

I’ll say, though, that I think the whole “he was a HOFer before he cheated” argument is one of the dumbest there is in sports. In no other walk of life would something like this even make sense: If you’re a honor roll student for three years of college and then you flunk a few classes and get caught plagiarizing your senior year, you don’t graduate magna cum laude because you’d been that good a student for most of your time at school, right? If you’re the best employee at McDonald’s for 29 of 31 days in a month, but then skim the cash register and spit in a customer’s face on the other two days, you don’t still win Employee of the Month, right?

It just makes no sense. If you believe that Bonds or McGwire or anyone cheated on purpose, than you can’t put them in the HOF. You just can’t. People are judged on the totality of their being and baseball players are judged on the totality of their careers. You don’t just get to pick the good parts.

 

CARP SAYS:

I agree that it’s dumb, and I love your McDonald’s analogy (made me hungry, actually … hmmm … large fries …). Where was I? Oh yeah. The argument you’ll get about that, though not from me, is that there are all these bad guys in the Hall of Fame already. Like Cobb, the misbehavors like Ruth and Mantle, and even Boggs, and racists who kept blacks out of the game, and no doubt people who did plenty of awful things we may not know about, or may not have proven.

The point is, people—again, not me—will argue that you get to the Hall based on what you did on the field. And I will say, in all honesty, that I don’t care that Pete Rose bet on baseball, bet on his team, or whatever he did. He should be in the Hall, especially since he was—as far as anybody knows—clean as a whistle as a player. Well, maybe a jackass. But the Hall is filled with those, too.

I think what separates the cheaters is that the drugs actually gave people a chance to get into the Hall. Maybe Bonds and Clemens were exceptions, who had won enough MVPs or Cy Youngs to get there without the injections. But would McGwire or Palmeiro or god knows how many guys either on the completely incomplete Mitchell Report or not, have even been considered before the juice?

I can say with some certainty that the number of players who used the stuff is far greater than the number already outed.

Now where’s that darn drive-thru window?

Apologies to all for yesterday’s one-day hiatus. I spent most of the day covering Joe Torre’s New York book tour and Carp was embroiled in Adam Graves Night at the Garden. Carp did a great job, by the way, so if you haven’t read his piece in today’s paper yet, do it now.

Anyway, we’re back today with a question based off what the Rangers did for Graves (and, I suppose, what the Yankees might not end up doing for Torre):

Who will be the next New York athlete to have his number retired?

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now and was having trouble coming up with an obvious choice. The one that initially jumped into my mind was Mariano Rivera – obviously his career isn’t over yet, but he’s certainly nearing the end of it (and with him, you know he’s too classy to hang on too long). Once he does retire, it won’t be long before the Yankees retire 42 (again).

The other name I thought of was Michael Strahan.

What’s your first impression?

CARP SAYS:

Thanks, Sam.

You know a name I heard last night in terms of retiring a number in the near future? Mike Piazza. I’m not sure he was here long enough, or won enough, but the guy’s going to the Hall in a few years, and the Mets absolutely love him—they let him close Shea’s doors, literally, with Tom Seaver, over all the other candidates like Gary Carter or Herandez or Doc or Strawberry. Maybe he’s next.

Of course, there are already two more scheduled—Harry Howell and Andy Bathgate later this month—so I’m assuming you mean after them. And Gretzky’s 99 is retired throughout the NHL, but I think the Rangers will eventually, if not next season, have a retirement ceremony.

I agree that Rivera’s is a no-brainer, especially since baseball retired No. 42 for Jackie Robinson and nobody can ever wear it again.

Strahan’s a good one. I know Jets fans would like to retire No. 4. Not the jersey, the guy wearing it.

I made this point during the week about Graves. I’d like to see teams stop retiring numbers, except for extreme cases, a Lou Gehrig or Thurman Munson situation, for example. Go to something like the Ring of Honor where more players can be honored, but fewer numbers actually retired.

I look at Monument Park and wonder if Billy Martin, Ron Guidry, heck even Don Mattingly, should have retired numbers. But they should be honored. Catfish Hunter, too. Maybe Winfield. Soon Bernie Williams. Not retired. Just honored with their number and a plaque in Monument Park. Obviously they can’t keep on retiring numbers because soon they will have everybody wearing numbers in the 70s.

Oh, almost forgot: What about Steph’s No. 3 with the Knicks. The way they trumpeted his arrival at the Garden and on MSG Network, you’d think it was a foregone conclusion that he’d be an all-timer. He was put right into the conversation of the best point guards in Knicks history, right beside Clyde. Good grief.

11:56 a.m., Sam says:

I like the Steph idea. While we’re at it, why not get Latrell Sprewell in there too?

Piazza is an interesting case. It seems strange to think about retiring the number of a guy who may or may not actually wear your team’s hat into the Hall of Fame. I would imagine he’ll wear a Mets hat, but who knows? Dodgers are a possibility too.

Ultimately, I think they should retire Piazza’s. He is one of the greatest-hitting catchers of all time and he made an impact in New York that will never be forgotten. Certainly I’ll never forget that game after 9/11 when he hit a home run that seemed to fly forever.

When it comes to numbers, too, you always hear about some of those “special” Yankees – like, say, Tino or O’Neill. I say neither one should get his number retired but I’d imagine there are those fans who think they should.

As for No. 6? Book or no book, Torre should have his day. You agree?

CARP SAYS:

Torre will have his day, although now it will probably be delayed a while … but if we’re talking about the right thing to do, he should have it while George Steinbrenner is still around. And to tell you the truth, out of all the stories coming out from that book, not a single one of them made me cringe and go “Ohh, he shouldn’t have said that; that’s just wrong.” Those “bad” excerpts the publisher pushed weren’t so bad at all. And the media totally overreacted, predictably. I love him getting killed over at WFAN for breaking the “sanctity of the clubhouse” code for two reasons: 1) this is the place where everything is fair game all the time, and where managers have to be fired after every loss; and 2) they are running contests where they are giving away the book!

But enough about that. If they had the ring of honor thing, O’Neill and Martinez could have their days, too. But now way 21 and 24 should be retired. No way. The Rangers could honor Beukeboom and Matteau for their contributions, and so many of their older guys who deserve it: Greschner, Ratelle. But I don’t think those numbers should be retired (I could be talked into Ratelle’s 19 going up).

Did the Giants retire No. 58 the last five weeks of the season?

So … that was pretty good, right?

Although the first 29 minutes of the game weren’t all that enthralling, starting with the 100-yard interception runback at the gun of the first half, the Super Bowl was one of the more compelling football games I’ve watched. And that fourth quarter? You wouldn’t have thought anything could top last year’s fourth quarter and, while I’m not sure this one did, it absolutely came pretty darn close.

So here’s how I thought we’d do the postmortem today: I’ll post three questions about the game and then answer them. Then Carp will come back with his answers to my three questions, plus post three more questions of his own. If any of you guys have suggestions for questions, please drop ‘em in along with your comments.

Here we go:

1. Who should have won the MVP? For me, Big Ben was the MVP. Maybe I’m too attached to the stars in sports, but Santonio Holmes doesn’t catch either one of those big passes without Roethlesberger throwing them, plus he kept alive about four different (and crucial) plays by getting away from the rush. His numbers weren’t near Warner’s, but he got the job done when it mattered most.

2. What will your lasting image of that game be? Holmes, sitting on the ground with his legs out, looking up at the official for a touchdown signal and then covering the ball in relief once he saw it. GREAT camera work. I loved it.

3. What was the best food you ate during the game? My wife came through with a fantastic turkey chili – peppers, beans, a little cheese on top. Awesome – not too spicy but with just enough kick to let you know you were eating chili. Well done by her.

CARP SAYS:

To answer your questions first:

1. I think they got the MVP exactly right, and I’m sure they would have gotten it completely wrong if Arizona had won. If the Cards held on, in my book, Darnell Dockett was the MVP. He was so crucial on both of the near-goal-line stands for the Cardinals, and made another key stop on a third-down QB draw. But it would have been Warner, who was great, but who also allowed that 14-point swing on the last play of the first half. It’s always the quarterback.

That’s why I was glad that they got it right with Santonio Holmes. You would think in all these years, with all these supposed great football minds making the decision, that you wouldn’t just always get the QB as MVP, that sometimes the game might be analyzed, you know, correctly. Take last year. Yes, Eli was great, especially on that game-winning drive (when he nearly through an interception that Assante Samuel dropped). No doubt. But the game was won by the Giants D-line putting Mr. Brady on his wallet all day and stifling the greatest offense in NFL history. I thought it should have been Justin Tuck. And if he was the winning quarterback, it would have been.

2. My lasting image will be Harrison, completely gassed, just getting into the end zone as Larry Fitzgerald hauled him down by the facemask, the top of Harrison’s helmet driving into the ground inside the pilon. I mean, a 100-yard interception return and a 14-point swing in the game? That’s my SB43 moment.

3. My wife, bless her heart, made a pot of meatballs and penne in veal sauce. I had to work during the day, so no parties for me, but I couldn’t have eaten better (or more) food no matter where I was.

My questions are these:

A. Which was your favorite commercial? Mine was for the dog-adoption place, the one with all the different animals – -the Rhino going out for a walk, the Boar riding in the back of the SUV with grandma.

B. What is it ever going to take for these NFL players to put their selfishness aside and show a little discipline in such a big game? I mean, how many personal fouls were there? Each and any one of them could have cost a team the championship. But it’s far more important to act like a me-first thug than to win a championship, right? I also hate it when the NFL does the trophy presentation up on that big podium, separating the elite few from the team. I covered hockey for a long time, and I can tell you those are the differences between hockey and football. Hockey players get more and more disciplined as they get closer to the title, careful not to take even minor penalties; and NHL teams share and celebrate the Stanley Cup TOGETHER immediately, making it about team, and making the guys who were scratched feel as much a part of it as the superstar and the goalie.

I also am completely sick of the confetti.

C. Start to finish, do you think SB43 was better than Giants-Patriots. Just the game, not the ramifications of underdog beating 18-0. From kickoff to final gun, which game was better?

10:56 a.m., Sam says:

Well done, Carp. Let’s keep it going:

A. In general, I thought the commercial crop was kinda weak. But I did love the dude throwing the “crystal ball” through the glass of the vending machine to get free Doritos. Hysterical. I also enjoyed the Budweiser Clydesdale chasing the lovely dancing horse all over over the country. Good times.

B. Confetti doesn’t bother me, so long as I don’t have to clean it up. Agree on the podium thing. In soccer, there’s a long stage that allows everyone to be on it, then the captain takes the trophy. I like that. And as for the penalties, I’ll say this: both my brother and dad called at various points in the second half to say some variation of, “I’m thinking about turning this game off because it seems like there’s a flag every play and it’s ruining everything.” I never got THAT upset about the flags, but the penalties were really, really irritating.

C. I still think last year’s game was better. It’s very close – closer than I thought it would be certainly – but last year’s game had more tension for me because once the Pats didn’t blow it out early on, there was a rising feeling that maybe, just maybe, a huge upset could happen. The Cards’ comeback was awesome, but it wasn’t better than that.

Now, my three:

1. Where do the Steelers rank in terms of all-time great franchises? Right near the Yankees? Better? Better than the Canadiens?
2. If the game had gone to OT, there would have been a huge stink about the NFL’s OT rules. Would you change the current setup or keep it?
3. What’d you think of NBC’s broadcast/production?

CARP SAYS:

1. I think it’s way too premature to compare the Steelers to the Yankees or Canadiens or even the Boston Celtics. Six isn’t enough, not when there are others so close—the Cowboys, the 49ers. Plus let’s not forget that the NFL existed for a long, long time before the Super Bowl ever came around, and there were loads of champions before then.

2. Yup, the OT format will be a disaster if and when the SB ever requires sudden death, and it’s only a matter of time. I often hear one of the radio blowhards telling callers (who are complaining about the first-possession winner) that the stats say it’s less than 50 percent of the time that the team that wins the coin toss wins the game on the first possession. Well, if it’s near 50 percent, that means that nearly half the time the other team doesn’t get the ball! That’s an enormous number. I think it needs to be revisited for postseason games.

3. Fred Gaudelli of Harrison does a fabulous job of producing games for NBC. I thought the cameras stayed on the field most of the game, limited crowd shots, limited shots of Fitzgerald’s dad and Warner’s wife, and of celebrities. Not bad. You know you’re going to get network promos in the stands and everywhere, but mostly the game was the thing yesterday. That new sideline reporter, though? Who the heck was that, and how did she end up with the Super Bowl?

Here are a few others:

A. Do you think Harrison should have been ejected for punching one of the St. Louis players when he was down (or even if he wasn’t down)?

B. Do you think the Giants, with Harris Smith, er, Plaxico “Yosemite” Burress in the lineup, would have beaten either of those teams easily? I do.

C. How would you rate Bruce? I am not one of those crazy/nuts Bruce fans, but I think he rocks, and I thought he and E-Street did a really good, enthusiastic job. I like the little football references and jokes they put into the act, and I think they were actually performing, not lip-synching.

12:16 p.m., Sam says:

A. I ABSOLUTELY thought Harrison should have been thrown out. That was a dirty play and I was shocked the refs didn’t see it (since they saw just about everything else). Give credit to John Madden, too, for not wimping out – he came right out and said Harrison should have been tossed. Not all announcers would have been so harsh.

B. Giants, with Burress, would have won. I actually think the Eagles might have won, too. While the Steelers played great, the Cardinals were SO undisciplined with penalties that I think a more disciplined team wouldn’t have fallen into such a deep hole.

C. Full disclosure: I don’t get the attraction to Bruce. I like him, I guess, but he’s hardly one of my favorites. I thought he did fine. I would have liked to have heard “Born in the USA” but that’s just me. Put it this way: I was a LOT more fired up to see U2 a few years ago, or even Prince.

Now my next three:

1. We talked about the Giants – how about the Jets? What if they hadn’t collapsed and made it to the show? Do they beat the Cards?

2. What do you think about the 6:30 start time? Earlier? Later? Perfect as is?

3. What surprised you more: The Cardinals defense or the Steelers offense?

CARP SAYS:

1. I have no reason whatsoever, regardless of the Jets-Cardinals regular-season shootout, to think the Jets would have beaten anybody in the playoffs. There’s no way they would have gotten to the Super Bowl, and no way in hell they would have won it. Not a chance.

2. No problem with the start time. Much better than the 8:40 World Series games and 8:10 Stanley Cup games, and I don’t even remember what times the NBA finals games were, only that they all seemed to be six days apart. It’s a four-hour game, but 10:30 isn’t too late for a finish. I don’t recall what time the game ended last night, but it didn’t seem too late. I know I did some work post-game and still caught the 11 p.m. Seinfeld, so it was win-lose-win for me.

3. The Cards’ defense, the two times it held Pittsburgh to field goals, stunned me.

I’m not a Bruce-lover either. Given a chance to see him or U2 I’d have to toss a coin. Twenty years ago I might have wanted to see Prince. Not now. I thought Tom Petty—not a big fan of his either—was pretty good last year, too.

Now for a few more before I head to NYC for the Adam Graves press conference:

A. Does the event actually live up to the hype? I think the last several years, more cases than not, it sure did. I was at the game in Houston where the Patriots beat Carolina on a last-second field goal, and at Glendale last year for Giants-Pats. This was a great game—not perfectly or cleanly played, but very entertaining. I used to blame the two-week layoff for the lousy games, but not the last two.

B. What about this: These Steelers vs. last year’s Giants? Man, would it be fun watching that Blue D-line chase down Roethlisberger all evening.

C. These Steelers vs. Terry Bradshaw’s Steelers? I’ll go Bradshaw’s 35, Roethlisberger’s 7.

Gotta go now.