Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread, but is no one going to acknowledge that this thread is basically just a swipe at anyone who has any criticisms at all of this team? I know that there are trolls out there, and they make life more difficult, but there are legitimate criticisms of any team, no matter how good, especially when that team has yet to win a title. It's not like this team has any rings and has therefore earned the benefit of the doubt.
There are clearly some posters on CS, and over on CB, who absolutely hate to see any criticism of this team, and act like the team is beyond reproach simply because they have the best record. So then my question becomes: When is it okay to criticize? After they're eliminated from the playoffs? Hopefully they don't get eliminated, but if they do, I already know the answer to that question: "Even if they're eliminated, they still had a good season, so you have nothing to complain about."
People are, of course, free to do what they want, whether they're optimists, pessimists, or ambivalent, but I'm tired of the Positivity Police patrolling these boards like it's their sacred duty to stamp out all dissent.
I think criticism (and free speech) is always welcome. That goes both ways though. If someone criticizes the Celtics and their criticism is flawed, they should be able to be called out. Focusing on unused TPE's for players that would ride the pine is an example. Criticizing Joe (when he never should have been the coach because of Ime's immoral actions) is another. Focusing on Wyc's cheapness while this team is absolutely stacked with big time contracts is another.
I do think that we find faults with the league's best team. I think the amount of negativity is surprising. I wanted to get a sense of how many people realize how lucky they are to follow this team vs the Knicks or the Wizards.
I have no problem with calling out flawed arguments—though I think, generally speaking, that is too often done sarcastically instead of civilly—but in recent times I've seen a good deal of sentiment around CS and CB that, IMO, can be boiled down to: "They have the best record, so there's nothing to complain about. Period." Even if it's a putrid game, like that recent Lakers game, it seemed like criticism of their play in that one game was met with a lot of "It's just one game, so don't complain and don't worry about it; they'll be fine." (Though that opens the door for discussion of what "fine" means, but I digress.)
Anyway, I tend to be a pessimist with sports-related things, I think as a way of protecting myself against what usually ends up being a disappointing ending to the season, but I try to not exaggerate or overreact (don't always succeed), so when I sometimes see people saying "Don't complain," I presume they're lumping me in with others—and I probably shouldn't presume that, but because I do, the complaints about the complainers sometimes rub me the wrong way. Sorry if I explained all of that in a confusing way.
TP, I gotcha.
One of the reasons why Moranis is such a great poster is that he writes hot takes and does a decent job of backing up his claims. He has the ability to convince you that the sky is red, and then gives you 10 different data points to back up that claim. I often disagree with his conclusions, but I can see the dots that he connected to get there.
I get irritated when I see quick hitters like "Wyc is cheap", "the Celtics have no heart", "Joe is an idiot", "Jaylen has low basketball IQ", etc. There's often very little meat on the bone to substantiate these claims, so I (and I'm sure some others) feel the need to question such comments.
That's understandable, and I generally agree with that. Though I do think there could be some merit with certain of those statements (or variations of those statements) if presented in a civil fashion and backed up with examples/data. For example, I don't think it's true that Joe is an idiot, but I think it could be reasonably argued that he's made some bad/incorrect decisions. The problem is that in the moment, people are often inflamed with emotion, so instead of saying the latter, they say the former. My guess is that many of us could do with extending a little more grace, especially after a loss.
And a TP to you too.
I don't think that the Joe critics are any less reasonable than his advocates, or that they spend any more time backing up their opinions. It's the same thing with people who are skeptical that JT or JB have what it takes to win in the playoffs. Some people are very much "show me" people, and want to see proof that something can happen before taking it on faith.
Sometimes posters use short hand, particularly when they've made fully-articulated arguments before. If somebody says "Wyc is cheap", it's a simpler way of saying "Wyc isn't all-in financially", which has objectively been a true statement.
Topic: Do Celtics Fans Feel Grateful? (Read 4675 times)