Author Topic: The "realist" debate revisited  (Read 25033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #30 on: May 19, 2010, 01:06:56 PM »

Offline FallGuy

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1941
  • Tommy Points: 70
Seems to me that what's great about this playoff run is that it IS so very unlikely, given what we saw all year. This year's team is very much an outlier. It's been all the more heartening as a result. Let's hope it keeps going.

Let me tag onto the discussion. The other piece of this "debate" that was so distasteful to me was certain self-styled "true fans" announcing that their unwavering belief, regardless of evidence, made them somehow better supporters of their team than those who simply thought the Celtics didn't have it in them to win a title this year.

I do hope going into next year, we're all more open to 1) the possibility the regular season is not as useful a predictor with this bunch, and 2) that everyone who spends a lot of time on this blog is a real Celtics fan, regardless of their opinions on the team at any given time.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #31 on: May 19, 2010, 01:36:47 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Let me tag onto the discussion. The other piece of this "debate" that was so distasteful to me was certain self-styled "true fans" announcing that their unwavering belief, regardless of evidence, made them somehow better supporters of their team than those who simply thought the Celtics didn't have it in them to win a title this year.

I do hope going into next year, we're all more open to 1) the possibility the regular season is not as useful a predictor with this bunch, and 2) that everyone who spends a lot of time on this blog is a real Celtics fan, regardless of their opinions on the team at any given time.

Agreed.  There's no universal definition of "fan".  Pretty much every person that contributes on Celticsblog is a real fan.  Some may have more or less faith in a given year than others, but that's not a badge of honor.

I hope the lessons learned this season spill over a bit into next year.  There was maybe a bit too much panic, and there certainly was too much infighting and nastiness.  Next year, since we all know what to expect, I'm hoping some of the self-righteousness on all sides can be kept to a minimum, and we can just all enjoy the ride.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2010, 01:40:19 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale


If this season is evidence for the "switch" theory, I stand by the idea that any team/player that tries it is playing with fire.

I tend to agree with this point of view.  However, is it possible that the only way the team this old can make it through a long regular season is to play with the switch flipped off?

I'd prefer the team to play hard all the time.  That said, I'd much rather see the results we've gotten thus far than a more tired team struggling in the playoffs.  Not being a professional player myself, I have no idea what the answer to this particular dilemma is.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2010, 01:45:28 PM »

Offline jdpapa3

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3884
  • Tommy Points: 85
Yea, that's a good debate. Did they have to stay off the gas to conserve for the playoffs? I'd lean towards yes.

What's interesting to me is that it seems Rondo is one of the players that turned his game up in the playoffs. His stats are somewhat pumped up from the regular season because of a minutes increase, but he looks better and more assertive in every aspect.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2010, 01:58:55 PM »

Offline Mr October

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6129
  • Tommy Points: 247
I'll restate my opinion on the Celtics regular season vs post season.... as I have done during the lows and highs of the past season.

This team was conserving itself for the playoffs. Less posting and driving to the basket and banging hard on defense. Instead we saw a greater reliance on jump shooting and general lack of hustle on the 50/50 balls. The old guys needed to conserve their bodies for the playoffs. They needed to wait until the playoffs before flipping the switch and giving max effort. Now that we see it, it seams so simple.

Injuries and KG's gradual recovery were of course a factor as well. Yet that still plays into the conserve the body for the playoffs debate.

I even argued in favor of the value of Sheed. During this run, I'm glad to see everyone on board and having fun!

-Mr. "flip the switch" October

(and next season this team needs more young hustling legs to help sustain the team during the regular season.)


Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #35 on: May 19, 2010, 02:06:49 PM »

Offline ducksawce

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 46
  • Tommy Points: 14
Though I couldn't have ever expected this much of an exponential rise in performance by this Celtics team during the playoffs, I never quite understood the blanket proclamations being made about this team during the regular season.

The reason was simple.  If you had caught this Celtics team at halftime of any big game during the regular season, against the biggest competition, it unanimously and regularly held a double digit lead almost every time.  

Non contenders DON"T do this.  Contenders do.  Despite the blown leads, they HAD leads in the first place.  It just didn't make any sense to dismiss this team....one that at any point during the regular season could be found beating the elite of the NBA by double digits.

Pessimists (masquerading as optimists) only seemed to look at the end result of these games, rather than the ways in which the Celtics played these games.  I think realists (called cool-aid optimists) readily acknowledged the shortcomings of this team in the regular season, but they tended to factor in the injuries this team had to overcome, the stellar start this team had to begin the season, and the expectation that the Celtics just simply had to focus for a full 48 minutes when they got to the playoffs.

Lo and behold, this team is concentrating for 48 minutes rather than 24.  They are playing just as they did in various 1st halves during the season.  The true realists just said, "hey, if they can play like that for 48 minutes rather than 24, they'll be dominant".  The next logical step after this...that they COULD certainly do so....may not have been "realistic", but it definitely was in the realm of something that very well could happen without surprising those that have watched this team all season.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #36 on: May 19, 2010, 06:11:47 PM »

Offline dark_lord

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8808
  • Tommy Points: 1126
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".  

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

roy, kudos for posting this.  i actually wanted to create a thread on this very topic but figured the staff would say i was labeling others, starting trouble, or creating a thread that would lead to something not beneficial to the blog.  so thx for starting it.

i was so sick of being told that i was naive, blind optimist,wearing green glasses, not being a realist, not being objective, kool-aid drinker, and a bunch of other things, so much so that it made me not want to post much.

the team showed glimpses throughout the season that they had "it".  i also fully understand that they underperformed and had somewhat of a disappointing season.  but for those posters to label me and others the aforementioned things based on my logic of the team was better suited for the post season, and if certain things happened in the post season (playing more consistent, defend better, rebound, bench contribution.....and get healthy!!!), that this team still had a shot, well sucked!  

certain individuals were so sure they were right about the teams future performance and they were just wrong.  the truth is, no one knows the future and to be so dismissive of others' opinions/thoughts on events yet to occur shows a lack of being open minded and leads to uncomfortable discussions.  i think most people, virtually all, on here want the team to win.  however i think there was/is a very small percentage that wanted the team to fail for the ability to say they were right.  

in any event, im glad to have been able to vent.  root and support the team and if you are going to post here, be respectful of everyone's opinions, especially if they have good intentions.  i get fired up from time to time and know im not exempt from some of the same criticism i am giving, its human nature. but to repeatedly be shot down, spoken down to, making one's opinion seem less valid or important....sux and makes people not want to post much.  its ignorant and unkind.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #37 on: May 19, 2010, 06:18:16 PM »

Offline PosImpos

  • NCE
  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12383
  • Tommy Points: 903
  • Rondo = Good
If you fervently believe that something that, based on all rational and epistemological evidence, seems really unlikely is going to happen, and you make a point of telling everybody about it, and then it actually happens, does that make you smarter / more realistic than everybody else?  Or is it just a case of faith (which is by definition irrational) being rewarded?

Realism, by definition, is grounded in rational perception.  Almost everything we were shown for the majority of this season would lead any rational person to believe that the odds were pretty long for the kind of post-season run that we're seeing here. 

The people who expressed doubt through the second half of this season were being realistic.  The fact that they ultimately turned out to be wrong doesn't change that.


But it sure feels good to be wrong right about now.
Never forget the Champs of '08, or the gutsy warriors of '10.

"I know you all wanna win, but you gotta do it TOGETHER!"
- Doc Rivers

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #38 on: May 19, 2010, 07:04:42 PM »

Offline Mike-Dub

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3578
  • Tommy Points: 28

Realism, by definition, is grounded in rational perception.  Almost everything we were shown for the majority of this season would lead any rational person to believe that the odds were pretty long for the kind of post-season run that we're seeing here. 



But what about what we were being told by Doc and the players that we were close and when healthy we could beat any team?  How is that irational to believe what they were saying?
"It's all about having the heart of a champion." - #34 Paul Pierce

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #39 on: May 19, 2010, 07:09:20 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
If you fervently believe that something that, based on all rational and epistemological evidence, seems really unlikely is going to happen, and you make a point of telling everybody about it, and then it actually happens, does that make you smarter / more realistic than everybody else?  Or is it just a case of faith (which is by definition irrational) being rewarded?

Realism, by definition, is grounded in rational perception.  Almost everything we were shown for the majority of this season would lead any rational person to believe that the odds were pretty long for the kind of post-season run that we're seeing here. 

The people who expressed doubt through the second half of this season were being realistic.  The fact that they ultimately turned out to be wrong doesn't change that.


But it sure feels good to be wrong right about now.

How would you define Optimism? Just curious.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2010, 07:11:13 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Realism, by definition, is grounded in rational perception.  Almost everything we were shown for the majority of this season would lead any rational person to believe that the odds were pretty long for the kind of post-season run that we're seeing here. 

There's a huge difference between saying "the odds are pretty long that we'll win a title" and saying "there's absolutely no chance that we're going to win, those are just the facts, and if you disagree you're wearing green colored glasses".  The latter viewpoint was expressed many times.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter which side was "right" here.  Rather, this is simply a good time to reflect upon the fact that sometimes, we really don't have a clue how things are going to work out, and we shouldn't mock and heap scorn upon those who have a different outlook.  The predictions of those who called themselves realists turned out to not reflect reality at all. 

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2010, 07:12:23 PM »

Offline dark_lord

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8808
  • Tommy Points: 1126
Realism, by definition, is grounded in rational perception.  Almost everything we were shown for the majority of this season would lead any rational person to believe that the odds were pretty long for the kind of post-season run that we're seeing here. 

There's a huge difference between saying "the odds are pretty long that we'll win a title" and saying "there's absolutely no chance that we're going to win, those are just the facts, and if you disagree you're wearing green colored glasses".  The latter viewpoint was expressed many times.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter which side was "right" here.  Rather, this is simply a good time to reflect upon the fact that sometimes, we really don't have a clue how things are going to work out, and we shouldn't mock and heap scorn upon those who have a different outlook.  The predictions of those who called themselves realists turned out to not reflect reality at all. 

tp

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2010, 07:22:55 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
I managed to avoid the fervor of this debate through most of the year, but still feel fairly vindicated at this point after reading so many post-game threads all year.

Before the playoffs started I predicted a return to the Finals because I felt our 2nd half issues were largely effort related. 

Look at our regular season problems; we weren't rebounding well, weren't rotating fast enough on D, and generally weren't playing with any consistency.  All those things, in my mind, were EFFORT related (as oppose to harder to overcome problems like: ability, toughness or front-court length).  We didn’t lack the talent or the courage; just the consistent effort.  Frankly, I'm surprised that more people didn't pick up on the same, especially considering all our guys were finally healthy come playoff time. 

Once we increased the effort level defensively & on the glass --- it seemed that both Cleveland and Orlando would have their hands full with us.  Especially considering both of their teams had regressed this year due to the signings of Vince and Shaq which gave us clear matchup advantages.  Add to that Rondo’s new found ability to take over games & series (with a side of Mo Williams defense); and I found myself feeling encouraged despite the regular season record. 

So now I'm listening to more sports talk radio these days hearing the “experts” say things like, 'Nobody could have predicted..', or 'There was no evidence to believe..'; and I've just got to smile to myself.   

This year, this run -- it feels very satisfying indeed.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2010, 07:23:24 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I still think this whole thing was caused by a few trollish posters in the game threads that started spouting off a very negative, anti-Celtic vibe and who's main purpose was to just make other people as miserable as they were. When people, myself included, started calling them out on the negativity they went into instant defense mode bringing up for the very first time here, that they were just stating the truth, keeping it real and that lalalalalalala.

And so it started and snowballed from there.

I think it's proof positive(no pun intended) that a very small group of people can turn what is normally a very tight knit group of people apart by just starting an "us vs them" debate and labeling the groups.

I never remember the game threads going all the way back to the season before the championship ever being anything more than a place to cheer the team on while simultaneously talking basketball. It was always a very upbeat place to be during a Celtic game, internet wise that is. Even during the worst of times.

I hope this thread is the last we here of this. I thought the whole episode very disheartening and I hated the tensions that it created here that spilled over to so so many different areas of the blog.

So let's stop the rationalizations and defenses and calling out of each other and just be glad we all bleed green and that this June something special is going to happen once again.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2010, 07:57:01 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15969
  • Tommy Points: 1834
I have had wild mood swings with this team all year. I went from "we are awesome" to "we will lose in 2nd round in 4 or 5 games" (a prediction I made at the height of our doldrums) to "I am starting to see a really good team here" (after we came back from one of our western round trips).  Confession: I could not watch the first 5 Cleveland games.  I was too nervous. I suppose I lacked conviction.  But after game 5, I decided I had to be a man again, and started watching again. I am now seeing a team that I no longer get nervous about when the relinquish a lead, because they keep their cool (so I keep mine). I am really enjoying this season immensely, for the first time since the first month or so.