The "realist" debate revisited

[BballTim]

I think the problems happen when labels get thrown around - without anybody even taking the time to listen to one another - that start to have increasingly negative and unfair connotations.  "Realist" and "optimist" are both fairly neutral terms, but when adjectives like "stupid," "nasty," "arrogant," "deluded," "condescending," etc. get attached to them they become really problematic.

  Realist is a fairly neutral term but when you claim you hold your point of view because you're a realist you're strongly implying that people who hold other views *aren't* realistic. It's generally used to dismiss other positions, typically because the person taking the position is doing so because of their loyalty to the team and not based on objective observations.

[PosImpos]

I think the problems happen when labels get thrown around - without anybody even taking the time to listen to one another - that start to have increasingly negative and unfair connotations.  "Realist" and "optimist" are both fairly neutral terms, but when adjectives like "stupid," "nasty," "arrogant," "deluded," "condescending," etc. get attached to them they become really problematic.

  Realist is a fairly neutral term but when you claim you hold your point of view because you're a realist you're strongly implying that people who hold other views *aren't* realistic. It's generally used to dismiss other positions, typically because the person taking the position is doing so because of their loyalty to the team and not based on objective observations.

I don't think there's anything wrong with claiming your viewpoint is more realistic than that of somebody else.  Isn't that the foundation of argument, which is what fuels so much of what goes on around here?  The trick is to keep it civilized.

I don't begrudge anybody their right to take an optimistic viewpoint because of their loyalty to the team and their faith in green.  But at certain points in this season I made no secret of my belief that thinking of this team as a top contender was unrealistic.  

Now the Celtics have managed one of the most startling turnarounds ever - few other teams have ever "flipped the switch" like this - and they are certainly a top contender.  But I would argue that they're playing like an entirely different team now.  The team we watched between Christmas and March was not even 1/3 as good as this team.

The green faith of the unfailingly optimistic has been justified and rewarded this season, and I think that's something we can all celebrate - no matter what we thought earlier in the season.  

Certainly in the future those of us who are more prone to judging what we see in front of us instead of sticking with what we want to believe in our hearts might give a little more credence to that green faith.

[Bahku]

Great OP, Roy (TP). I think a big misconception is that the term "realist" is generally afforded those that lean in the direction of the pessimistic, when in fact optimism is as "realistic" as any other point-of-view.

Whether our view of the world is seasoned with an anticipation of the negative, bathed in the light of more positive outcomes, anywhere between the two, or even extending to either side, how we each see the world is what defines "real" to each of us as individuals. The problem originates in that our view of "realism" generally is in conflict with others' view of the same, but we all feel our view is the correct one.

I think we'd get along much better and come to much more constructive conclusions if we'd all just try a little harder to allow everyone else their own view of what defines "realism" to them. I like to think I'm more of an optimist than a pessimist, but that doesn't mean my view of things is any less "real" than someone who sees things more pessimistically.

Somewhere along the way of social development, the term "realist" has been allowed to those with the more negative bent, but there really is no foundation for it, because, as we are witnessing now with the Celtics, the optimistic view is as "real" as any other, and I feel, with as much import and recurrence as a pessimistic one.

[FallGuy]

I think the problems happen when labels get thrown around - without anybody even taking the time to listen to one another - that start to have increasingly negative and unfair connotations.  "Realist" and "optimist" are both fairly neutral terms, but when adjectives like "stupid," "nasty," "arrogant," "deluded," "condescending," etc. get attached to them they become really problematic.

  Realist is a fairly neutral term but when you claim you hold your point of view because you're a realist you're strongly implying that people who hold other views *aren't* realistic. It's generally used to dismiss other positions, typically because the person taking the position is doing so because of their loyalty to the team and not based on objective observations.

I don't think there's anything wrong with claiming your viewpoint is more realistic than that of somebody else.  Isn't that the foundation of argument...

TP for this excellent piece of your post. It's possible to sterilize a debate with protocol.

[Casperian]

I don't know how people keep missing the main point of this whole disagreement.

I thought I made things quite clear in my first post in this thread, yet people keep dancing around meaningless arguments about who was right and who was wrong, which in the end is not important.

What is important was the thought process behind all proclamations made. What is important was how labels/stances where completely miss-used by almost everyone here. The problem was the definitive proclamations that were simply way off base with little thought on what the playoffs are all about and how they ignore a history filled with instances of lower seeds, "inferior" teams beating, "better" and "higher" seeds. Even if the odds were against the Celtics, who just about everyone agreed on.

I agree, but definitive proclamations were made on both sides, this isnīt exclusive to the "pessimists". "Little thought on what the playoffs are all about" goes both ways. For the "optimists", there also seemed to be little thought on what the evidence at the time implied: The Celtics played horrible, even in so-called "statement games". I just want to remember you of the "Itīs only jamuary/february/march" and the "Donīt panic" threads.

People make it sound as if it was harder for them to post an optimistic view on this forum than it was for others to post a pessimistic view, as if only the "pessimists" have to apologize for treating others without respect. I mean, itīs not exactly rocket science to know that "negative" posters get called out first on a sports blog.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't know how people keep missing the main point of this whole disagreement.

I thought I made things quite clear in my first post in this thread, yet people keep dancing around meaningless arguments about who was right and who was wrong, which in the end is not important.

What is important was the thought process behind all proclamations made. What is important was how labels/stances where completely miss-used by almost everyone here. The problem was the definitive proclamations that were simply way off base with little thought on what the playoffs are all about and how they ignore a history filled with instances of lower seeds, "inferior" teams beating, "better" and "higher" seeds. Even if the odds were against the Celtics, who just about everyone agreed on.

I agree, but definitive proclamations were made on both sides, this isnīt exclusive to the "pessimists". "Little thought on what the playoffs are all about" goes both ways. For the "optimists", there also seemed to be little thought on what the evidence at the time implied: The Celtics played horrible, even in so-called "statement games". I just want to remember you of the "Itīs only jamuary/february/march" and the "Donīt panic" threads.

People make it sound as if it was harder for them to post an optimistic view on this forum than it was for others to post a pessimistic view, as if only the "pessimists" have to apologize for treating others without respect. I mean, itīs not exactly rocket science to know that "negative" posters get called out first on a sports blog.

It's always easier to spout negative views, and they always are the loudest, this is true everywhere.

Problem with pessimism, was to the extent that it was taken here in this blog. The negativity can be destructive and disruptive, while I'm fine with people having negative views, I thought it went to the extreme this year, to the point that it felt that some were trolling.

In the other part, even if some of the optimist were a bit ignorant in their assessment, there's still a spread of hope, which is lifting.

I like to keep pointing out drza's (or however you spell his name) posts throughout the months and the thought process that was employed, yet many of the points he was bringing up quite eloquently were dismissed even if they were fact based... you know actually being realistic with a touch of being optimistic.

So yeah, it's quite hard to post of the non-negative variety, particularly when you're in some tough months with few people that were willing to be receptive to what was being said, and I think that's another part of the problem, the dismissiveness that some brought forward.

Even if the negatives are "called out first", it's still easier to post about it. It's easier to make people buy the negative than it is the positive, it's human nature.

[Casperian]

So yeah, it's quite hard to post of the non-negative variety, particularly when you're in some tough months with few people that were willing to be receptive to what was being said, and I think that's another part of the problem, the dismissiveness that some brought forward.

Even if the negatives are "called out first", it's still easier to post about it. It's easier to make people buy the negative than it is the positive, it's human nature.

The thing is, this is all part of a certain dynamic. I donīt mean to point fingers with the "called out first" bit, I just want to explain the dynamic as I see it, and why "pessimists" came off as "self-described" realists.

You bring up the tough months, but I think you neglect the "jump off the bandwagon" mentality during the time when the team showed visible flaws and gave good reason to be concerned. Dismissivness is a good term here, elitism is another one.

It may be human nature to buy the negative more easily, I donīt know, but I do think itīs in the nature of sports fans to dismiss negativity about their team.

[BballTim]

I think the problems happen when labels get thrown around - without anybody even taking the time to listen to one another - that start to have increasingly negative and unfair connotations.  "Realist" and "optimist" are both fairly neutral terms, but when adjectives like "stupid," "nasty," "arrogant," "deluded," "condescending," etc. get attached to them they become really problematic.

  Realist is a fairly neutral term but when you claim you hold your point of view because you're a realist you're strongly implying that people who hold other views *aren't* realistic. It's generally used to dismiss other positions, typically because the person taking the position is doing so because of their loyalty to the team and not based on objective observations.

I don't think there's anything wrong with claiming your viewpoint is more realistic than that of somebody else.  Isn't that the foundation of argument, which is what fuels so much of what goes on around here?  The trick is to keep it civilized.

I don't begrudge anybody their right to take an optimistic viewpoint because of their loyalty to the team and their faith in green.  But at certain points in this season I made no secret of my belief that thinking of this team as a top contender was unrealistic.  

  Sure, and people pointed out why you were wrong every time, with reasons based on what they were seeing on the court, not because they had faith in the team no matter how they played. This isn't the case of people saying "the Celts will be fine, trust me", and now saying "see, I was right, and these are the reasons". It's a case of people telling you were wrong because our problems were due in large part to KG and Paul being in and out of the lineup (which they were), playing below par due to injuries when they were in the lineup (which they were), and chemistry problems based on those issues as well as people changing their roles because of Rondo's expanded role in the offense (which was also the case). In other words, explanations based on things that were painfully obvious.

Now the Celtics have managed one of the most startling turnarounds ever - few other teams have ever "flipped the switch" like this - and they are certainly a top contender.  But I would argue that they're playing like an entirely different team now.  The team we watched between Christmas and March was not even 1/3 as good as this team.

  Nobody's disputing that. Very few people disputed it at the time. But the team we watched in December was pretty close to this good, and there were obvious reasons the team was underperforming. Some of it was obviously flipping the switch. But a lot of it (which you seem unable to acknowledge) was based on Paul and KG getting healthier and the starters getting used to playing together again. If Paul and KG hadn't been injured and the team just turned it on for the playoffs it would be much more startling.

The green faith of the unfailingly optimistic has been justified and rewarded this season, and I think that's something we can all celebrate - no matter what we thought earlier in the season.  

  This isn't (and never was) about unfailing optimism. I didn't spend the winter/spring saying that the Celts *would* make a big run in the playoffs, but that they *could*. They could have also gotten beat in 5 to Cleveland. It's not that they were a shoo-in to get where they are. It's that the claims that the Celts were no longer capable of contending was false.

Certainly in the future those of us who are more prone to judging what we see in front of us instead of sticking with what we want to believe in our hearts might give a little more credence to that green faith.

  Sure, if you don't think that KG and Paul were ever hurt or that their injuries and Rondo's expanded role in the offense caused chemistry issues, keep telling yourself this. I could just as easily say that there were some diehard optimists, those of us that were prone to judging what we see in front of us, and those fans that were angry, disappointed and frustrated with the way the team played after Xmas and based their evaluations on those emotions.

[BudweiserCeltic]

So yeah, it's quite hard to post of the non-negative variety, particularly when you're in some tough months with few people that were willing to be receptive to what was being said, and I think that's another part of the problem, the dismissiveness that some brought forward.

Even if the negatives are "called out first", it's still easier to post about it. It's easier to make people buy the negative than it is the positive, it's human nature.

The thing is, this is all part of a certain dynamic. I donīt mean to point fingers with the "called out first" bit, I just want to explain the dynamic as I see it, and why "pessimists" came off as "self-described" realists.

You bring up the tough months, but I think you neglect the "jump off the bandwagon" mentality during the time when the team showed visible flaws and gave good reason to be concerned. Dismissivness is a good term here, elitism is another one.

It may be human nature to buy the negative more easily, I donīt know, but I do think itīs in the nature of sports fans to dismiss negativity about their team.

There are two things to evaluate, one is one's opinion (with the thought process behind it) and the other is how one comports himself.

I think in those tough months frustration got the better out of many, which in turn led to poor behavior, and by this I mean that there was a bit of an aggressiveness to it. It just felt quite extreme and the front page writers didn't help matters with their negative propagation that went on for some time here, when it's usually quite even keel'ed.

For more comparisons, you can compare it to someone asking for a review and one saying "you suck" and the other providing constructive criticism. You can compare it to Dwight Howard getting frustrated and then lashing out at his coach, instead of keep fighting and playing hard even if they're down by 30.

But let me say, when it's going good, it's easier to post positive, when things are bad it's easier to post of the negative variety.

I don't know what reputation I might have here since I'm always criticizing Rondo, and being a bit of a party pooper in all those threads about him being the best player in the NBA, etc.

I'm just always concerned with accuracy and facts be them good or bad, but I always try to be constructive with my assessments, on how we can change those flaws we are seeing, etc.

So that's part of it, OK you have a negative opinion, you have some criticisms... what are you going to do with them?

And let me just say, I have zero problem with someone's opinion being dismissed. I have a problem with facts, factors, variables being dismissed simply to fit one's story... and there was plenty of that going around.

[Roy Hobbs]

I don't think there's anything wrong with claiming your viewpoint is more realistic than that of somebody else.  Isn't that the foundation of argument, which is what fuels so much of what goes on around here?  The trick is to keep it civilized.

I don't begrudge anybody their right to take an optimistic viewpoint because of their loyalty to the team and their faith in green.  But at certain points in this season I made no secret of my belief that thinking of this team as a top contender was unrealistic.  

Now the Celtics have managed one of the most startling turnarounds ever - few other teams have ever "flipped the switch" like this - and they are certainly a top contender.  But I would argue that they're playing like an entirely different team now.  The team we watched between Christmas and March was not even 1/3 as good as this team.

The green faith of the unfailingly optimistic has been justified and rewarded this season, and I think that's something we can all celebrate - no matter what we thought earlier in the season.  

Certainly in the future those of us who are more prone to judging what we see in front of us instead of sticking with what we want to believe in our hearts might give a little more credence to that green faith.

The issue is when a poster says "I'm a realist, and you're all a bunch of pie-in-the-sky dreamers".  Of course everybody (absent the trolls) believes that their point of view is the best one.  However, when people become dismissive of other viewpoints, it leads to conflict.

Hopefully, this season has served as a reminder that nobody has the monopoly on "realism".  That's the only lesson we have to bring into next season, I think.   

[nickagneta]

I can see this thread slowly turning itself into exactly what it never wanted to turn into. An us versus them argument.

There is no us

There is no them

Forget the realists and the die hards

Forget the optimists and the pessimists

Just remember that what was wasn't what we want, that we can put it in the past and grow from it and go on from there. This debate over semantics is only leading back down the same road that got us all here to begin with.

[Casperian]

Hopefully, this season has served as a reminder that nobody has the monopoly on "realism".  That's the only lesson we have to bring into next season, I think.  

I think there is another, more simple lesson to be learned here.

Not every negative post is a panicking debbie-downer jumping off the bandwagon, just like not every positive post is from a kool-aid drinking homer.

We all want the best for this team.

[Roy Hobbs]

Hopefully, this season has served as a reminder that nobody has the monopoly on "realism".  That's the only lesson we have to bring into next season, I think.   

I think there is another, more simple lesson to be learned here.

Not every negative post is a panicking debbie-downer jumping off the bandwagon.

We all want the best for this team.

True.  However, I don't think anybody has said that nobody can comment negatively on the team. 

I think some of those who were down on the team are taking this thread personally, but if those posters weren't in the "self-described realist" category who belittled others for thinking more positively, this thread doesn't necessarily apply to them.

[drza44]

From reading this thread, I don't know how healthy this discussion really is.  For that reason I've been hesitant to post here.  But I still see the things that RH was pointing out in the OP happening several pages into the thread, and I guess I'm ready to speak up.

When I read some of the "realist" posts in this thread they read reasonably, but the tone of the posts still suggests to me a viewpoint that the only rational reading of the available evidence of this season was that the Celtics couldn't contend, and the fact that they are now contending is not an indication that they misinterpreted the available data but is instead an unpredictable outcome based upon luck and other things that can't be counted upon.

This was always the core of my disagreement with the "realist" movement around here, and seems to be what RH was pointing out as well: the more pessimistic view was NOT the only rational way to look at the available evidence, and the more optimistic viewpoint had a lot more going for it than just pure "Green Faith".

I wrote in January, when things were first going bad, that before KG's "thigh bruise" the Celtics of THIS season were winning more than 80% of their games with a scoring margin of almost +10...just like 2009 before KG's knee injury, and 2008.

I wrote in February, when things were even more touchy, of how the team's performance could be tracked very closely with Garnett's health.  That during the only month this season when KG had looked anywhere near healthy, the team had looked nigh unbeatable while going something like 15-1.

I wrote in March, when things were approaching the nadir, that regardless of health the Celtics were 31 - 11 with a +7.4 margin (both of which would have challenged Cleveland for top in the NBA) when KG and Pierce both played, and were 9 - 10 with a -0.9 margin when either or both sat.

The point of me saying this now isn't to pat myself on the back...it's to show that even during the worst of the season, when things looked the most bleak, their were definite, quantifiable reasons to conclude that this team was a contender when healthy.  Now, if someone questioned whether the team would actually BE healthy, that I can understand.  

But to suggest that there was absolutely no reason outside of pure homerism or optimism to suggest this team could contend is false.  It was false in the season, and it's being demonstrated to be false now.  To me, this isn't an "optimists" vs "pessimists" thing, it's more that there's more than one way to view data, and if you fall in love with your own interpretation to the point that anyone that disagrees with you is unrealistic, it sets up a dynamic like this one that's still being fought well down the road when by now we should all just be on the same page enjoying the ride (IMO, of course,   )

The quest for #18 continues...

[BudweiserCeltic]

From reading this thread, I don't know how healthy this discussion really is.  For that reason I've been hesitant to post here.  But I still see the things that RH was pointing out in the OP happening several pages into the thread, and I guess I'm ready to speak up.

When I read some of the "realist" posts in this thread they read reasonably, but the tone of the posts still suggests to me a viewpoint that the only rational reading of the available evidence of this season was that the Celtics couldn't contend, and the fact that they are now contending is not an indication that they misinterpreted the available data but is instead an unpredictable outcome based upon luck and other things that can't be counted upon.

This was always the core of my disagreement with the "realist" movement around here, and seems to be what RH was pointing out as well: the more pessimistic view was NOT the only rational way to look at the available evidence, and the more optimistic viewpoint had a lot more going for it than just pure "Green Faith".

I wrote in January, when things were first going bad, that before KG's "thigh bruise" the Celtics of THIS season were winning more than 80% of their games with a scoring margin of almost +10...just like 2009 before KG's knee injury, and 2008.

I wrote in February, when things were even more touchy, of how the team's performance could be tracked very closely with Garnett's health.  That during the only month this season when KG had looked anywhere near healthy, the team had looked nigh unbeatable while going something like 15-1.

I wrote in March, when things were approaching the nadir, that regardless of health the Celtics were 31 - 11 with a +7.4 margin (both of which would have challenged Cleveland for top in the NBA) when KG and Pierce both played, and were 9 - 10 with a -0.9 margin when either or both sat.

The point of me saying this now isn't to pat myself on the back...it's to show that even during the worst of the season, when things looked the most bleak, their were definite, quantifiable reasons to conclude that this team was a contender when healthy.  Now, if someone questioned whether the team would actually BE healthy, that I can understand. 

But to suggest that there was absolutely no reason outside of pure homerism or optimism to suggest this team could contend is false.  It was false in the season, and it's being demonstrated to be false now.  To me, this isn't an "optimists" vs "pessimists" thing, it's more that there's more than one way to view data, and if you fall in love with your own interpretation to the point that anyone that disagrees with you is unrealistic, it sets up a dynamic like this one that's still being fought well down the road when by now we should all just be on the same page enjoying the ride (IMO, of course,  )

The quest for #18 continues...

Couldn't have said it better... though I tried and seems like I failed.