a link to raise the blood pressure of Celts fans everywhere

[wdleehi]

Just awful.


I love when he said that the looked on paper not to be a good defensive team. 



I guess stats, opponents saying so, experts saying so and his own eyes isn't enough.

[drza44]

A really bad article.  If you have a controversial take, that's fine, make the case and back it up with legitimate evidence.  But don't just say something to be different, then back it up with fluff.  It's just awful.

What irritates me the most, though, is that this isn't isolated.  I read ridiculous "analysis" on a daily basis in many different locations, where the author clearly has not done enough research to support assertions that just don't make sense.  But because it is published, like Steve points out, others see it as a legitimate source.  It frustrates me to no end and makes me wish I had a much larger platform with which I could directly challenge some of them and mop the floor with them. 

[Hrvoje]

Thanks SW. Tp for you. You gave me something to laugh about.

[Steve Weinman]

What irritates me the most, though, is that this isn't isolated.  I read ridiculous "analysis" on a daily basis in many different locations, where the author clearly has not done enough research to support assertions that just don't make sense.  But because it is published, like Steve points out, others see it as a legitimate source.  It frustrates me to no end and makes me wish I had a much larger platform with which I could directly challenge some of them and mop the floor with them. 

Couldn't agree more, drza44, and thinking about this sort of stuff is something that I grapple with every day as a daily writer here.  As you may have noticed from past comments of mine in threads about individual writers, much as it may not seem like it today, I really am loath to take shots at other writers, and I had an internal struggle simply about posting this in the forums. 

I once listened to a speech in which the orator said, "The most dangerous phrase in the English language is 'I'm right.'"  That's stuck with me for a long time in that once you enter a discussion with the belief that there's no possible accurate viewpoint other than your own, what's the purpose of the discussion?  There's nothing to gain, and it's worth remembering that as strongly as you feel, the other guy could feel exactly the same way.  Writing is as subjective as anything out there, and I've really increased my efforts to keep that "I'm right" speech in the back of my mind over the last few years.  It makes me inordinately hesitant about calling out other writers in my published work, as I'd never want to end up gratuitously and unfairly end up directing a lot of animosity the way of another writer.

That being said, sometimes the statistical, anecdotal and "common sensical" evidence against what someone else writes is so strong that it's utterly appalling.  This is no doubt one of those cases in my eyes.  To think that -- as I demonstrated with the Dallas Morning News link -- this is being disseminated and that people -- especially those who haven't followed the team as closely as we have all year and might be more willing to take the words of a self-purported 'expert' as automatically true -- may actually end up harboring the beliefs that Max suggests in the piece...well, as a fellow basketball fan, that's discomforting.  It's a disservice to the readership.

My apologies for the long rant, but glad to see the sentiment is shared.

-sw

[cdif911]

this article is a journalist's attempt to get some attention, throw an alternate theory out there and it falls on its face miserably.  By his argument, if the Celtics were simply just a slow down offensive team, they wouldn't win by the + margin that they did over the course of the season, they'd score about the same as their opponents, which clearly was not the case

[RebusRankin]

Horrible piece. No evidence or examples, nothing but conjecture.

[guava_wrench]

The author's responses to comments is embarrassing.

It is funny how the author offers no examples of teams that are good on defense.

He also uses "IMO" and "as I see it" a lot.

What an idiot.

[buddboy]

I love how a moron with absolutely no basketball knowledge whatsoever gets a job writing about basketball. I mean, even his journalism was pretty bad. It was a very short piece with no sources or facts. It was simple conjecture and nonsense. If he quoted some stats that supported his idea (he probably didn't because there aren't any) then it wouldn't be  such an idiotic piece of writing. But the C's have great D, so it still be pretty braindead.

It's interesting that a basketball journalist (he might be general sports, not sure)
knows absolutely nothing about either subject.

Well, it takes all types of people to make a world. But I'm not so sure the world would be incomplete if his type wasn't present.

[Steve Weinman]

All right...after seeing him continue to "plead his case" after 66 comments, somehow I convinced myself to chime in...I really hate this because I'm just going to end up frustrated.  My response:

Max, you've yet to answer either of my questions.

You called the Celtics defense "average" in your comments above.

Using an unusually wide definition of "average," let's say that places the Celts in the middle third of a 30-team league.

I asked you before to name a team that was better defensively than the Celts this year. I'll ask on top of that for you to then name the other nine teams that were better than the C's -- thus putting them out of the top ten and into the league's middle third.

Also, I'll reiterate, how often did you watch this team play this season? Claim what you will about the numbers (and I'm not buying it, for the record), but there has been no shortage of both statistical *and* anecdotal evidence presented to back up the arguments against your theory here.

Meanwhile, you've supported your commentary with the assessment that the Celtics' trio of stars was "known as offensive players." This is where watching comes in. Paul Pierce had far and away the best defensive season of his career. I say this not because he was a good offensive player thus making playing D 'easier' but because I watched and saw with my own eyes the growth in his commitment to staying with his man, playing help-side defense, and rotating defensively in general. As did many other Celts fans and basketball observers worldwide.

Not so anecdotal is the fact that Kevin Garnett has been an All-NBA Defensive First Teamer on seven occasions, only one of which came this season.

This is disappointing.

-sw

-sw

[Mean Gerald Green]

Uh oh...We got a moron here.

[bbc3341]

Guys, this poster isn't worth the effort. His rationale is so lacking in any knowledge of the game that it's laughable. An example: His argument as to why the Celtics/Cavs series was all about the offense? - The team that scored more points won the series, therefore, it was all about the offense. Arguing with someone like ths is like arguing with a 3rd grader who can't process information logically yet...

[GLS]

I tossed this softball to him, and he didn't fail to disappoint:

Hey Max, why don't you hit up Jeff Van Gundy and tell him what a fool he was on national tv proclaiming the Celt's defensive superiority this season

His reply:

Better yet, why don't I hit up all the people who said Kobe was BETTER than Jordanor as good as Jordan.

Just because you are the majority, or even an "expert", doesn't mean you know what you are talking about more than anyone else. In fact, when you are in the majority, it usually means the opposite.

So, in essence, he feels that someone who has actually coached the game just a bit (JVG).....probably doesn't know what he is talking about.  Brilliant.

I've come to the conclusion that the author of the piece is 14 years old, or mentally challenged.  Maybe both.

[Steve Weinman]

I tossed this softball to him, and he didn't fail to disappoint:

Hey Max, why don't you hit up Jeff Van Gundy and tell him what a fool he was on national tv proclaiming the Celt's defensive superiority this season

His reply:

Better yet, why don't I hit up all the people who said Kobe was BETTER than Jordanor as good as Jordan.

Just because you are the majority, or even an "expert", doesn't mean you know what you are talking about more than anyone else. In fact, when you are in the majority, it usually means the opposite.

So, in essence, he feels that someone who has actually coached the game just a bit (JVG).....probably doesn't know what he is talking about.  Brilliant.

I've come to the conclusion that the author of the piece is 14 years old, or mentally challenged.  Maybe both.

Yeah, GLS, just saw your stuff.  TP for a valiant effort in "sense-knocking."

I'm eagerly awaiting the explanation of Golden State's defense -- which ranked 20th in efficiency -- was so much better than our "numbers" would indicate.

He's continued to ignore me.

-sw

[Donoghus]

I tossed this softball to him, and he didn't fail to disappoint:

Hey Max, why don't you hit up Jeff Van Gundy and tell him what a fool he was on national tv proclaiming the Celt's defensive superiority this season

His reply:

Better yet, why don't I hit up all the people who said Kobe was BETTER than Jordanor as good as Jordan.

Just because you are the majority, or even an "expert", doesn't mean you know what you are talking about more than anyone else. In fact, when you are in the majority, it usually means the opposite.

So, in essence, he feels that someone who has actually coached the game just a bit (JVG).....probably doesn't know what he is talking about.  Brilliant.

I've come to the conclusion that the author of the piece is 14 years old, or mentally challenged.  Maybe both.

Wow. 

Talk about a childish answer.  This guy just doesn't get it.

[kozlodoev]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/30365-Debunking-NBA-Myths-The-Boston-Celtics-Aren-t-a-Great-Defensive-Team

I read this for the first time at about 3 a.m., so I thought maybe my system wasn't fully functioning and that my eyes were misleading me.  Sadly, a re-read later this morning made indicated that this was not the case.

Enjoy -- or more likely, don't.  I feel like it's worth us knowing that this stuff is out there...and then remembering that it's our boys who earned the rings this year...which makes the nonsensical sideshow stuff all fall by the wayside...go green!

-sw

I didn't even read the article past the title. You don't need to 'debunk' myths like this one. You need to simply watch the games, and everything is pretty self-evident. Stuff like this is just guys looking to score clicks on their articles by playing the devil's advocate.