Doc calling out bloggers

[BballTim]

I think you can criticize Doc.  And he can clearly laugh back at the thought that bloggers actually think their opinion merits being heard. 

While everyone has the right, it does take away from the credibility of this site.  This is particularly true for sharp criticism. It is somewhat misleading, that people who don't even have a clue, dominate the commenting, and in a sense dominate the overall opinion of this site. 

We do look like fools.   Maybe the overall rating of the opinion of this site, is that we obviously are.

 

Speak for yourself.  There are plenty of intelligent and articulate people on here who back their opinions up with facts, statistics, and close personal observation.  If you look at those who "dominate the commenting", at least in the forums, there is a wide mix of opinion on not just Doc, but on a whole host of other issues, as well.  For as many sharp, biting criticisms of Doc as there are, you'll find an equal number of articulate and intelligent (if misguided ) defenses of him.

In terms of the blog's credibility, you won't find many blogs with a more articulate and dedicated staff, starting with Jeff and Steve.  They're both top notch, as are all the other front page contributors.

  People should be able to criticize Doc, and many do so in a very articulate manner, but you have to admit that there are big holes in the bases of the criticisms (btw, is bases the right word? kind of a "plural" of basis?). We criticize the players without any knowledge of the instructions they've been given from the coaches. We criticize Doc's strategy without any knowledge of whether the players are doing what he told them to. We criticize rotations without any knowledge of minor injuries, how they perform in practice or whether they're in for offense or defense or rebounding. A lot of what we say might be right but an equal amount is probably pure hogwash for reasons that we don't have any idea about. Kind of like the way there were tons of posts killing Danny and Wyc for trading Brandon Roy for Telfair and cap relief because people thought it was unlikely that we'd ever trade Theo for a big contract.

  I post here all the time. Clearly I have no problem with what we do here. I think it's fine that we start from a baseline of "fact" (players are all healthy unless we know otherwise, players are by and large doing what Doc wants them to). But you have to take what's posted here with a grain of salt, no matter how articulate the post.

[CelticsPrideKG]

The earlier poster was right . . . most likely he was referring to Bill Simmons as surely Simmons HAD to have provided some bulletin board material the past few weeks.  I doubt very seriously Doc takes the time to look at blogs such as this one.  If the team manages to win this series I am really hoping to see a retraction of self depricating column from Simmons by Monday.  His calling out Garnett in particular is really making him look foolish up until this point.

[clover]

No accident that he called out the bloggers after the last win.  That game put Doc off the hook for the season and for the accusation of his being a playoffs coaching choker. 

Even if they finish the season now with two final losses, Doc feels vindicated for having survived that game 5 and for having gotten them this far.  Too bad he couldn't have kept his eyes on the prize and--as Red, Larry, and Russell always preached--displayed the attitude that anything less than the league championship was a failed season.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

A few things about what Doc said:

1. Note the way he distinguished between "reporters", who have insight into the game given their privileged access, and "bloggers", which do not.  Someone more liminal, like Bill Simmons, is interesting here precisely because at this point he is some combination of both.  In addition, I think if one pushes too hard on that distinction you end up in Buzz Bissinger type territory, where you think regular fans who write blogs must necessarily be idiots.  Obviously there is some access/knowledge a reporter has that a blogger, etc., will never have.  But, as Hobbs has said, it seems foolish to dismiss the idea that bloggers add value to sports commentary overall.  It is a different perspective and possibly right. 

2. Bill James and baseball serves as a *huge* counter-example to his argument.

3. Can you imagine Francona saying something like that?  Me neither.  Francona seems to appreciate the passion and energy Boston fans bring, as Buckley even cites in his article.

No accident that he called out the bloggers after the last win.  That game put Doc off the hook for the season and for the accusation of his being a playoffs coaching choker. 

Even if they finish the season now with two final losses, Doc feels vindicated for having survived that game 5 and for having gotten them this far.  Too bad he couldn't have kept his eyes on the prize and--as Red, Larry, and Russell always preached--displayed the attitude that anything less than the league championship was a failed season.

[Brickowski]

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

[BudweiserCeltic]

A few things about what Doc said:

1. Note the way he distinguished between "reporters", who have insight into the game given their privileged access, and "bloggers", which do not.  Someone more liminal, like Bill Simmons, is interesting here precisely because at this point he is some combination of both.  In addition, I think if one pushes too hard on that distinction you end up in Buzz Bissinger type territory, where you think regular fans who write blogs must necessarily be idiots.  Obviously there is some access/knowledge a reporter has that a blogger, etc., will never have.  But, as Hobbs has said, it seems foolish to dismiss the idea that bloggers add value to sports commentary overall.  It is a different perspective and possibly right. 

2. Bill James and baseball serves as a *huge* counter-example to his argument.

3. Can you imagine Francona saying something like that?  Me neither.  Francona seems to appreciate the passion and energy Boston fans bring, as Buckley even cites in his article.

No accident that he called out the bloggers after the last win.  That game put Doc off the hook for the season and for the accusation of his being a playoffs coaching choker. 

Even if they finish the season now with two final losses, Doc feels vindicated for having survived that game 5 and for having gotten them this far.  Too bad he couldn't have kept his eyes on the prize and--as Red, Larry, and Russell always preached--displayed the attitude that anything less than the league championship was a failed season.

"Some of them aren't even reporters", doesn't that tell anyone that some ARE reporters? This isn't a bloggers vs. reporters thing as it's made out to be.  This is about people listening to people who aren't experts in the field over people who are experts in the field.

Was he a bit out of line for taking a shot at bloggers? Sure. But you also have to understand that the internet is littered with a bunch of crappy blogs that have no clue about what they're saying, and then you add the vast anonimity factor.

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

Overusing the starters in game 5 was the correct decision though, and I'm pretty sure many here feel that way.

The only players that really played more than usual were Rondo and Perk. Perk had an extremely good game, and as for Rondo, people have been making cases that he should be playing 40 minutes every night... so what's a 46 minute night? No big deal.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

Rondo and Perk are also really young and should, in theory, be able to handle it.  I do worry about the Big 3 tonight though.

A few things about what Doc said:

1. Note the way he distinguished between "reporters", who have insight into the game given their privileged access, and "bloggers", which do not.  Someone more liminal, like Bill Simmons, is interesting here precisely because at this point he is some combination of both.  In addition, I think if one pushes too hard on that distinction you end up in Buzz Bissinger type territory, where you think regular fans who write blogs must necessarily be idiots.  Obviously there is some access/knowledge a reporter has that a blogger, etc., will never have.  But, as Hobbs has said, it seems foolish to dismiss the idea that bloggers add value to sports commentary overall.  It is a different perspective and possibly right. 

2. Bill James and baseball serves as a *huge* counter-example to his argument.

3. Can you imagine Francona saying something like that?  Me neither.  Francona seems to appreciate the passion and energy Boston fans bring, as Buckley even cites in his article.

No accident that he called out the bloggers after the last win.  That game put Doc off the hook for the season and for the accusation of his being a playoffs coaching choker. 

Even if they finish the season now with two final losses, Doc feels vindicated for having survived that game 5 and for having gotten them this far.  Too bad he couldn't have kept his eyes on the prize and--as Red, Larry, and Russell always preached--displayed the attitude that anything less than the league championship was a failed season.

"Some of them aren't even reporters", doesn't that tell anyone that some ARE reporters? This isn't a bloggers vs. reporters thing as it's made out to be.  This is about people listening to people who aren't experts in the field over people who are experts in the field.

Was he a bit out of line for taking a shot at bloggers? Sure. But you also have to understand that the internet is littered with a bunch of crappy blogs that have no clue about what they're saying, and then you add the vast anonimity factor.

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

Overusing the starters in game 5 was the correct decision though, and I'm pretty sure many here feel that way.

The only players that really played more than usual were Rondo and Perk. Perk had an extremely good game, and as for Rondo, people have been making cases that he should be playing 40 minutes every night... so what's a 46 minute night? No big deal.

[CelticsWhat35]

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

Nice rah-rah speech.  Were you in Hoosiers?  For one thing, if the starters played 5 less minutes each and lost the game, everyone would've talked about how this is the playoffs and Doc kept the bench players in too long.  Also, I find it interesting how it's "quite likely" for a team that's never lost a game by as much as 25 all season to be down 25 midway through the third.

[Roy Hobbs]

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

Overusing the starters in game 5 was the correct decision though, and I'm pretty sure many here feel that way.

The only players that really played more than usual were Rondo and Perk. Perk had an extremely good game, and as for Rondo, people have been making cases that he should be playing 40 minutes every night... so what's a 46 minute night? No big deal.

I agree.  I think Doc needs to find a few extra minutes of rest for both Perk and Rajon, but I'd rather have him ride his starters rather than rely heavily on Sam and BBD. 

[threzd]

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

Nice rah-rah speech.  Were you in Hoosiers?  For one thing, if the starters played 5 less minutes each and lost the game, everyone would've talked about how this is the playoffs and Doc kept the bench players in too long.  Also, I find it interesting how it's "quite likely" for a team that's never lost a game by as much as 25 all season to be down 25 midway through the third.

Well if you ask me, the most likely time for the Celtics to lose by 25 would be today..I really don't realistically see them coming out and putting Detroit away, especially with the energy the Pistons are sure to come out with, and the lack of energy the Celtics will probably come out with.

[CelticsWhat35]

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

Nice rah-rah speech.  Were you in Hoosiers?  For one thing, if the starters played 5 less minutes each and lost the game, everyone would've talked about how this is the playoffs and Doc kept the bench players in too long.  Also, I find it interesting how it's "quite likely" for a team that's never lost a game by as much as 25 all season to be down 25 midway through the third.

Well if you ask me, the most likely time for the Celtics to lose by 25 would be today..I really don't realistically see them coming out and putting Detroit away, especially with the energy the Pistons are sure to come out with, and the lack of energy the Celtics will probably come out with.

If the Celtics don't come out with the energy to match the Pistons, that's a [dang] shame.  This is the Eastern Conference Finals.  And if you think they won't come out with the energy because they played 40+ minutes on Wednesday, that is way overblown.  There are no back-to-backs in the playoffs.  Unless players get hurt, they are fully rested for a game after 48 hours.  Also, Simmons brought up a good point (shocking, I know) in his article today about the t.v. time outs in the playoffs.  Players are able to get extended rest without even missing time.

The Pistons are gonna come out with the intensity of a game 7 because if they lose, they go home.  If the Celtics don't match that intensity, they'll lose.  But they have no excuse not to and every reason to go out there and close the door on these Pistons.

[Brickowski]

After the way Rivers overused his starters in game 5, I think a Detroit blowout win is quite likely this evening.  I just hope that Rivers has the sense to pull his starters after Detroit goes up by 25 midway through the third quarter.

Nice rah-rah speech.  Were you in Hoosiers?  For one thing, if the starters played 5 less minutes each and lost the game, everyone would've talked about how this is the playoffs and Doc kept the bench players in too long.  Also, I find it interesting how it's "quite likely" for a team that's never lost a game by as much as 25 all season to be down 25 midway through the third.

Who said anything about Cassell?  Cassell should be nailed to the end of the bench.  I'm talking about House, Tony Allen and Leon Powe-- you know, the guys who came off the bench all year and helped them win 66 games, including a bunch of games when Garnett was injured.  Remember?

As soon as Rivers got his new toys-- PJ Brown and the atrocious Cassell-- he forgot all about those guys.

The Lakers have 10 guys who play and everyone stays fresh.  Even if they squeak by the Pistons, the Celtics have zero chance against LA the way the team is being coached. Like the song says, you dance with the ones who brung ya.

[wiley]

<megasnip>

I implied nothing of the kind, as you well know.  As for "harping on last season", go back and notice that my comments about last season are in response to people pointing to this season as proof of Rivers' coaching ability.  You should at least be intellectually honest if you're going to attack me over something as plainly responsive as my 'last season' posts have been. 

Of course, blaming the team's record on injuries shows exactly where your head is at.

You're missing the fact that if he has an obligation to consider last year's record in evaluating Doc, you have to consider this year's record just as strongly in your evaluation.  If he's unfairly downplaying last year's record to support his positive opinion of Doc, and you're downplaying this year's record to support your negative opinion, then you're both being intellectually dishonest.

How so, when I said that 55 wins would be a successful season?

You're insisting he consider last season when evaluating Doc as a coach - he's insisting you consider this season.  Neither of you are doing it, because the season in question contradicts your pre-existing opinions of him.  You may agree this is a successful season, but it's obvious you don't think Doc is a good coach (you said as much in what I think was your first post) - which means you're downplaying this season as being indicative of Doc's ability.  Which is exactly what you're accusing CelticsWhat of doing with last season.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle - Doc's not 66-win good all by himself (I doubt anyone is), but he's certainly not 24-win bad either (I doubt all but the very worst in NBA history are). 

I insisted no such thing.  People pointed to this season's record and the team's being in the conference finals as a sort of proof that Rivers was a good coach.  I responded by asking about last year and the lousy record. That wasn't intellectually dishonest in the least, that was pointing out something they were deliberately choosing to overlook.

Scintan, you expected 55 wins and we got 66 and are now in the ECF.  To what do you attribute the better than expected record?   Whom or what did you underestimate?  Garnett?  Pierce?  The gelling of the Big Three?  just curious.....

[guava_wrench]

I agree that there are a lot of great opinions out there, and particular on this blog. This is the only one I like by the way. ...but, at a quick glance, a person really has to sift through all the negative overreaction threads in order to get to the good stuff.

TP. As usual, you are one of the more reasonable perspectives out there.

Doc has a valid point that relates to the comment above. People like Simmons are journalists and entertainers. They write articles about sports and how they view what is going on, but many of the most read and listened to journalists are trying to grow in fame.

Being correct or even logical is not necessary. Being reasonable is boring. that is why we see bold proclamations that rarely turn out to be true from people like Stephen A. Smith. Smith is very much an insider, but he exaggerates the merit of his perspective and speaks in absolutes when things are rarely so clear.

We see the same on boards like this. People post in absolutes -- "If we lose this game, it's over". "If player X doesn't score at least 24pts and get at least 7reb and 4 asst, we will lose". "Doc will never take a team to the finals". "Kobe will never win a championship without Shaq". People exaggerate the importance of games and plays.

There's nothing wrong with all this -- it entertains people and adds to their enjoyment of sport. It is also fun to hear coaches call out the entertainers pretending to be experts.

Like Simmons -- wasn't he the guy who repeated shouted his love for the Cassell pickup?

[BudweiserCeltic]

I agree that there are a lot of great opinions out there, and particular on this blog. This is the only one I like by the way. ...but, at a quick glance, a person really has to sift through all the negative overreaction threads in order to get to the good stuff.

TP. As usual, you are one of the more reasonable perspectives out there.

Doc has a valid point that relates to the comment above. People like Simmons are journalists and entertainers. They write articles about sports and how they view what is going on, but many of the most read and listened to journalists are trying to grow in fame.

Being correct or even logical is not necessary. Being reasonable is boring. that is why we see bold proclamations that rarely turn out to be true from people like Stephen A. Smith. Smith is very much an insider, but he exaggerates the merit of his perspective and speaks in absolutes when things are rarely so clear.

We see the same on boards like this. People post in absolutes -- "If we lose this game, it's over". "If player X doesn't score at least 24pts and get at least 7reb and 4 asst, we will lose". "Doc will never take a team to the finals". "Kobe will never win a championship without Shaq". People exaggerate the importance of games and plays.

There's nothing wrong with all this -- it entertains people and adds to their enjoyment of sport. It is also fun to hear coaches call out the entertainers pretending to be experts.

Like Simmons -- wasn't he the guy who repeated shouted his love for the Cassell pickup?

I agree with the posts above too, but I also point to the distinction that most people here are not bloggers, so they shouldn't be taking issues with Doc's comments for the most part. This is a forum, where we as members posts to form a discussion. Many posters in here, few actual bloggers for there to be this much outcry.

We call ourselves "bloggers" for participating in this site, but that's mainly due to the site's name instead of us being actual bloggers. In fact, this is the first time I've participated in a forum were members label themselves as bloggers when all they do is participate on threads and post, usually people call themselves posters.