Out-Tanking Tankers not realistic, Hawks-like Playoff Experience best option

[Quetzalcoatl]

The Hawks don't really strike the fear of God into me. I think we'd give them a hell of a series due to our defensive tenacity. No team wants to be playing against a backcourt defensive duo of Smart and Bradley in the playoffs. Of course they're favored to win and probably would, but I think of us as the 2013 Houston Rockets who gave OKC all they could handle in the first round.

And you know what Houston did that summer? Picked up a superstar in Howard! It's a win-win! 

All this tells me is that you probably don't watch the hawks.

More snarky one-liners, eh?

That you categorically dismiss so many comments and views on here with passive-aggressive one-liners just tells me you must have one hell of an ego on you.

but you have to admit, they are cute. 

Haha, not really.

Honestly, I think those types of posts discourage genuinely interesting and stimulating discourse.  I just think it's disrespectful to post in that manner. And it's something I've seen a plethora of people here mention as bothering others, too.  There are plenty of other ways to relay the same thought in a less snarky and passive-aggressive way.

JPotter Tommy point for you. I have said this in other threads. I really like the board and learn a lot of stuff here, but sometimes that really gets derailed by people trying to prove how smart they are, or put off snarky one line posts. We are pretty much all celtics fans, and probably somewhat diehard fans at that to be spending time on a team message board. If we were watching a game together, or cheering for them in the bar, we would probably have some of the same disagreements about how good certain players are and what trades we could make, but I highly doubt we would offer dismissive one line comments in the middle of the conversations in real life. I realize I am not changing the world here, and probably not even any individual poster's behaviors, but it would be good to step back and remember we are all fans of the same team, and passionately at that, before we hit send on stuff that we wouldn't say in real life or is insulting to a fellow fan. (I also am guilty of this myself at times, so something I always need to be mindful of)

TP back at you.

We're all guilty of it, and I think the nature of blogs and internet dialogue kind of promotes this type of aggressive disagreement.

I do find it funny though that we all disagree this much when we're all here for a common purpose. lol A lot of times you'd think this blog was a Youtube comment section or Facebook as contentious as it is. lol But that's part of what makes Celticsblog so great. There are a huge variety of opinions and viewpoints on here on such a narrow topic as a professional basketball team.

TPs all around.  I am all for tanking but I love the anti-tankers.  We have the most rabid fans even when we're bad, it's great.  The Celtics are the best

[celticsclay]

I still don't think the C's will make the playoffs but I think they'll keep the chase for that last spot interesting until late in the season. 

I think the team would probably  be better served with a better draft pick than a first round matchup with Atlanta but if they should happen to make the playoffs, good for them.  It's not like Danny hasn't done as much as he can to make this a bad team (excluding the IT trade).  The players are making the effort to win as they should. 

can't see how anyone could get so irritated with that.  team plays hard and gets some wins.  isn't that would we should be wanting as fans?

Yes, this is definitely a fair viewpoint. It almost seems like it is splitting hairs whether we make the playoffs or not and get a 10 or 14th pick. We also have completely zero control of the situation. Celtics have a winnable game tonight (they are actually favored by 3.5 points). Will be interesting to see how they look against a team that has traditionally given us a lot of trouble.

[D.o.s.]

You are stating an opinion though not a fact. I tend to agree with your opinion that we would probably lose 4-1 to the Hawks (with a sweep being possible). However, even just referring to other poster's getting their panties in a bunch is insulting. Why throw that in? It is just a fellow fan that has a different opinion then you.

I assumed if condescending lamentations of snark were fair game for this thread than a measurement of how personally posters should take comments on the internet would be as well.

My mistake.

[jpotter33]

I'm not in the business of trying to prove how smart I am, and I'm not trying to be dismissive, but the fact that a couple of posters are getting their panties in a bunch over my reticence at exhaustively explaining why they are wrong, instead of just pointing it out, is not my concern.


Like I said before:

We'd get 4-0'd or 4-1'd by the Hawks, because our team is awful and their team is not. If you think otherwise, I'd wager that I'm giving your comments about as much credit as they deserve.

Sorry you get so upset by brevity.

If you read the last few pages of the thread, there are multiple posters reaching the same conclusion. We got into a discussion about it, and it would seem that

The sum of all this data is your comparison is a very poor one.

So objectively speaking, you do not find any of your infamous one-liners to be the least bit snarky, passive-aggressive, or arrogant, even when a plethora of posters have mentioned that very fact over the last few months?

"All this tells me is that you probably don't watch the hawks."

"How much do you watch the Hawks play? Because I think you'd be surprised at how good they actually are if you were more familiar with them."

These two sentences are logically equivalent in the sense that they're expressing the same basic thought.  The major difference is in tone. The second sentence is a neutral, informative tone that doesn't display aggression. The first sentence is aggressive and expresses a condescending tone, and it also seems to make you sound like a haughty a**hole.

Doing this once or twice isn't necessarily a big deal. But a vast majority of your posts are of this first type, DOS, and quite frankly it's annoying.

[D.o.s.]

So objectively speaking, you do not find any of your infamous one-liners to be the least bit snarky, passive-aggressive, or arrogant, even when a plethora of posters have mentioned that very fact over the last few months?

"All this tells me is that you probably don't watch the hawks."

"How much do you watch the Hawks play? Because I think you'd be surprised at how good they actually are if you were more familiar with them."

These two sentences are logically equivalent in the sense that they're expressing the same basic thought.  The major difference is in tone. The second sentence is a neutral, informative tone that doesn't display aggression. The first sentence is aggressive and expresses a condescending tone, and it also seems to make you sound like a haughty a**hole.

Doing this once or twice isn't necessarily a big deal. But a vast majority of your posts are of this first type, DOS, and quite frankly it's annoying.

Are they? Because I'm fairly certain that my participation in this thread would disprove your numbers.

[celticsclay]

I'm not in the business of trying to prove how smart I am, and I'm not trying to be dismissive, but the fact that a couple of posters are getting their panties in a bunch over my reticence at exhaustively explaining why they are wrong, instead of just pointing it out, is not my concern.


Like I said before:

We'd get 4-0'd or 4-1'd by the Hawks, because our team is awful and their team is not. If you think otherwise, I'd wager that I'm giving your comments about as much credit as they deserve.

Sorry you get so upset by brevity.

If you read the last few pages of the thread, there are multiple posters reaching the same conclusion. We got into a discussion about it, and it would seem that

The sum of all this data is your comparison is a very poor one.

So objectively speaking, you do not find any of your infamous one-liners to be the least bit snarky, passive-aggressive, or arrogant, even when a plethora of posters have mentioned that very fact over the last few months?

"All this tells me is that you probably don't watch the hawks."

"How much do you watch the Hawks play? Because I think you'd be surprised at how good they actually are if you were more familiar with them."

These two sentences are logically equivalent in the sense that they're expressing the same basic thought.  The major difference is in tone. The second sentence is a neutral, informative tone that doesn't display aggression. The first sentence is aggressive and expresses a condescending tone, and it also seems to make you sound like a haughty a**hole.

Doing this once or twice isn't necessarily a big deal. But a vast majority of your posts are of this first type, DOS, and quite frankly it's annoying.

whoa buddy right after saying we should raise the discourse you write back that he sounds like a haughty ****. My efforts have failed and the thread is no longer discussing the celtics... Do we beat the hornets tonight? DOS what do you think?

[Celtics4ever]

You are stating an opinion though not a fact. I tend to agree with your opinion that we would probably lose 4-1 to the Hawks (with a sweep being possible). However, even just referring to other poster's getting their panties in a bunch is insulting. Why throw that in? It is just a fellow fan that has a different opinion then you.

It's was a poor comparison the numbers do not line up well at all.  Why call it anything otherwise or sugarcoat it?   I used numbers to draw that conclusion and prove otherwise.   I used stats and actual numbers and I think they strengthen my position even more.  I welcome him to post data that refutes this position.  If I offended anyone, I am sorry.  But their are opinions and there are well grounded opinions with a statistical support to back them up.   I for one will always favor the latter and respect it more.

Another thing to consider is that it took 6-7 years to become an even better team as they are this year.  So it is not like them making the playoff run in 08 served them well today as they are a different team.  Not the same player or team save Horford.  How many years have they made the playoffs to loose?   Quite a few.

I realize that a high draft pick will help us.   But I find it impossible for myself to root to lose once a game starts even if it means the lottery.  I would love a lottery pick though.

[celticsclay]

You are stating an opinion though not a fact. I tend to agree with your opinion that we would probably lose 4-1 to the Hawks (with a sweep being possible). However, even just referring to other poster's getting their panties in a bunch is insulting. Why throw that in? It is just a fellow fan that has a different opinion then you.

It's was a poor comparison the numbers do not line up well at all.  Why call it anything otherwise or sugarcoat it?   I used numbers to draw that conclusion and prove otherwise.   I used stats and actual numbers and I think they strengthen my position even more.  I welcome him to post data that refutes this position.  If I offended anyone, I am sorry.  But their are opinions and there are well grounded opinions with a statistical support to back them up.   I for one will always favor the latter and respect it more.

Another thing to consider is that it took 6-7 years to become an even better team as they are this year.  So it is not like them making the playoff run in 08 served them well today as they are a different team.  Not the same player or team save Horford.  How many years have they made the playoffs to loose?   Quite a few.

I realize that a high draft pick will help us.   But I find it impossible for myself to root to lose once a game starts even if it means the lottery.  I would love a lottery pick though.

I am just confused at this point, my post wasn't directed at you. This is full blown chaos at this point.

[D.o.s.]

You are stating an opinion though not a fact. I tend to agree with your opinion that we would probably lose 4-1 to the Hawks (with a sweep being possible). However, even just referring to other poster's getting their panties in a bunch is insulting. Why throw that in? It is just a fellow fan that has a different opinion then you.

It's was a poor comparison the numbers do not line up well at all.  Why call it anything otherwise or sugarcoat it?   I used numbers to draw that conclusion and prove otherwise.   I used stats and actual numbers and I think they strengthen my position even more.  I welcome him to post data that refutes this position.  If I offended anyone, I am sorry.  But their are opinions and there are well grounded opinions with a statistical support to back them up.   I for one will always favor the latter and respect it more.

Another thing to consider is that it took 6-7 years to become an even better team as they are this year.  So it is not like them making the playoff run in 08 served them well today as they are a different team.  Not the same player or team save Horford.  How many years have they made the playoffs to loose?   Quite a few.

I realize that a high draft pick will help us.   But I find it impossible for myself to root to lose once a game starts even if it means the lottery.  I would love a lottery pick though.

Agreed entirely.

Do we beat the hornets tonight? DOS what do you think?

No Biyombo and no Walker, but no, I don't believe so. I'm a firm believer that talent wins out in the NBA, and Al Jefferson and Lance Stephenson are miles ahead of the players we've got -- miles that aren't mitigated by our coaching or a strong team identity, even though the Hornets have been underachieving all season.

[Mass_1081]

Players and coaches don't tank; GM's do.  And from what I can see, Ainge has done everything in his power to tank but it has not worked.  At this point, nothing more to do than just wait and see what happens.  The last thing we want to see is players and coaches losing on purpose.

   To be fair, I think trading for Thomas will win a few games for this team this year. They have been losing fourth quarters constantly and Ainge knew how good a fourth quarter player IT is. I could say Ainge could have easily waited till the offseason to trade for IT, but who knows how willing Phoenix was to get rid of him. Does Boston win that Suns game without IT?

[D.o.s.]

Players and coaches don't tank; GM's do.  And from what I can see, Ainge has done everything in his power to tank but it has not worked.  At this point, nothing more to do than just wait and see what happens.  The last thing we want to see is players and coaches losing on purpose.

   To be fair, I think trading for Thomas will win a few games for this team this year. They have been losing fourth quarters constantly and Ainge knew how good a fourth quarter player IT is. I could say Ainge could have easily waited till the offseason to trade for IT, but who knows how willing Phoenix was to get rid of him. Does Boston win that Suns game without IT?

By the way: It's worth noting that coaches definitely tank. Just ask ML Carr.

[Cman]

As to the 10th and 15th pick, that should be self evident, but:
http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/10th-overall/100509/
http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/15th-overall/150509/
http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

Well, more like the 12th versus the 17th:
http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/12th-overall/120509/
http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/17th-overall/170509/

Solid bench players picked at both spots.
Just so everyone is clear here, that is, realistically, what we are comparing when picking at #12 versus #17. A slightly better chance at a solid bench player versus a slightly worse chance at a solid bench player.

um Boston is currently the 9th worst team in the league.  If Boston makes the playoffs it will almost certainly be as the 8th seed in the east, which is the 15th pick.  10 and 15 is much closer to reality than 12 and 17.  10 might get us a guy like WCS, Porzingis, or Turner, none of which are going to be available at 15.

You're right. I did my math wrong.
It is more like the 12th spot vs. the 15th spot, not 12th vs. 17th.
I know we are 9th worst in the league right now, but as I wrote, I'm comparing "just making the playoffs versus just missing the playoffs".

So, the comparison would be

http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/12th-overall/120509/
http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-draft-picks/15th-overall/150509/

The point is that... there isn't much difference. Both will get you solid bench guys, if you're lucky.

[slamtheking]

Players and coaches don't tank; GM's do.  And from what I can see, Ainge has done everything in his power to tank but it has not worked.  At this point, nothing more to do than just wait and see what happens.  The last thing we want to see is players and coaches losing on purpose.

   To be fair, I think trading for Thomas will win a few games for this team this year. They have been losing fourth quarters constantly and Ainge knew how good a fourth quarter player IT is. I could say Ainge could have easily waited till the offseason to trade for IT, but who knows how willing Phoenix was to get rid of him. Does Boston win that Suns game without IT?

By the way: It's worth noting that coaches definitely tank. Just ask ML Carr.

but to ML's credit, he's the one coach that had Antoine playing around the basket instead of out at the 3-point line.

[jpotter33]

So objectively speaking, you do not find any of your infamous one-liners to be the least bit snarky, passive-aggressive, or arrogant, even when a plethora of posters have mentioned that very fact over the last few months?

"All this tells me is that you probably don't watch the hawks."

"How much do you watch the Hawks play? Because I think you'd be surprised at how good they actually are if you were more familiar with them."

These two sentences are logically equivalent in the sense that they're expressing the same basic thought.  The major difference is in tone. The second sentence is a neutral, informative tone that doesn't display aggression. The first sentence is aggressive and expresses a condescending tone, and it also seems to make you sound like a haughty a**hole.

Doing this once or twice isn't necessarily a big deal. But a vast majority of your posts are of this first type, DOS, and quite frankly it's annoying.

Are they? Because I'm fairly certain that my participation in this thread would disprove your numbers.

This thread is an anomaly. From my experience, a lot of your posts have been of the one-line persuasion categorically criticizing a claim without any evidence, detail, or description to back it up.

EDIT: Now you're just showing off by posting a full paragraph in my other thread.  lol

[D.o.s.]

 

Never attribute to maliciousness what should instead be attributed to a tight schedule.