Jackie Mac on WEEI

Mrkleen,

I'm afraid your suggestion that stats are the only acceptable form of proof (vis a vis, for example, actually watching the action with an analytical eye) may mean we have nothing further to discuss. Especially since your agenda is obviously to turn this into an Avery Bradley referendum, while my only intention from the outset has been to discuss Jackie's MacMullan's assertions.

I'm slowly becoming sensitive to the fact that the very tone of your points suggests you think I'm trying to defame Avery or blame him for something. (What do comparisons with Rondo and Doc's decision to play Avery at SG have to do with this discussion?) I assure you that's not the case.

The only reasons I've even commented on Avery's game have been (1) to reflect on Jackie's views or (to respond to a challenge from you. Any my bottom line is that there are pros and cons in Avery's game, which I believe pretty much summarizes Jackie's view as well.

If you think you need a tutorial on what I believe constitutes mediocre ballhandling for a PG and difficult matchups for a SG, maybe we could meet for a drink and watch a game together.

Enjoy Sunday's game.

Sam

Sam

Who would you rather have defending Dwayne Wade today AB or even a healthy Ray Allen? cow

112288 wrote:Sam,

Sorry but Jackie M. is way off in her assessment of these two points listed below.

• He cannot handle the ball on the NBA level. SHOW ME PROOF. GIVE STATS!

• He doesn't shoot the ball well enough. AND RONDO IS ANY BETTER! He is a fine shooter and one better, he knows how to play without the ball as a point guard!

• He's not big enough to guard opponents as a classic 2-guard. DOC THREW HIM IN AS A 2 GUARD. IT WAS NOT HIS CHOICE. YOU GO WHERE TOLD TO GO. People have to understand, Bradley is not a 2 guard.

Jackie M. is the media darling in Boston. She is personable, cute, engaging, good writer in terms of telling a story, but she is not an expert by any means in assessing talent on any level including the NBA! If so she would have backed her statements up with examples.

Sorry, but to me she is just another scribe with a point of view.

112288

112288,

1. I agree Bradley is not a NBA level ballhandler, at the point guard position. If that is a key requirement for a 1, and it is, then he's not a 1. I'm not sure where one would find stats to prove/disprove ballhandling.

2. He's not a great shooter, but he is better than Rondo I think. His mechanics, at least, are good and since he has settled down he hits them with greater frequency. As far as playing without the ball as a point guard, points guards are supposed to have the ball in their hands.

3. He's not tall enough to be a classic 2 at 6'2". Neither is DWade at 6'3". Nor Monta Ellis at 6'3". Nor Jason Terry at 6'2". Yet somehow they use other skills to make it work. Doc has said he has used him at 1 but that Bradley is really better suited for 2. I agree. Bradley is much better without the ball, and that's a 2.

bob

.

Cow,

I don't believe your question relates to the subject I've been discussing—Jackie MacMullan's comments. Her comments pertain to the qualities of Avery Bradley—not comparisons of Avery Bradley with Rajon Rondo, Ray Allen, DWade, Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Goose Tatum, Meadowlark Lemon, James Naismith, or other basketball figures.

I've never once said that Avery shouldn't be playing, because I think he has some attributes that are very valuable to this team as it is currently constituted. My point (and, I believe Jackie MacMullan's) is that those attributes do not currently include ballhandling at the NBA PG level OR the long distance shooting capabilities typically associated with a classic NBA SG OR a consistent way to keep classic NBA SGs from shooting over Avery.

Over time, he may or may not acquire these attributes to a degree that will be a good fit with the team as it may be constituted in the future. It's very appropriate to have one eye on the future at this time in Celtics history, and the team's future is currently an unknown to us. I think Jackie is concerned that, AS THINGS CURRENTLY STAND, there are question marks about where and how he may fit in over time—enough important question marks to avoid being anything other than cautious and hopeful concerning Avery's long-term value.

If someone wants to start a thread involving Avery's current assets and liabilities or how many minutes he should currently be playing or comparisons of Avery with every other basketball player who ever lived or other tangential considerations that people seem to be dying to transform this thread into, I'll gladly participate in such a thread. For the moment, I'm sticking to discussing the topic of this thread.

Here's hoping we all enjoy the Heat game.

Sam

Jackie MacMullan is one of the top sports analysts around and always enriches the minds of the people fortunate enough to hear or watch her. No negative waves here for Jackie, even in the above tempest in a teapot.

The problem is that Jackie's audience is the fellowship of the miserable. (I'm happy to quote Pipino now that he has once again proven what a loser he is!!!)

Everybody on talk radio in Boston has written off the Celtics and are much more concerned about who the backup catcher is going to be or whether they need another starter or some such rot. They have written off the Celtics and it doesn't matter whether the team wins every game left in the regular season.

It'll be fun to hear them tapdancing around reality when the Celtics destroy the Heat today. This team is jelling as the playoffs approach. Everyone is reasonably healthy and, if Doc doesn't ruin the starters with excess minutes during the upcoming stretch run, they have as good a chance as anybody. Time to correct Pipino: it isn't a fellowship of the miserable but of the blind.

Sam

Spike basically summed up my point better than I could have, and in that context - I understand what Jackie (and you) are saying.

AB does have limitations - but given where he was just a few months ago, the kid has made great strides and instilled in me at least a belief that he is a legit NBA player. I dont care what position he plays or what number he is given.....he is a gamer, a great athlete and is playing well above expectations.

You have a team that is coming together, starting to gel at the most important time of the season, and I simply have no use for Jackie MacMullen and her negative tone in the piece in question.

Onward and upward.

Sam

Alot of people are too concerned with is he a 2, a 3, a 4?.....whats more important is can he play and play well in a team way and I know you already know this. In the 70's we won with a white center who was more a PF and was a great defender, but was not a great shot blocker, so position and requirements for position don't matter to me so much. AB is a young player that has made gresat strides, I like having 2 speedsters in the backcourt. Looking forward to seeing the Wade- Bradley match up today.

cow

First, to avoid upsetting Sam, I want it understood from the jump that I like Jackie and enjoy and respect her commentary. That said, in answer to your question Cow, AB is a better defender than Ray, and I'm sure Doc will figure out how to divide their minutes properly.

What a fun matchup to watch today, Avery versus Dwayne.

WORESTER

We all love Sam!!!!!!!!! I just think Jackie M. opinion is way over blown by many.
I do not hold her high and mighty as many do!!!!!!!!!!!!

But again WE ALL LOVE SAM!!!!!!!!!!

112288

112288 wrote:WORESTER

We all love Sam!!!!!!!!! I just think Jackie M. opinion is way over blown by many.
I do not hold her high and mighty as many do!!!!!!!!!!!!

But again WE ALL LOVE SAM!!!!!!!!!!

112288

I agree shes a national pundit and has done great work, so what? she don't know more about the game than myself and many regulars here....and we all love Sam

Regardless of her opinion pro or con Avery Bradley has been playing great. Who'd a thunk it 15 months ago? Lucky us.

Geez, I'm glad so many people love me. Could I get a letter of reference for my wife?

As for Jackie, I'll simply say that I have been personally involved with sports media people since 1961, including Jackie in more recent years; and I guarantee that she is in the upper echelon (if not at the pinnacle) of well-informed media types on the subject of the Boston Celtics—including what goes on behind the scenes. Even more informed than Bob Ryan, who used to scrimmage with the Old Celtics.

One final message to my friends who seem personally insulted that Jackie could possibly deign to mention a couple of questions about Avery Bradley, while simultaneously balancing those questions with just as many positives about Avery. You're stacking your rather emotional opinions against the considered opinion of a proven expert on the topic. That's certainly your right. I guess the difference is that I don't see Jackie gratuitously dissing you in the process at the risk of making herself seem rather petty.

And I love everybody.

Sam

Haven't chimed in. No reason too

I'm glad AB is on our team.

RA can take his sweet time getting 100% ready.
The fort is being held down pretty well.

beat

sam wrote: One final message to my friends who seem personally insulted that Jackie could possibly deign to mention a couple of questions about Avery Bradley, while simultaneously balancing those questions with just as many positives about Avery. You're stacking your rather emotional opinions against the considered opinion of a proven expert on the topic. That's certainly your right. I guess the difference is that I don't see Jackie gratuitously dissing you in the process at the risk of making herself seem rather petty.

So, the mighty Jackie MacMullen has spoken on the subject - so the rest of our opinions are somehow less valid?

I would suggest that a professional writer - especially someone like Jackie, who is a media whore who works tirelessly to keep her name relevant - is MUCH MORE likely to be wrong on a particular subject, than the average Celtics fanatic on this board. By pure volume, someone that is on ESPN 5 days a week and writing an article a day in the Globe, has to go on the record 20, 30, 40 times a week - is going to overextend themselves much more often than anyone of us. She is a great writer and someone I respect - but a lot of what she says in a week is simply to get a reaction with words that are hyperbolic at best, and flat wrong at worst.

I am done with this discussion....but very sad and disappointed to hear you try and discredit those who are discenting with you here, by calling her the "expert". I would put the basketball knowledge of MANY people on this board up against Jackie MacMullen any day of the week (and twice on Sunday)

I don't think Jackie dissed me or anyone here, I just think her knowledge is no greater than mine, but she has much better access to privy information than me or anyone on the board.....shes got the press passes and deservedly so, but Sam and bob heckler are 2 posters here who I think in fact have greater knowledge than her and I enjoy reading their analysis of the game in fact much better than hers.

I've heard Mike Breen, Jeff Van Gundy and many other media raving about AB's defense, they don't mention hes 6' 2" or whatever.....so if cause hes not ideal height who cares? the fast backcourt is working and as Sam pointed out on the Game On thread we've jumped out to the lead 5 straight games now. Other guards that are 6' 2" may not have this effect with this team, but Bradleys speed, tenacity and athleticism make him in the backcourt with Rondo a lethal combo both ends that has only ignited this team.....wonder why Jackie even brought up AB's height at all, its no issue and she made it an issue showing in this case shes more WRONG than right on.

Mrkleen,

The person you call a "media whore who works tirelessly to keep her name relevant" doesn't, in fact, write "an article a day for the Boston Globe." In fact, she ceased writing for the Globe in 2008, so you're more than a tad misinformed on that score.

When she left the Globe, the person whom you label a "media whore" said, "It’s just time for me. My kids are growing up too fast, and I don’t want to miss anything. I’ll still do some freelance work but I’m not planning on taking another full-time job right now. It would be counter-productive to why I’m doing this in the first place."

And I'm quite certain she has lived up to her desire to place family first. I believe most (if not all) of her work for ESPN consists of being a panelist on "Around the Horn." God knows she could have loads of full-time media jobs because of her basketball expertise, which definitely outstrips mine by a massive margin. But, despite being called a "national" media personality by more than one person on this thread, she's based in the Boston area and is a "homer" in every sense of the word. That's a major reason why she continues to be the the most up-to-date and best-informed media person where the Boston Celtics are concerned. Much of her daily attention is riveted on the Boston Celtics—not because she writes about them as much as she used to but simply because she's fascinated by them and makes it a point to stay current about them.

It's 100% wrong to describe her as overextending herself in her writing activities. In fact, it could be argued that she underextends herself. She's much less often the seeker of media exposure than she is sought out by others for her basketball expertise. She's also a stickler for making sure of her facts before incorporating them into anything she writes or says.

I guess I'm being accused of "discrediting" members of this board because I've utilized my personal knowledge in trying to refute the gratuitously slanderous and even unsavory descriptions of Jackie MacMullan that have permeated this thread. Apparently, when some posters disagree with someone, it's called "having an opinion in a debate" but, when I disagree with someone, it's called "discrediting."

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. I've rewritten each of my posts on this thread several times in an attempt to avoid doing just that. But I will never budge an inch from my assertion that Jackie has the credentials and the right of free press to express her doubts about Avery Bradley without being subjected to insults as a result.

Keep it going, Celtics,

Sam

GUYS

WHY DID WE FORM AND COME TO SAM'S CELTIC FORUM?

TO GET AWAY FROM BOSTON.COM!

LET US KEEP THAT IN MIND AND MOVE FORWARD IN PEACE!!!!!!!!

112288

sam wrote: The person you call a "media whore who works tirelessly to keep her name relevant" doesn't, in fact, write "an article a day for the Boston Globe." In fact, she ceased writing for the Globe in 2008, so you're more than a tad misinformed on that score.

How many times a week is she on ESPN, Around the Horn etc? She is on the WEEKLY Celtics show on Comcast - and writes often for the Globe. She has a lot more face time then you seem to be aware of.

sam wrote: But, despite being called a "national" media personality by more than one person on this thread, she's based in the Boston area and is a "homer" in every sense of the word.

So what? Does that mean a "homer" cant also be a contrarian on occasion?

sam wrote: She's also a stickler for making sure of her facts before incorporating them into anything she writes or says.

And since this thread is about an OPINION piece - not sure what the relevance of that above is. You can be a great fact checker and still be wrong when it comes to stating a particular opinion.

sam wrote: I guess I'm being accused of "discrediting" members of this board because I've utilized my personal knowledge in trying to refute the gratuitously slanderous and even unsavory descriptions of Jackie MacMullan that have permeated this thread. Apparently, when some posters disagree with someone, it's called "having an opinion in a debate" but, when I disagree with someone, it's called "discrediting."

Sam you are so far off base here, it is mind boggling. Sladerous? Are you Kidding?

First off, you can slander someone without a personal attack or being intentionally malicious. Calling someone who is on ESPN 4 times a week a media whore isnt slander....go look it up.

Not one person has made a comment about Jackie personally - because we dont know her. In fact, we have almost to a man prefaced our criticism of her comments by saying we respect her as a writer and basketball mind. The fact that you know her is immaterial to this discussion and if you cant handle people criticizing your friend, maybe you should have recused yourself from this tread.

Instead you have tried to make a holier than thou statement that Jackie is the "expect" and we are not worthy somehow. Seems to be out of character for you Sam....I thought you had more respect for us than that.

Mrkleen, I'm sorry that you just don't get it. I understand that, in your zeal for debating (which you have emphasized privately to me), you tend to go off in tangents when confronted with a challenge you cannot meet. Even in this thread, when you couldn't meet the my challenge of listing which of Jackie's statements you were accusing me of "glossing over," you tried to change the subject to focus on the pros and cons of Avery Bradley.

The fact is that this thread started simply enough when Bob Heckler posted the less-than-positive portion of what Jackie said about Avery. If one listens to the interview, it's obvious that she wasn't dissing him. She was suggesting that she was still trying to figure out what potential he represented in the long run. And I'll say. for the umpteenth time, that Jackie's positive comments that I posted about Avery continue to be ignored by people who seem mainly interested in discrediting or defaming her.

People (including you) disagreed with her reservations, which were certainly fair game. It the responses had been limited to that, I probably wouldn't even have posted. What I objected to was the way in which Jackie was characterized as (for instance) being on drugs, not watching the games, and (more recently) a media whore who's a major self-promoter. Through personal knowledge, I guarantee that those characterizations are just about 180 degrees from fact.

There now, I've restated my reason for participating in this thread, and I haven't once mentioned any feelings I have, pro or con, about Avery Bradley. Because A CRITIQUE OF AVERY BRADLEY HAS NEVER BEEN MY POINT ON THIS THREAD.

If I have a pet peeve in the posting experience, it's when someone misquotes me or sets up a straw man by misinterpreting what I've said and then proceeds to argue against the misinterpretation. That's precisely what has happened in this thread. My intent has never been to sanction Jackie's opinion but rather to support her right to share that opinion without being castigated in some rather unfortunate ways.

In fact (although it really has no bearing on my involvement in this thread), if you'll read through the many threads that discuss Avery Bradley, you'll find my assessment of him to be extremely positive, although I feel (like Jackie) that the jury's still out in terms of his long-term role with the Celtics. Heck, even in the short run, we're all conjecturing about how Doc will use Avery when Ray returns.

By the way, I followed your suggestion to "look up" associations with Jackie MacMullan as a "media whore." I googled "Jackie MacMullan media whore." Funny thing. You seem to be the only person in the world who makes that association. Thanks for the suggestion.

As for your suggestion that I feel members of this forum are unworthy in some unspecified way, that's patently and pathetically ludicrous. In fact, it's ironic that, as a moderator, I've consistently supported all posters' right to free expression as long as it's done civilly. But, when I apply the same principle to Jackie MacMullan, somehow you find that objectionable.

Mrkleen, you have so much to offer this board, and I've always appreciated your generosity in doing so. It is my hope that you can find more constructive uses for your posting time. You know I'll always be polite enough to respond, so the direction this takes is solely up to you.

Sam

For what it's worth, I've always felt prostitution is an under-appreciated profession by an overly parochial public, media whores included.

You just need to recognize everything has its place and every place has its thing. Ecclesiastes, I believe.

Jackie Mac knows hoop. Her job, how she earns her money and probably loves doing it, is to express her opinion publicly. I just beg to differ with her on this opinion of hers, but I can understand why she feels that way. At 6'2", Bradley really is undersized at 2. He really isn't a great shooter for a 2. He really isn't a great ballhandler for a 1. But ball don't lie and Bradley is showing that, despite these limitations, he can play in the NBA. I have said many times that I have a blind eye for tweeners. I didn't think Chris Mullin would make it in the NBA and I didn't think Kelly Tripucka would either. I wasn't confident in Bradley's longevity either until a month or two ago.

I remember the last time I was wrong. It was back in the '90s, somewhere in the summertime I think...

bob

.

Bob,

Yesterday, Avery proved to me that he can be an excellent defender against a SG (even an elite one) who uses his strength and agility, rather than his height, to score most of his points. I believe there's only an inch of height difference between Wade and Avery. I'll be interested to see how he fares against SGs whose uniqueness is height-defined.

Regardless of the outcome of such a confrontation, there will always be the question of the extent to which Avery's pluses outweigh his minuses. Few, if any, pro basketball players have advantages in every single phase of the game. The bottom line is really whether the team has a better chance of winning by incorporating Player X in the lineup. A lot can depend on chemistry factors given the presence vs. absence of the player. So far, Avery's recent record on that score is virtually unblemished.

Doc's got a major challenge ahead of him with respect to how he handles Ray's return vs. Avery's breakout stretch. One thing in Avery's favor is that he and Rondo seem to have excellent rapport; in fact, Avery is obviously a great yin to Rondo's yang. So the kind of feelings that Rondo encountered when Perk left the nest are much less likely to recur if, for example, Avery should replace Ray in the starting lineup.

One thing that has seemed apparent all season long has been that we were going to learn a whole lot from this team. And that situation continues unabated.

Sam

I am done with this discussion....no need to keep it going.

Best - Paul

Mrkleen,

Nice try. You're trying to use the word "valid" as a kind of vague umbrella term encompassing both (1) degree of basketball knowledge and (2) one's right to offer an opinion. Sorry, that's a very transparent ploy.

I think that Jackie has more basketball knowledge than I do, and I guess other board members can speak for themselves. I believe that Jackie's right to express an opinion is equal to that of all of us on the board.

We agree on one thing. This discussion reached the boring stage some time ago. As I stated earlier, I'll always be polite enough to respond, so it's your call as to what transpires next.

Sam

Sam

You are being anything but convivial here. I even edited my last reply to end this....and here you are nearly 10 minutes later, keeping it going.

Really shocked at your attitude in this thread.

YOU ARE BOTH GOING DOWN TO THE PRINCIPALS OFFICE AND WE ARE GOING TO CALL BOTH OF YOUR PARENTS!

YOU ARE BOTH GOING TO MISS THE EASTER EGG HUNT.....YOU LITTLE RASCALS !!!!!!

SIGNED MISS CRABTREE