POST GAME NETS

Sounds like PG and I aren't the only ones needing a "Coke and a smile."

GC

Hey Sam

Seeings how you love predictions......are you in any NCAA pools?

beat

Beat,

No. You should talk with NYCelt about that. I know he really loves March Madness.

Sam

sam wrote:Pumpsie, that's self-contradictory nonsense. If you contend that all there is is now, then why do you try to project what is "now" into the future by suggesting what the Celtics will or won't be able to accomplish against other teams in the future based on what is happening now? Don't deny it. In the post I replied to, you used the verb "will" three times to describe how the Celtics would fare in the future. "Will" means the future, not "now." The reason the "now" is largely irrelevant, although it is ever-present and convenient to discuss, is that the Celtics are specifically in the midst of a rather formidable evolution. The Celtics now are not what the Celtics will be at playoff time. Anyone with a smattering of basketball knowledge would know that.

As for the Celtics' resurgence last year, your glibly and erroneous dismissal of that feat with the words "somehow managed to come together" displays an unfortunate lack of appreciation of detail for how the dynamics of professional basketball work.

I know that, if things change, you'll be right there. There are some fans who choose to be dour in full knowledge that they can scamper back on the bandwagon when circumstances change. Many of us prefer to cast our lot in unyielding support of our team, while being entirely realistic in analyzing the present.

Personally, I'm not predicting anything for the future, as I'm a well-known opponent of predictions. Making a prediction for the Celtics' future would be as ill-advised as trying to draw inferences for the future based on the current state of major evolution.

And I found your pom pom remark to be snide and frankly beneath you.

Sam

I am interpreting your comments that in order to properly support the team one has to be perpetually optimistic. Thats what it sounds like to me. Maybe that works for you; it doesn't work for me. I support the team as much as you do, but I try to analyze as objectively as possible what I see with my own eyes. And RIGHT NOW, its not pretty. Now you can counter with "well, thats not what the team WILL BE in the playoffs", but I am not buying it. You COULD be right, but RIGHT NOW there is no evidence that their moribund play will change any time soon. Thats called "living in the present". I make a habit of being conscious at all times of living in the present as much as possible.
I happen to agree with Georgia Cracker that the best predictor of future performance is the performance immediately preceeding it, ie now.
Therefore, I say again: the performance of last year's team, based on what they did at the end of last year, was an anomaly and I don't expect it will be repeated. Its a low percentage bet.
Sorry you don't like the pompom comment. It could be phrased differently, but you get the meaning. Its not insulting, but there are sports fans here and elsewhere that that "support" their team with unbridled and illogical optimism. I am happy if that works for them; its too syrupy for me.
Finally, I won't need to jump back on the Celtics bandwagon. I never left it.

Pumpsie,

Perpetual hope and support are very different from perpetual optimism. You interpret my stance incorrectly. Look back over my posting record, including game on threads. Much of what I say reflects neither inordinate optimism nor inordinate pessimism...simply reality. It happens that, when a team has a record like that of the Celtics, there tend to be more positives than negatives unless one is really searching for negatives.

Of late, I've been very concerned about the ongoing situation with Rondo, and I've posted quite a bit about it. Is that an example of "unbridled and illogical enthusiasm?"

Were my frequent and outspoken comments about Nate's being a "rally killer" examples of "unbridled and illogical enthusiasm?"

I've been expressing doubts that the Celtics will be able to depend on either Shaq or (especially) Jermaine in the playoffs and have offered the opinion that, if Shaq is available, he should be used primarily as a spot enforcer a la Wayne Embry. Is that an example of "unbridled and illogical enthusiasm?"

How illogical is it to assume that a roster loaded with veterans will be likely to attain better chemistry a month from now than is now the case? Please tell me expressly why that's illogical.

Please tell me expressly why it's illogical to assume that the veteran-loaded roster will have better learned the Celtics' system by a month from now.

Please tell me expressly why it's illogical to assume that, within the next month, Doc and staff will have plenty of opportunity to experiment with various player combinations and tweaks in the system (such as actually putting in some plays for the new guys) so as to put the entire roster of players in a better position to succeed than is currently the case.

Certainly it's your right to express your opinions, and it's my right to ask you to provide support for your opinions and to comment on both the opinions and the support. You're equally welcome to question any of my opinions, although you'll seldom have to ask for support because I tend to be pretty consistent in supplying that.

And, by the way, the period immediately preceding the playoffs is not now. It is a month from now. I hope it's not considered an example of "illogical and unbridled enthusiasm" for me to point this out as I repeat my refrain: See me in April.

This is certainly nothing personal because you know I sincerely think you're a great guy. It's simply a difference of perspectives. And, as I said in the last game-on thread, it was one of my most enjoyable. I particularly appreciated my exchanges with you.

Sam

How illogical is it to assume that a roster loaded with veterans will be likely to attain better chemistry a month from now than is now the case? Please tell me expressly why that's illogical.

This, I think, is the crux of the matter. I look at a roster filled with veterans-including just one new member of the starting five-and see a group that is simply not getting the job done against weak teams. Therefore, I don't expect that there will be a massive sea change when the playoffs arrive. Sure, it COULD happen; I am not expecting it unless there is a turnaround in the remaining games. I EXPECT more of the same. I don't make positive or negative assumptions about what may or may not succeed for the team, be it the chemistry or whatever Doc does. I need PROOF. And right now, there isn't any proof.
There have been additions to the bench too. Green will help; I have been positive about him from the beginning. Arroyo less so, and IMO, Murphy hardly at all. Our success or failure rests mostly with our starting five in accordance with the minutes they play. If they play poorly, as they have been playing for the most part, we aren't winning anything. The bench just has to hold the fort.
No one is fully positive here or totally negative, including me and you. Early in the season I watched a team that was playing well, and thats what I would have posted here if I were here then. Now, not so much. I don't expect a change and believe one will happen until I see it......"trust, but verify".
No, its not personal Sam. I have no problem with anyone on this board. I will continue to post what I see, and others will post what they see. Without that kind of divergence of ideas this board would bore me to tears; I wouldn't be here, frankly. Nothing is going to change here, I suspect. And thats not all bad.

sam wrote:Beat,

No. You should talk with NYCelt about that. I know he really loves March Madness.

Sam

And so far my wrong calls include Penn State, Michigan, Louisville (who the heck picks Morehead State?) and Vanderbilt.

In about 20 seconds I will be 12-4 on the day in one bracket played and 13-3 in the other. OK but not spectacular results.

When we moved to our new business location last month I upgraded a lot of the technology including twin widescreen HD monitors on the computer in my own office. With the learning curve involved I haven't been sure it was a good idea but today the upgrades seemed very worth doing. Well, at least those monitors anyway! Nothing like having all the games broadcast online with the ability to choose and flip to each when scores got close.

Syracuse versus Indiana State tomorrow. Beat and I will be tuned in for sure.

For the record in the two bracket pools I usually play I have diverse early rounds but I'm trying something different and going with the same final 4 in each; Ohio State, Kansas, UConn and BYU. Ohio State wins one while Kansas takes the other.

Basketball from noon to midnight, corned beef dinner for St. Pat's and a couple of Guinnesses to enjoy along the way.

An enjoyable day. I wish one like it for every hoops junkie here soon. By mid-June perhaps!

Pumpsie,

Well, at least you provided some support. I hope you'll keep doing that because a dour opinion without support...simply "I think this" or "I expect that"...is a big part of the problem I've been alluding to.

The basic difference between us is that, when it comes to a team we both claim to support strongly, you need evidence that good things will happen. I need evidence that bad things will happen. If you saw an artist mixing his paints on a pallette, you'd be very likely to form a negative opinion of what the final painting would be like because you had no advance proof. I'd give the artist the benefit of the doubt and would only express negativity after I saw a bad painting. The difference is willingness to take a leap of faith.

This team has never given me reason not to take that leap of faith. They won the championship three years ago. They came darned close to the finals without KG two seasons ago, with Glen Davis and Scal and his concussion playing center. With a subpar KG and no Perk, they came within four minutes of a championship after you refused to take a leap of faith last year; and even when presented with that evidence, you choose to ignore it in favor of calling it an anomaly.

You have no empirical evidence that the Celtics don't merit that leap of faith. Yet you choose to take the dour path.

I have substantial evidence (see above) that they do merit that leap of faith. It has nothing to do with being overly optimistic that I'm willing to take that leap. It's a matter of hope based on experience. It's not a prediction, and certainly not a lack of reality.

"Trust but verify." Please tell me again what the "trust" part consists of as pertaining to your view of the Celtics. Sounds like a leap of faith, which you certainly don't demonstrate.

Whatever! I'll do the courtesy of responding as long as you wish to prolong this, but this discussion is going nowhere...at least nowhere good. I recommend we go on to other things. To end on a hopefully constructive note, if you support your opinions with some rationale, I believe they'll be received much better, whether or not others agree.

Take care,

Sam

NYCelt wrote:And so far my wrong calls include Penn State, Michigan, Louisville (who the heck picks Morehead State?) and Vanderbilt.

In about 20 seconds I will be 12-4 on the day in one bracket played and 13-3 in the other. OK but not spectacular results.

Not a particularly great start for me, either. So far, my two brackets are 12-4 (lost on Missouri, Belmont, Old Dominion, and Louisville) and 11-5. My second bracket is going nowhere because I had several teams that lost going much further, while my first bracket has only Louisville out of the next round and has 74 points, only nine behind the leader, which isn't bad, all things considered. My only real upset for tomorrow is Marquette over Xavier (my Belmont longshot was today). It's like the tournament itself -- survive and move on. Last year, everyone took a beating but my brackets wound up 1st and 2nd. My eventual 1st place bracket didn't look good at all at the beginning, so you never know.

Outside

sam wrote:Pumpsie,

Well, at least you provided some support. I hope you'll keep doing that because a dour opinion without support...simply "I think this" or "I expect that"...is a big part of the problem I've been alluding to.

The basic difference between us is that, when it comes to a team we both claim to support strongly, you need evidence that good things will happen. I need evidence that bad things will happen. If you saw an artist mixing his paints on a pallette, you'd be very likely to form a negative opinion of what the final painting would be like because you had no advance proof. I'd give the artist the benefit of the doubt and would only express negativity after I saw a bad painting. The difference is willingness to take a leap of faith.

This team has never given me reason not to take that leap of faith. They won the championship three years ago. They came darned close to the finals without KG two seasons ago, with Glen Davis and Scal and his concussion playing center. With a subpar KG and no Perk, they came within four minutes of a championship after you refused to take a leap of faith last year; and even when presented with that evidence, you choose to ignore it in favor of calling it an anomaly.

You have no empirical evidence that the Celtics don't merit that leap of faith. Yet you choose to take the dour path.

I have substantial evidence (see above) that they do merit that leap of faith. It has nothing to do with being overly optimistic that I'm willing to take that leap. It's a matter of hope based on experience. It's not a prediction, and certainly not a lack of reality.

"Trust but verify." Please tell me again what the "trust" part consists of as pertaining to your view of the Celtics. Sounds like a leap of faith, which you certainly don't demonstrate.

Whatever! I'll do the courtesy of responding as long as you wish to prolong this, but this discussion is going nowhere...at least nowhere good. I recommend we go on to other things. To end on a hopefully constructive note, if you support your opinions with some rationale, I believe they'll be received much better, whether or not others agree.

Take care,

Sam

Sam: I admire and respect your optimism about the C's. I don't necessarily share it but I do study it to see what I might be able to buy into and agree with based on my notion of reality.

Thats part of the give and take in a sports forum like we have here.

As optimistic as you are about what awaits the C's ahead, you seem quite pessimistic about the direction that this conversation might take, suggesting that this thread is going "nowhere good."

You suddenly seem the dour one.... while I have a leap of faith that understanding and appreciation may follow if we suspend judgment and explore how we may very well support the C's but in very different ways based on background and experiences.

Following the Celts, watching them play to me is like peering at a Rorschach card. There are no right answers or wrong answers... only projections of our hopes and fears onto others... and they can be quite revealing as we explore and appreciate the contradictions.

I doubt seriously that anyone here would form a negative opinion of an artist who sits down with a full pallette ready to paint, anticipating that bad art will likely follow. No one here is that superficial and judgmental.

gc

The basic difference between us is that, when it comes to a team we both claim to support strongly, you need evidence that good things will happen. I need evidence that bad things will happen. If you saw an artist mixing his paints on a pallette, you'd be very likely to form a negative opinion of what the final painting would be like because you had no advance proof. I'd give the artist the benefit of the doubt and would only express negativity after I saw a bad painting. The difference is willingness to take a leap of faith

This is incorrect Sam. You underestimate me. I would not anticipate a bad painting, nor would I anticipate a good one. The painting is not yet produced, and there is no evidence either way that it will be good or bad. On the other hand, as relates to the Celtics, there IS evidence that they are not playing well at a crucial juncture of the season. I do not take "leaps of faith" without good reason, and right now with the team there is no good reason for it.
However, you are right in that its a different perspective. You choose optimism and belief that good things will happen for reasons you think already exist; and as someone into whom the "scientific method" has been drilled for 50 years, I need substantial proof before I believe. You call that "dour"; I call it realistic. No matter. You aren't going to convince me that your viewpoint is more meritorious, nor will I convince you of mine.
No need to respond to this. Its a dead end issue. Neither of us is going to change, nor should we. I am fine with that.

Time to restart the 'glimmer' thread.

GC,

Well, at least you have achieved a first. No one I've ever encountered in my lift has ever called me "dour." However, many have called me older and wiser as a judge of when a conversation has run its course, has become redundant, and can serve no further useful purpose for either party. Very often, when that happens, prolonging the discourse can make it degenerate into personal areas.

There had already been some rather cutting remarks (on both sides) that made me uncomfortable. While I don't believe either Pumpsie or I would stoop to outright personal attacks, that was one of the few directions left for the conversation to take. I value Pumpsie's friendship (about which I don't believe you're at all well-informed) to risk even the remote possibility of that happening.

I was encouraged by the outcome of the conversation. In our last exchange, I thought Pumpsie did a good job of supporting his viewpoint, even if I didn't agree with it. This board has a history of encountering difficulties with what I call negative unsupported opinions.

If someone says, "I like this team" without supporting that statement, no one thinks anything of it. If someone says, "I see doom and gloom ahead for this team" without supporting that statement, it is often interpreted as a gratuitous attempt at being an irritant by many on this board. I have received upwards of 100 private messages to this effect, involving a wide range of posters but a common theme. (This is another fact with which you may be unfamiliar.)

In the face of all these messages and demands for banning, I have steadfastly defended the rights of posters to voice their opinions as long as they do it civilly and avoid personal attacks. And I've tried my best to work out ways (usually behind the scenes) in which those who are being complained about can help avoid it. I call that being constructive, but maybe it is "dour."

I'm hoping that Pumpsie will see fit to support his messages—whether positive or negative—with underlying rationale more often than has sometimes been the case. I believe that will give him a fairer hearing from other posters, rather than encouraging personal attacks or undermining his credibility as a poster.

As for optimism, that word can sometimes be used in an almost pejorative sense if it is implied that the optimism is indiscriminate. I have a lengthy track record of being quite analytical, having a reasonable degree of basketball knowledge, expressing both positive and negative viewpoints objectively, and going to often-inordinate lengths to support my contentions. When one roots for a successful team, it's not surprising that the majority of commentary is positive. (Whereas a predominately dour track record tends to go against the grain.)

If I seem optimistic about the Celtics this season, it is largely because I know something about how the dynamics of a basketball team work, just as I did last year when I kept saying, "See me in April." What happened last year was anything BUT an anomaly. It made eminent sense.

This team has a dozen seasoned players and an excellent coaching staff, all of whom are focusing together to achieve success. The degree to which they will accomplish that is anyone's guess. And, yes, it's absolutely no news that there are obstacles to overcome.

But it stands to reason that, barring more injuries, which no one can predict, and given the net results of all that experience, effort, and focus, on a team whose signature trademark has been togetheness and championship expectations, the results will be greater cohesiveness and consistency a month from now than has been the recent case with half the team trying to get to know one another and people returning from injuries.

That probability is certainly more than enough for me to take a leap of faith and wait to see what happens rather than adopting a prematurely negative outlook. If that can labeled "optimism," so be it. (I would prefer "informed optimism," but whatever.) Others may disagree, and they're certainly welcome to express substantive reasons for doing so on this forum.

Sam

Pumpsie Green wrote:as someone into whom the "scientific method" has been drilled for 50 years, I need substantial proof before I believe.

So you are trying to convince us that the current results are a valid predictor of the future - while the 13 game win streak from earlier in the season is not?

Pumpsie,

Maybe some time we can discuss (over drinks would be ideal) which of us has been more versed in the "scientific method"—the physician or the researcher.

I realize that I did not word my analogy well. I should have specified that, in watching the painter mix his colors on his palette, if you didn't like the color of the paints you'd assume you wouldn't like the finished product either. You don't like what you now see in the Celtics, so you assume you won't like the finished product either. That would be a better explanation of the analogy, whether or not you'd subscribe to it. (I'm sure you wouldn't.)

You say you wouldn't anticipate a bad painting or a good one when the artist is at the paint-mixing stage.. All I've been suggesting is that you might consider the same philosophy regarding the Celtics.

I do not choose optimism for reasons that already exist. I choose a leap of faith (which is more a hopeful suspension of judgment than a rush to optimism) for reasons that history has proven CAN exist.

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:

Pumpsie Green wrote:as someone into whom the "scientific method" has been drilled for 50 years, I need substantial proof before I believe.

So you are trying to convince us that the current results are a valid predictor of the future - while the 13 game win streak from earlier in the season is not?

I think that recent performance is a better (though not absolute) predictor of future performance.
Many years ago the Dow Jones Average was a bit north of 14,000; now it is hovering around a bit over 11,500 or so. If I had to bet where it would be in a month, I would choose the more recent performance over the performance of 2008.
Sometimes there IS no information on which to base an opinion, as in Sam's painter analogy. So one can only wait and see what the final product is like. Now if that painter is DaVinci, I would EXPECT a great painting; his performance in the past has been excellent. And if the painter is ME, I would expect a Rorschach ink blot and bad work.
Finally, if the game is on the line and Albert Pujols is up hitting, I am thinking that there is a decent chance of success given his performance in the past few years. If the hitter is Jason Varitek, who at one time in his career was a good hitter, but who is now way past his prime, I expect much less of a chance of success. RECENT performance counts much more than ancient performance.

BobH,

There would be plenty of ammunition for a glimmer thread. But I suspect it wouldn't have any bearing on this conversation. I did it last year as an attempt to link, empirically, the effect of gradually improving synergy and ultimate success. Of course, at the time, I had nothing but a leap of faith that success would eventuate. It was what the scientific method might call an hypothesis that gradually evolving from discontinuity to greater continuity would produce a very positive result.

This year, I see the basic situation as being very similar. I believe discontinuity to be the root cause of much of the team's inconsistency, with Rondo's situation being another. It doesn't take much of a leap of faith to assume that history will repeat itself concerning the morphing from discontinuity to continuity. As far as Rondo is concerned, I'd adopt Pumpsie's likely view that I'd need to know more about what's causing the problem to determine how much of a leap of faith is warranted.

You may want to start a glimmer thread. I've been there, done that. If you do decide to do so, my ground rules were:

• A glimmer consists of not just a good performance in a given game. It has to be something that can be a potential harbinger of future progress.

• Once something has been targeted as a glimmer, it shouldn't be repeated as a glimmer just because it has occurred in yet another game.

The basic idea was to identify positive factors that could have ongoing implications, while avoiding redundancy.

I seem to recall that someone (I have no idea who) was considering starting a thread that would negative observations equal "time." I don't know what that thread was to be called. "Downers?" Anyway, it didn't seem to materialize.

Sam

Pumpsie,

So are the Celtics closer to DaVinci or a kindergarten finger painter? lol. You used the word "expect," which I've actually been avoiding because it could potentially be interpreted as groundless optimism. But expectation of success has always characterized great Celtics teams. I guess the real question, in both your and my philosophies, is whether this team is capable of regaining their habitual expectations of success. You look at them and ask, "Why?" I look at them and ask, "Why not?"

Interesting.

Sam

Hey Pumpsie,

So far, this thread has received 781 "views"—dramatically ahead of any other recent post game thread. Have you ever considered, after your impending retirement, life as part of a rock star duo?

Sam

After reading thru this I am left wondering. Just a thought.

I don't think being causiously positive about the future is a terrible way to look at this team.

Why dwell in the negative? Yeah it's there but I refuse to live my life just waiting for the next shoe to drop, yet I try to be somewhat prepared if that happens.

I know it may be over simplistic but I try not to get to high during the wins nor to low during the losses.

Works for me.

beat

And just to add

Marcus is a pretty good pitcher. If after a hit and a walk if he worried to much about those previous pitches and did not focus on the next batter and what he needs to do..................well you know where I am going, and where the next pitch may go too. And with that like the ball could be on the next pitch.......I'm outta here.

It's already getting exciting for the members of this team:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2011/03/18/celtics_piece_it_together/

Sam

Great news SAM

and to add

few lines from that Johnny Mercer tune

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith or pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene


beat

Beat,

Funny, I've posted that same song either on this board or at BDC.

What a great song and an even greater sentiment. "Don't mess with Mister In-between." You just can't find lyrics like that nowadays.

Hope things are going well on all fronts.

Sam

Sam

Things are about as good as they can be with my mom's and step dads situation. Marcus turns 16 next monday................of course the rights of passage the dreaded LEARNERS PERMIT will follow shortly. As for baseball he's off to a very good start in the relatively few practices they have had. According to his coach he has picked up several MPH on his fastball and also has developed a nasty sink on his change up. Marcus says he just started throwing it the same as his curveball and it has quite a drop to it.

Sarah will be home again from SUNY Potsdam this eve. We may all go to the High School Musical tonight......Fiddler on the Roof. Then we have Marcus's Birthday party tomorrow eve.

Anyway certainly we are a lot better off than most (keep thinking of those poor folks in Japan) and as for the C's tonight guess thats why God invented tivo.

The entire family will be heading to Boston to watch the C's live against the Wizards on April 8, taking the train out of Syracuse the day before. I have been to the old garden 3 times many years ago, none of us has been to the new one, it will be a great time and photos will follow the trip!

Hope you and the Mrs are doing well also.

beat

Beat,

We're doing fine, thank you. Having a lot of fun marketing the Paris book.

Please with Marcus happy birthday. I'm sure he'll be a good driver, because he has a very level head.

It's great that all of you will be able to experience TD Garden and watch the Celtics. You guys genuinely enjoy being together, which is a wonderful family trait. Please give my best to all.

Sam