Doc Venting (merged threads)

[BudweiserCeltic]

Maybe Hollinger forgot that we were out of time outs, and Rondo is the only one he trusted to get the ball fast on time, without causing a turnover.  Rondo has hit a ton of shots this way, at the buzzer, during this season, during the summer league, and during last season.  He has a knack for those buzzer beaters.

[Yakmanev]

Sorry people Doc is just not as bad as anyone on this site says he is and he's probably forgotten more about basketball than any of us will ever learn in 3 lifetimes.

It's evident in his coaching that he has definitely forgotten it.

[stanthompsonismyhero]

If the Celtics don't win game seven, Doc needs to be fired.  As in, immediately after the final buzzer.  If Atlanta wins in Boston, and the C's are out of the playoffs after one round, Danny Ainge should walk to center court with a microphone and announce that Doc Rivers is fired.  If he did that, you would hear the loudest cheer at the Garden since the last time the C's won a championship. 

[wahz]

Hollinger makes a great point in his latest article. Although we didn't have a time out at the end of the game, when Bibby missed, House should have been brought in for Rondo. I pride myself as not missing these numerous tactical errors Doc makes every game but I think I choked on this one in the horror of seeing us go to a 7th game. Hollinger is of course right. House could have been brought in while we were at the line and it would have opened up Posey, Ray and House for the attempted three.

I think Hollinger has focused in on our Achilles heal. Docs bench management, Docs on going lack of faith on Rondo(yeah I know its waaaaay better but its showing up now), and KG not taking shots he should when he is open. Probably this year these things can't be changed. Of couse Doc getting booted solves two things and maybe 3 if someone can get KG to shoot from the post. A suggestion, I love Avery Johnson, but if these was ever a guy who couldn't get a big man to shoot from the post its Avery. Might have to pass on him

[nickagneta]

How is it that whenever Hollinger made comments about the Celtics during last preseason and during the season, everyone to a man discounted anything he had to say because he was a statistician who new next to nothing about the game of basketball. Many called his statistical power rankings as about as ridiculous as they come.

However, he writes one article stating how bad Doc is(a flawed one at that considering he didn't know there were no more time outs left at the end of the game) and suddenly people are quoting him and calling him a professional basketball scribe or expert.

If Hollinger had written an article defending Doc or saying what a great job he is doing and how badly the players are doing, the same old stuff would have come out about how much of an inept, unknowledgable idiot he is.

Funny how things work out that way.

[Frontierboy]

If the Celtics don't win game seven, Doc needs to be fired.  As in, immediately after the final buzzer.  If Atlanta wins in Boston, and the C's are out of the playoffs after one round, Danny Ainge should walk to center court with a microphone and announce that Doc Rivers is fired.  If he did that, you would hear the loudest cheer at the Garden since the last time the C's won a championship. 

Tommy Point for you....lol....... I personally think Doc should be fired prior to the game, that way the Celtics win either way :-)  Thibedou can just take over.

[Roy Hobbs]

However, he writes one article stating how bad Doc is(a flawed one at that considering he didn't know there were no more time outs left at the end of the game) and suddenly people are quoting him and calling him a professional basketball scribe or expert.

First, nobody is saying Hollinger is a basketball guru.  However, he's allowed to make a good point once in awhile, isn't he?

Secondly, where did Hollinger say that the team didn't have any timeouts?  A team is allowed to make a substitution after the first free throw, regardless of timeouts.  That's when Hollinger is suggesting that House should have been subbed in for Rondo.

In fact, Hollinger even acknowledges that the team was out of timeouts:

. He didn't have a timeout, but when Bibby missed the first three throw, it was clear a 3-pointer was what Boston needed, and that's House's specialty.

Maybe next time, rather than being so quick to criticize the fans of this blog, and Hollinger's analysis, you can take the time to read what he actually wrote, and consider it.  By ignoring his writing just because of who wrote it and the topic it considers, you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of.  At least those you're criticizing took the time to read and comprehend the article, though.

[nickagneta]

However, he writes one article stating how bad Doc is(a flawed one at that considering he didn't know there were no more time outs left at the end of the game) and suddenly people are quoting him and calling him a professional basketball scribe or expert.

First, nobody is saying Hollinger is a basketball guru.  However, he's allowed to make a good point once in awhile, isn't he?

Secondly, where did Hollinger say that the team didn't have any timeouts?  A team is allowed to make a substitution after the first free throw, regardless of timeouts.  That's when Hollinger is suggesting that House should have been subbed in for Rondo.

In fact, Hollinger even acknowledges that the team was out of timeouts:

. He didn't have a timeout, but when Bibby missed the first three throw, it was clear a 3-pointer was what Boston needed, and that's House's specialty.

Maybe next time, rather than being so quick to criticize the fans of this blog, and Hollinger's analysis, you can take the time to read what he actually wrote, and consider it.  By ignoring his writing just because of who wrote it and the topic it considers, you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of.  At least those you're criticizing took the time to read and comprehend the article, though.

So one wrong statement makes the jist of my statement unworthy or somehow invalid. My point is that people are so into the criticizing of Doc that they will go to the length of using the quotes of a scribe they considered to be an inept basketball person.

Is Hollinger allowed to make one good point, I guess so. I just think it's hilarious that that one statement or point just so happens to be about something that goes along with the criticism of a fairly despised coach who many blame as the reason we are about to play a seventh game.

I may not agree with everything Doc has done but the overly undue blame and finger pointing towards this man is obscene. And then to quote a passage of an article of a man whom most here have had little to no respect for, I believe is just goes to show how much people do to prove a point.

And one person did call Hollinger a professional intimating that he was somehow more knowledgable or had more expertise on the subject than most. And I started reading the article but half way through it was pretty clear where it was going.

And I just don't see where saying that it's over the top for using a person's work, whom at best people have given little to no credence to, corrolates to not finishing an article of a person I have little respect for. I assumed he didn't know what he was talking about and took the word of a fellow poster who also got it wrong. I'm not trying to prove a point by using a source that I have once condemned. All I am doing is criticizing those that go to the extremes of calling Doc bad or mostly responsisble for the team's performance in Atlanta.

I'm sorry you're the person that originally brought the article up Roy, usually I agree with most of what you post. But in this case I don't and I don't agree with the posters who are suddenly quoting Hollinger as if he has any expertise in the matter.

If the article was written by Jackie McMullen, Michael Smith, or someone at the Heald's sports section, I wouldn't have even bothered with this set of posts. But Hollinger?

[Roy Hobbs]

Myself and other members of the staff have noticed a bothersome trend lately.  Doc's critics criticize Doc, while many of Doc's supporters criticize Doc's "haters". 

If you're going to support Doc, do so.  However, that can be done without criticizing the mental acumen, intellectual honesty, and integrity of others on this site.  Reasonable minds can disagree on this issue.  The veiled insults and holier-than-thou reasoning should come to an end immediately.

To the extent that this is happening in reverse, the same warning applies.  Disagree with another poster all you want, but don't attack their basketball knowledge simply because you don't see eye-to-eye with them.

[Roy Hobbs]

The above shouldn't be read to refer to any one poster in particular; it's a general trend the staff has noticed, and which needs to come to an end.

[nickagneta]

Point taken, I will stop.

[Roy Hobbs]

And I just don't see where saying that it's over the top for using a person's work, whom at best people have given little to no credence to, corrolates to not finishing an article of a person I have little respect for. I assumed he didn't know what he was talking about and took the word of a fellow poster who also got it wrong. I'm not trying to prove a point by using a source that I have once condemned. All I am doing is criticizing those that go to the extremes of calling Doc bad or mostly responsisble for the team's performance in Atlanta.

I'm sorry you're the person that originally brought the article up Roy, usually I agree with most of what you post. But in this case I don't and I don't agree with the posters who are suddenly quoting Hollinger as if he has any expertise in the matter.

I just have a hard time when somebody criticizes another's reasoning, when they admit they didn't even read the article. 

I've disagreed with a lot of what Hollinger has said, but I've agreed with a lot of his points, too.  It's only when he talks in absolutes that he gets in trouble, in my opinion, or when his analysis ignores actual game conditions.  He's always been fairly pro-Celtics, or at least pro-Celtics players, so he's got that going for him.  He was a huge Al Jefferson fan, and he's a big fan of Rajon and Powe, as well.

While Hollinger's critics or supporters are ultimately going to come back to the issue of statistical analysis, in this instance he's making a comment as an observer of the game.  When he states an opinion that is well-received, he's going to be quoted.  Think of it like a poster on this board.  You and I have disagreed many times in the past.  If I then quote one of your posts, and say "I agree with nick completely", that doesn't make me a hypocrite.  It just means that despite our past disagreements, I agree with you on this particular issue. 

I don't give Hollinger's opinion any more weight than I do any other basketball writer; whether it be Hollinger, Stein, May, Ryan, MacMullan, Spears, Simmons, or any other professional basketball writer, I pretty much treat them as the equivalent of a poster on this site.  Some of them are more intelligent and articulate than others, and some have better reasoning, but none of them is necessarily an expert.  That does not mean, however, that it's out of bounds to quote them when they mention something that's insightful.

[BudweiserCeltic]

However, he writes one article stating how bad Doc is(a flawed one at that considering he didn't know there were no more time outs left at the end of the game) and suddenly people are quoting him and calling him a professional basketball scribe or expert.

First, nobody is saying Hollinger is a basketball guru.  However, he's allowed to make a good point once in awhile, isn't he?

Secondly, where did Hollinger say that the team didn't have any timeouts?  A team is allowed to make a substitution after the first free throw, regardless of timeouts.  That's when Hollinger is suggesting that House should have been subbed in for Rondo.

In fact, Hollinger even acknowledges that the team was out of timeouts:

. He didn't have a timeout, but when Bibby missed the first three throw, it was clear a 3-pointer was what Boston needed, and that's House's specialty.

Maybe next time, rather than being so quick to criticize the fans of this blog, and Hollinger's analysis, you can take the time to read what he actually wrote, and consider it.  By ignoring his writing just because of who wrote it and the topic it considers, you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of.  At least those you're criticizing took the time to read and comprehend the article, though.

The point about being without timeout is that they needed someone with Rondo's handle to bring the ball down, with his speed and ball control.  If we had a time out, and could inbound the ball at the half court, then that's a different set of circumstances.  So, leaving Rondo in the game in this situation wasn't a mistake by Doc.  No way it was.

[cdif911]

Myself and other members of the staff have noticed a bothersome trend lately.  Doc's critics criticize Doc, while many of Doc's supporters criticize Doc's "haters". 

If you're going to support Doc, do so.  However, that can be done without criticizing the mental acumen, intellectual honesty, and integrity of others on this site.  Reasonable minds can disagree on this issue.  The veiled insults and holier-than-thou reasoning should come to an end immediately.

To the extent that this is happening in reverse, the same warning applies.  Disagree with another poster all you want, but don't attack their basketball knowledge simply because you don't see eye-to-eye with them.

The below seems a bit innapropriate of a post from a moderator then, one who is meant to maintain order, not create more problems, based off the above logic:  Clearly this is a vieled personal attack:

Stop. 

No one is abandoning the Celtics.  No one is blaming Doc 100%.  No one is yelling 'I told you so'

There are a lot of angry Celtics fan because they see their team playing so far below what they are capable of. 

They are seeing their team melt down on the road.  Melting down just like the last time they were in the playoffs. 

They are looking at a coach that has done nothing to right the ship.  A coach who is making excuses. 

People don't get this angry and passionate if they are hoping the Celtics fail just so they can be right. 

[Roy Hobbs]

I honestly don't see the correlation, or what wdleehi purportedly did wrong.  I guess the veiled personal attack is going over my head, as I don't see any poster or group of posters being called out.  I don't see the situations as the same, or even similar.

Anyway, so as to keep this on-topic, the appropriate thread to discuss the rules, and the application thereof, is sticked at the top of the Comments and Remarks forum.  I'd be happy to continue this discussion there, if you want.