Author Topic: The "realist" debate revisited  (Read 24410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The "realist" debate revisited
« on: May 19, 2010, 09:42:19 AM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".   

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2010, 09:46:44 AM »

Offline Brendan

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2990
  • Tommy Points: 72
Hmmm.... I think this run the C's are on is thoroughly ahistorical and unprecedented. So I don't think its wrong to call the "C's will win a series or two, but not championship" realist camp. But honestly a lot of people claiming realism, were predicting epic fail - that was pessimism.

I think the main point would be when someone has an opinion of the team - its there opinion. And when you think that opinion is optimistic / realistic / pessimistic - that's also an OPINION (or your opinion of their opinion to be more precises). And neither one is fact.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2010, 09:53:47 AM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13009
  • Tommy Points: 816
I agree.

All the negativity on this blog sucks, and it stinks, and it makes the greatest blog, the greatest blog on the internet, lousy.  ;)
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2010, 09:58:47 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
Well, my Optimism on this team was based purely on our Rich Tradition.

Poster NickAgneta hit the nail on the head several months ago - he brought back the memory of The Boston Celtics 1968-69 Season. My memory of our Celtics doesn't stretch back that far, but his reminder to the Blog of that tough, but rewarding season just proved - at least to me - that I couldn't count us out.

And here we are - Fully Healthy..taking physical shots from a very physical ORL team..winning on the road...beat maybe the best team in the NBA in 6 games..beat a very athletic MIA team in 5.

We haven't won the series vs ORL, yet, but This Team is on the verge of something special.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 10:07:11 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
I always hated that people with negative outlooks are considered realists.

Pessimist does not equal realist, just as optimists doesn't equal realists.

Realists are people that take into consideration ALL the factors and draw conclusions from them or explore and approximate possible outcomes based on all those factors and facts.

"There's no way we go past the Cavs and Orlando" <--- Not a realistic view. It's a pessimistic view.

"We're surely going to win the championship" <--- Not a realistic view. It's an optimistic view.

"Based on how the season has gone so far, and factoring in that we come to the playoffs healthy, we're probably going to have a tough time against Orlando and the Cavs, but we still have a lot of experienced Hall of Fame caliber players in our team that are fully capable of elevating their game in the playoffs and getting us past them. We also have quite a few favorable match-ups we can exploit to get it done" <--- That's a more realistic view than anything.

It's like estimations and people that don't use the actual numbers to manipulate the results, even if your intentions are to err in the side of caution. The results are going to be an inaccurate estimation because the actual real numbers aren't being used. As such, a pessimistic view isn't any more realistic than an optimist.

That's not to say that you can be pessimistic and still have a realistic assessment, and that's not to say that you can't be an optimist and still have a realistic assessment. But let's not substitute one for the other. It's quite unfair and inaccurate.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 10:14:12 AM »

Offline Slugger

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 606
  • Tommy Points: 75
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".   

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

Whilst i dont post regularly enough to say i was on either side, it was reality that the C's looked horrible and slow and unmotivated etc, etc.

Even the optimists surely thought deep-down that this team was going nowhere.

I dont think its fair to call out the realists, just because the C's have "proved them wrong". The facts were laid out plainly in front of everyone.  The C's were at that time, and for a good portion of the season, a very average team.

I see how you prefaced your comments with the not taking sides, but i believe this post indicates you did/are/have.

In your statement, you have clearly called out the "realists".  Im sure there were just as many passionate and vehement optimists as there were realists.

I do agree though that it did become very petty and narky.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2010, 10:15:52 AM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7187
  • Tommy Points: 590
I was in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp. I didn't count the team out, but I didn't have a whole lot of faith in them either. I've seen a lot of chest thumping by some who said they never waivered in their belief and act like it makes them a better fan. But you cannot fault someone for looking at how they played and bracing for the worst.  

I always believed they had the talent to go far, but the way they were playing this season really didn't give much of a reason to believe they were going to play as well as they have recently.

We have to remember that memebers of the team said they were "bored" with the season and that they were waiting for the playoffs.  What they are doing is something that I don't believe has ever been done before. How many times has a team fliped the switch like this and gone from average to great? I cannot remember of one to be honest. The odds were against them because it is next to impossible to turn it on like they have. For this, I don't believe it's fair to call out people that were not "believers".


I want to clarify that I do not think Roy is calling out anyone. My comments are not directed at you by any means.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 10:30:00 AM by angryguy77 »
Still don't believe in Joe.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2010, 10:16:20 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".   

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

Whilst i dont post regularly enough to say i was on either side, it was reality that the C's looked horrible and slow and unmotivated etc, etc.

Even the optimists surely thought deep-down that this team was going nowhere.

I dont think its fair to call out the realists, just because the C's have "proved them wrong". The facts were laid out plainly in front of everyone.  The C's were at that time, and for a good portion of the season, a very average team.

I see how you prefaced your comments with the not taking sides, but i believe this post indicates you did/are/have.

In your statement, you have clearly called out the "realists".  Im sure there were just as many passionate and vehement optimists as there were realists.

I do agree though that it did become very petty and narky.



I believe this isn't to call out their opinion, but their labeling of those who's opinion fell on the opposite side of the spectrum.  




All opinions are always welcomed.  They are needed to have discussion and debate.  

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2010, 10:16:38 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Hmmm.... I think this run the C's are on is thoroughly ahistorical and unprecedented. So I don't think its wrong to call the "C's will win a series or two, but not championship" realist camp. But honestly a lot of people claiming realism, were predicting epic fail - that was pessimism.

'69 Celtics and '95 Rockets come to mind for a similar postseason run.  You could also look at the '81 Rockets who made the Finals at 40-42.

I agree that the self-labeled realists were generally the biggest pessimists.  There was plenty of cause to be pessimistic - I'd be lying if I said I expected this run, though I sure hoped for it - but a lot of people just seemed to be "racing to the bottom" to make the most extreme negative statements about their favorite team, and covering up their frustrations by pretending extreme negativity was an objectively correct view.  As Roy said, whether a pessimist or an optimist, it's foolish to assume that your viewpoint is the only valid one, because sooner or later everyone gets proven wrong.  So hopefully the "realist" label can be put to bed for both sides.

But that said, regardless of how we felt during the regular season, let's all try to enjoy this ride while it lasts.  However it ends, this will probably be the Big 3's last significant playoff run...we should try to appreciate it while we can, as this is a truly special group.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2010, 10:17:50 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
You got to love the pessimistic when they bring out the "I was just being realistic" safety blanket.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2010, 10:18:12 AM »

Offline Slugger

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 606
  • Tommy Points: 75
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".   

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

Whilst i dont post regularly enough to say i was on either side, it was reality that the C's looked horrible and slow and unmotivated etc, etc.

Even the optimists surely thought deep-down that this team was going nowhere.

I dont think its fair to call out the realists, just because the C's have "proved them wrong". The facts were laid out plainly in front of everyone.  The C's were at that time, and for a good portion of the season, a very average team.

I see how you prefaced your comments with the not taking sides, but i believe this post indicates you did/are/have.

In your statement, you have clearly called out the "realists".  Im sure there were just as many passionate and vehement optimists as there were realists.

I do agree though that it did become very petty and narky.



I believe this isn't to call out their opinion, but their labeling of those who's opinion fell on the opposite side of the spectrum.  




All opinions are always welcomed.  They are needed to have discussion and debate.  

Both sides were justas guilty, so i guess we'll leave it at that.

How bout those Celtics, huh?

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2010, 10:19:39 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".   

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

Whilst i dont post regularly enough to say i was on either side, it was reality that the C's looked horrible and slow and unmotivated etc, etc.

Even the optimists surely thought deep-down that this team was going nowhere.

I dont think its fair to call out the realists, just because the C's have "proved them wrong". The facts were laid out plainly in front of everyone.  The C's were at that time, and for a good portion of the season, a very average team.

I see how you prefaced your comments with the not taking sides, but i believe this post indicates you did/are/have.

In your statement, you have clearly called out the "realists".  Im sure there were just as many passionate and vehement optimists as there were realists.

I do agree though that it did become very petty and narky.



I believe this isn't to call out their opinion, but their labeling of those who's opinion fell on the opposite side of the spectrum.  




All opinions are always welcomed.  They are needed to have discussion and debate.  

Both sides were justas guilty, so i guess we'll leave it at that.

How bout those Celtics, huh?


The extremes on both side usually are. 


I can't say that I am not very, very, very happy with them right now.

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2010, 10:21:20 AM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".   

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

Whilst i dont post regularly enough to say i was on either side, it was reality that the C's looked horrible and slow and unmotivated etc, etc.

Even the optimists surely thought deep-down that this team was going nowhere.

I dont think its fair to call out the realists, just because the C's have "proved them wrong". The facts were laid out plainly in front of everyone.  The C's were at that time, and for a good portion of the season, a very average team.

I see how you prefaced your comments with the not taking sides, but i believe this post indicates you did/are/have.

In your statement, you have clearly called out the "realists".  Im sure there were just as many passionate and vehement optimists as there were realists.

I do agree though that it did become very petty and narky.


Yes, I called out the self-described "realists" because they told us for months how their view was the only realistic one.  They were wrong.

I'm not calling out pessimistic / glass half empty folks, nor am I criticizing optimistic / pie-in-the-sky posters.  Rather, I'm saying that *anybody* who believes that their view is the only one with any validity should probably take a step back and reassess.

I think Bud said it best above. 

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2010, 10:29:26 AM »

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8791
  • Tommy Points: 2584
Whoops, lost my message again.

IMO, "Hindsight is 20/20."  True realism can only exist after the fact, and any prognostication is either optimism or pessimism. It might be educated optimism or pessimism, but it is NOT fact.  ;)
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Re: The "realist" debate revisited
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2010, 10:38:29 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
If I found one thing frustrating on the blog this season, it was the tension and in-fighting between the self-labeled "realists" and the "optimists".   

I hope that those "realists" can now acknowledge that, in fact, their point of view was no more realistic than anybody else's.  In fact, the "realistic" point of view is looking more and more like a half-empty, pessimistic one.  The pie-in-the-sky optimists have been proven right, at least so far.

I think there's a lesson here:  we should never believe that our own point of view is the only one with any validity.  We should try to have respect for all viewpoints, and should accept that absolutely nothing is a guarantee.  If we all could have kept that perspective, this probably would have been a lot smoother season for all of us.

(This isn't an endorsement of the "optimist" point of view, by the way.  People can believe whatever they want about the team.  However, it's the labeling of others -- especially in terms of those self-labeling themselves as the only "realistic" voices -- that is unacceptable to me.)

Whilst i dont post regularly enough to say i was on either side, it was reality that the C's looked horrible and slow and unmotivated etc, etc.

Even the optimists surely thought deep-down that this team was going nowhere.

I dont think its fair to call out the realists, just because the C's have "proved them wrong". The facts were laid out plainly in front of everyone.  The C's were at that time, and for a good portion of the season, a very average team.

I see how you prefaced your comments with the not taking sides, but i believe this post indicates you did/are/have.

In your statement, you have clearly called out the "realists".  Im sure there were just as many passionate and vehement optimists as there were realists.

I do agree though that it did become very petty and narky.



I believe this isn't to call out their opinion, but their labeling of those who's opinion fell on the opposite side of the spectrum. 




All opinions are always welcomed.  They are needed to have discussion and debate. 

Both sides were justas guilty, so i guess we'll leave it at that.

How bout those Celtics, huh?

Well, I think we went beyond the quota of what could be considered healthy in the amount of "Garnett is DONE" and "Rondo is God" threads.