The "realist" debate revisited

[buellj814]

as one of the optimists over the second half of the season the only time i would get upset with some of the posters was when they flatly stated we have no chance and that we were too old... To just flatly make blank statements like that just doesnt't make sense to me especially when ur a fan of a team.....

but honestly the only thing that matters is that were two wins form the finals and it feels soooooooo good!!!!

[Fan from VT]

I'll through two situations back at you, Roy:

1:
There are 100 people that are just feeling great today. Got a lucky feeling. They all are at an event that has a raffle. They all think their lucky numbers will win. Their spouses tell them to be realistic, but they'll hear none of it; they all KNOW they're having a lucky day, so they all buy raffle tickets.

Then they have the drawing. 99 people lose; their spouses tell them they were hopelessly blind optimists; now they've lost their 5 dollar ticket fee. 1 person wins, goes home with 500 dollars.

Question: were the 99 "wrong" but that one person "right?" Were all 100 "optimists?" Were all realistic? Any?



Situation 2:
Same 100 people wake up. feel really unlucky. just everything goes wrong. but they all go to their kid's school event. they feel pressured into buying a ticket. but they really don't think they have a chance to win. end of the night, one lucky guy wins. question: was he "wrong" to not like his chances? is he unhappy with the results? was he a pessimest but all 99 others were realists?

fundamental question: does an outcome, expected or unexpected, change the validity of the rationale behind an assessment?

[Roy Hobbs]

fundamental question: does an outcome, expected or unexpected, change the validity of the rationale behind an assessment?

People can be proven right or wrong.  It does not, however, necessarily make their opinion realistic or unrealistic.

The problem, I think, with the self-described "realists" was that they made definitive statements that this team had no chance.  Basically, it was the Celticsblog equivalent of Barkley saying he'd bet his house that we'd lose.  It's fine to have that point of view.  What's not fine, in my opinion, is to label that view as the only realistic one.

In the case of the lottery tickets, it may be sensible / rationale for somebody to follow a hunch.  However, if a guy tells his wife "I absolutely know I'm going to win on this lottery ticket", and he ultimately loses, the wife has a right to chide him a bit for his hubris, thinking that he could predict the outcome definitively over something that he really had no control over.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The other side of it, many of the people that were actually being realistic, were labeled as optimistic instead.

[Edgar]

Lets just say that the word realist is an educated way and non ofensive manner to say pesimist.
being said that, I consider mysel a beleiver that this team is not as dominant as the 2008 one. But I want soooo bad to be proved wrong.
I need it.
This guys are doing that thus far
And I love it
the last stone on the road could be a very big, experienced, hungry for revenge, home court advantaged one.
So hope the gas and impulse last till then.

Then I am not a optimist, not a realist, not a pesimist, I label myself as a Hoper.
Not a grasshoper but a Greenhoper.

[Fan from VT]

fundamental question: does an outcome, expected or unexpected, change the validity of the rationale behind an assessment?

People can be proven right or wrong.  It does not, however, necessarily make their opinion realistic or unrealistic.

The problem, I think, with the self-described "realists" was that they made definitive statements that this team had no chance.  Basically, it was the Celticsblog equivalent of Barkley saying he'd bet his house that we'd lose.  It's fine to have that point of view.  What's not fine, in my opinion, is to label that view as the only realistic one.

In the case of the lottery tickets, it may be sensible / rationale for somebody to follow a hunch.  However, if a guy tells his wife "I absolutely know I'm going to win on this lottery ticket", and he ultimately loses, the wife has a right to chide him a bit for his hubris, thinking that he could predict the outcome definitively over something that he really had no control over.

so what if someone says they are definitely going to win the lotto...and does? were they "right?" i actually don't think so. reason being, before the drawing, there were 999,999 other exactly identical people with the exact same thought about winning and the exact same odds of winning. because everything is completely equal for these people, they are all right in their logic or all wrong, and the outcome cannot retroactively change the correctness of the decision making. so the winner was wrong...but lucky

[Edgar]

Lets just say that the word realist is an educated way and non ofensive manner to say pesimist.
being said that, I consider mysel a beleiver that this team is not as dominant as the 2008 one. But I want soooo bad to be proved wrong.
I need it.
This guys are doing that thus far
And I love it
the last stone on the road could be a very big, experienced, hungry for revenge, home court advantaged one.
So hope the gas and impulse last till then.

Then I am not a optimist, not a realist, not a pesimist, I label myself as a Hoper.
Not a grasshoper but a Greenhoper.

And Hope we win on saturday.

[Roy Hobbs]

fundamental question: does an outcome, expected or unexpected, change the validity of the rationale behind an assessment?

People can be proven right or wrong.  It does not, however, necessarily make their opinion realistic or unrealistic.

The problem, I think, with the self-described "realists" was that they made definitive statements that this team had no chance.  Basically, it was the Celticsblog equivalent of Barkley saying he'd bet his house that we'd lose.  It's fine to have that point of view.  What's not fine, in my opinion, is to label that view as the only realistic one.

In the case of the lottery tickets, it may be sensible / rationale for somebody to follow a hunch.  However, if a guy tells his wife "I absolutely know I'm going to win on this lottery ticket", and he ultimately loses, the wife has a right to chide him a bit for his hubris, thinking that he could predict the outcome definitively over something that he really had no control over.

so what if someone says they are definitely going to win the lotto...and does? were they "right?" i actually don't think so. reason being, before the drawing, there were 999,999 other exactly identical people with the exact same thought about winning and the exact same odds of winning. because everything is completely equal for these people, they are all right in their logic or all wrong, and the outcome cannot retroactively change the correctness of the decision making. so the winner was wrong...but lucky

It's an interesting philosophical question.  I think they were absolutely "right" or "correct".  Whether they were rational or realistic in their prediction is a different question, but through luck or cheating, they were correct in their prognostication.

Bringing it back to the Celtics, I think that those who said the team was "dead" or that "the facts don't lie, this team isn't a championship contender" were wrong.  By definition, then, I think it means that there's wasn't the only realistic point of view.  There were reasons to be wary, and I understand why people lost faith.  There are no medals for blind optimism, and it's not the mark of a "true fan".  However, I just never saw the point in derisively labeling those who believed in this team, and I think those "unrealistic" optimists are probably finding a bit of vindication right now.

[barefacedmonk]

Regular season game threads were ugly...there was tons of negativity....lots of eye rolls....anybody who said something positive or talked about keeping faith in our team was greeted with mockery and was asked to put away the kool aid..remove the green lensed glasses etc.....I'm just glad that those nay sayers are finally quite....and for this reason alone...I thought PLamb's idea of two game threads made some sense....I'll leave it at that....we are playing terrific basketball atm...just as I'd hoped and expected...GO CELTICS!

[fairweatherfan]

fundamental question: does an outcome, expected or unexpected, change the validity of the rationale behind an assessment?

People can be proven right or wrong.  It does not, however, necessarily make their opinion realistic or unrealistic.

The problem, I think, with the self-described "realists" was that they made definitive statements that this team had no chance.  Basically, it was the Celticsblog equivalent of Barkley saying he'd bet his house that we'd lose.  It's fine to have that point of view.  What's not fine, in my opinion, is to label that view as the only realistic one.

In the case of the lottery tickets, it may be sensible / rationale for somebody to follow a hunch.  However, if a guy tells his wife "I absolutely know I'm going to win on this lottery ticket", and he ultimately loses, the wife has a right to chide him a bit for his hubris, thinking that he could predict the outcome definitively over something that he really had no control over.

so what if someone says they are definitely going to win the lotto...and does? were they "right?" i actually don't think so. reason being, before the drawing, there were 999,999 other exactly identical people with the exact same thought about winning and the exact same odds of winning. because everything is completely equal for these people, they are all right in their logic or all wrong, and the outcome cannot retroactively change the correctness of the decision making. so the winner was wrong...but lucky

Yeah, but the lottery is purely random, and basketball is not.  Basketball has actual predictors, though with tons of variability, and the lottery has the illusion of predictors at best.  So current basketball events can be interpreted in a way that is supported by later results, or not, and lottery numbers can only be a lucky guess, or not.  The trick is figuring out if the people who got the basketball stuff right were right by accident or because they understood what was going to happen. 

Doesn't make the optimists "right" if they were sure this run would happen; the odds were definitely against us when we were in our long slump.  But I think the bigger point is that it's silly for anyone to label themselves as objectively more realistic when talking about the future, and people who disagree with them as less realistic.  It would be wrong for optimistic posters to start labeling themselves "realists" now, too.

But hey, a pretty awesome problem to have, right    What a great month!

[BballTim]

  I spent the entire season claiming that the Celts were as capable of winning the title as any team in the league, and got a reasonable amount of grief about it. I've made a post or two that referred to that fact, but in general I've tried to avoid it. Why? It's the playoffs, and we're looking good. There's no reason to try and spoil it for others.

  Next season, when we're "no longer contenders" again, it will probably come up...

[nickagneta]

Being a person that was labeled as a "blind optimist" by a very trollish poster that really caused most of this schism with his constant negativity in the game threads as well as a "realist" by others and even a "quitter" by a very famous former staff member, I think this is all just bad for the blog.

I hate watching the game and blogging in the game threads and having someone tell me the Celtics suck at every turn. Drives me nuts. Hence my call for separate game threads. Critical views are fine doing those threads, trollish Celtic hate is not.

This then spilled over to various threads as people from both sides of the extreme tried to make their cases. It was not good. Petty is a good word for what it became.

That said, it's time to put that all behind us and realize we are each all allowed our opinions and the opportunity to make them. And as long as we all realize to respect each others opinions, this probably won't happen again.

[More Banners]

Well...props to Roy for bringing up what needed to in order to clear some air around here.

The main lessons I take from the season (and postseason thus far) are these:

1) the team didn't play to its potential (even discounting for injury) for a significant portion of the season, including the last weeks of the season, making it impossible to get a clear read on their prospects in the postseason.

2) we're still not an athletic team, but haven't (and won't) see an athletic opponent this postseason, so we got lucky there.  The current playoff success doesn't erase this problem, but thankfully allows it to wait until the summer to address it.

2a) playoff series' are still about matchups, and we match up well with the teams we've played against, and also against LA...so we have a pretty good shot.  Without knowing the matchups, and as important as it is, it really is impossible to predict playoff outcomes.  Thank goodness we didn't have to play a series against the Hawks.  Or Wizards, for that matter.

And a couple other observations:

There was very little evidence on the court after Christmas that this team was a contender, and plenty that they weren't, though the roster looked strong and matchups were favorable against "top" teams(as mentioned).  Opinions both ways were well justified.

If this season is evidence for the "switch" theory, I stand by the idea that any team/player that tries it is playing with fire.

[libermaniac]

I'm just glad that those nay sayers are finally quite

The great thing about it is, SO ARE THEY!  We are all Celtic fans here, some of us just have higher defense mechanisms.  But, everybody is happy, and a believer today.  Go C's!

[BballTim]

Thank goodness we didn't have to play a series against the Hawks.  Or Wizards, for that matter.

  We'd have easily beaten the Hawks if we'd played them. THey wouldn't have presented any more of a challenge than the Heat did.