The "realist" debate revisited

[BudweiserCeltic]

Hopefully, this season has served as a reminder that nobody has the monopoly on "realism".  That's the only lesson we have to bring into next season, I think.  

I think there is another, more simple lesson to be learned here.

Not every negative post is a panicking debbie-downer jumping off the bandwagon, just like not every positive post is from a kool-aid drinking homer.

We all want the best for this team.

If the negative is well articulated and well thought out, I don't see much of a problem. Many of us would disagree and a have a good debate about it, but the dynamic should be much different than what went on during the past months.

And surely, that "just being realistic" crap needs to go, unless it's actually backed by hard evidence and taking into consideration all relevant factors, and being reasonable. Things that were missing by plenty (on both sides), which was part of the frustration from some in the arguments.

[dark_lord]

From reading this thread, I don't know how healthy this discussion really is.  For that reason I've been hesitant to post here.  But I still see the things that RH was pointing out in the OP happening several pages into the thread, and I guess I'm ready to speak up.

When I read some of the "realist" posts in this thread they read reasonably, but the tone of the posts still suggests to me a viewpoint that the only rational reading of the available evidence of this season was that the Celtics couldn't contend, and the fact that they are now contending is not an indication that they misinterpreted the available data but is instead an unpredictable outcome based upon luck and other things that can't be counted upon.

This was always the core of my disagreement with the "realist" movement around here, and seems to be what RH was pointing out as well: the more pessimistic view was NOT the only rational way to look at the available evidence, and the more optimistic viewpoint had a lot more going for it than just pure "Green Faith".

I wrote in January, when things were first going bad, that before KG's "thigh bruise" the Celtics of THIS season were winning more than 80% of their games with a scoring margin of almost +10...just like 2009 before KG's knee injury, and 2008.

I wrote in February, when things were even more touchy, of how the team's performance could be tracked very closely with Garnett's health.  That during the only month this season when KG had looked anywhere near healthy, the team had looked nigh unbeatable while going something like 15-1.

I wrote in March, when things were approaching the nadir, that regardless of health the Celtics were 31 - 11 with a +7.4 margin (both of which would have challenged Cleveland for top in the NBA) when KG and Pierce both played, and were 9 - 10 with a -0.9 margin when either or both sat.

The point of me saying this now isn't to pat myself on the back...it's to show that even during the worst of the season, when things looked the most bleak, their were definite, quantifiable reasons to conclude that this team was a contender when healthy.  Now, if someone questioned whether the team would actually BE healthy, that I can understand.  

But to suggest that there was absolutely no reason outside of pure homerism or optimism to suggest this team could contend is false.  It was false in the season, and it's being demonstrated to be false now.  To me, this isn't an "optimists" vs "pessimists" thing, it's more that there's more than one way to view data, and if you fall in love with your own interpretation to the point that anyone that disagrees with you is unrealistic, it sets up a dynamic like this one that's still being fought well down the road when by now we should all just be on the same page enjoying the ride (IMO, of course,   )

The quest for #18 continues...

well said, tp!