Peter May is Contradicting Himself

Peter May got busted! LOL. So his explanation is that he wrote in 06 what he thought the fans wanted. If so, then why did he write this: “(nor should he be at this point).” Doesn’t that imply HIS feelings and not the fans’?

Kudos Roy,

Start a blog, that was great material.

We need a watchdog for the boston mainstream. Stay vigilent and keep asking questions. Nice work!

Did you people even read May’s reply? Or do you just want to imagine yourselves as “busting” the mainstream media? May finds no contradiction in the two articles (or small parts thereof) and neither do I.

Besides, hasn’t anyone here ever changed his mind or reversed field on a topic? In the immortal words of Rick Pitino, “That’s how I felt about it at the time.”

Peter May is not the only one contradicting himself. I think a lot of celtics fans have been stuck in the middle the last two seasons with the ideas of building around pierce or totally blowing it up. Many fans I know have changed minds numerous times about what they want to see.

I also believe that May has simply been presenting some facts to the readers, not neccessarily voicing pro/con opinions.

But good work digging the articles up.

 The only problem I see is there are far too many muckrakers on this blog. :(

I’d much rather they get some close-game wins in that put less pressure on PP WITH the losing record. Over good teams. Call it wishful thinking.

Last year May wrote that article talking about what “Celtic Fans wanted to see, more hard fought losses”.

This year he can’t write that same article again…it would be redundant journalism so he is offering the alternative scenerio of what might happen if we tank this year….a majority chance not to land the top two picks.

A newbie here. Allow me to chime in. :)
I think Peter May is entitled to flip-flop.
In fact, he’s supposed to give us both sides of the story. That’s what a reporter does unless you work for Fox News.
As a columnist, Bill Simmons does this all the time. Have you been emailing him, too?

Maybe Peter May realized that a strategy of tanking year after year is not getting us there.

So Peter is a chameleon? How dull it would be for a sportswriter to drivel the same nonsense without a breath of fresh thought, even as an afterthought. Let’s not forget that the WORST record still “rewards” us with a 75% chance of not landing the top pick and a 50% chance of NOT getting the top 2 picks.

While Oden and Durant appear to be the cream of this year’s crop, it’s not inconceivable that another “sleeper” is out there waiting to be discovered. The draft ALWAYS remains a “crap” shoot and we’ve seen the talent scouts wrong on more than a few occasions.

Perhaps the Celtic nation should remain ambivalent about the positives and negatives of losing. Then we, like Peter May, could be labeled as “inconsistent”!

It would be okay if he just changed his mind, but:

1. if you ever were going to look for a tank strategy, this is the year. Two potential franchise guys, a bunch of other solid big men, one or two who could be franchise guys also. Additionally the woeful injury luck has put as wicked far down.

2. both articles were written in such a snide manner “if you’re a real fan” and the condescending talk about tanking this year.

how about give us some insight on the view point and in a respectful manner Pete?

Peter May is always a contrarian, and keep in mind that the circumstances changed radically between May’s first and last column. When he wrote the first, we were still hopeful that the Celtics would save this season. Now, it is obvious that tanking is our reality.

I say, make the best of the situation. Enjoy the young players’ playing time, and hope for a decisive lottery win. May is just trying to play Grinch and steal that satisfaction from us.

This point is exactly right, and is the reason that all the arguments about May being a contrarian, devil’s advocate, trying to stir debate, etc. are a load of bunk.

Peter May is just a bitter, lazy writer who likes nothing more than seeing the Celtics fail.

But is he still a fan? I think so. I think we should appreciate that fact, but that of course doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with what he says.

Two different seasons and situations. Not really inconsistent. Celtics were hoping to drop in their lottery position at end of last season. We’re already down there this year. With this team and its record and the point of development for several of the young core learning to win and gaining the experience and confidence from winning is a big positive. And it shouldn’t cost us much in terms of probability of getting a very high pick (see â€Å"Two Tiers in Oden/Durant Race”).

May’s advisory is correct that being in the top lottery position guarantees nothing. Celtics are not going to increase their chances much by tanking at this point. We should be thankful for the injuries at this point. The likelihood as I’ve written before is that they stay in the top two, three, or four lottery spots even if they play over .500 the rest of the way. And they have a decent chance at the top two picks if they are in any of the top four lottery positions. If this is correct some bloggers are making a lot out of very little.

Whether May is lazy or not I can’t say, nor can I say if he is bitter. I do find his articles offer greater insight into the NBA than any other writer in the region, but then I like the Globe over the other papers both in style and substance. No, I don’t always agree with Peter May but I do enjoy reading his material.

I don’t think there’s any question he’s equivocating, but not by much. Here’s what I think May means by both the two statements, and his defense: There’s a difference between tanking to get into the lottery and a shot at a decent player, and trying to REALLY tank it to get one of the top two picks. I’d wager a huge difference.
The situations are diifferent from last year to this: Last year we were on the verge of getting into the lottery, now we’re talking about the top pick. The odds situation is very, very different.
Make sense?

Sorry, SteveZ, didn’t read your (better written) post before writing my own. Well said.

Contradictory or not, I think May’s comment about The Natural was hilarious. I think Roy Hobbs using his screenname to email Peter May was even funnier.