I'm A Fool And All Of You Are Too

The comment you quote, Jeff, is a rather vacant attempt to turn basketball into brain surgery, which it isn’t.

With that said, Doc’s a better coach than people want to give him credit for. Great coach? No. Too many moving targets for that designation. Pretty clear, though, that he’s had some very, very bad Celtics teams, particularly last year.

I agree with Doc.

People are entitled to their opinions, of course. But should NBA players and coaches really care what is said in the blogosphere, especially when one of the most visible bloggers, Bill Simmons, is proven wrong so often?

The other thing about Simmons is that he is a negativity monger. The Celtics complete an historic 66-16 regular season, and someone please tell me exactly how many positive celtics-related columns he wrote? I don’t remember a one. However, once the Celtics started disappointing in the playoffs, he dusted off his negativity soundtrack, and trotted out the same old tired crap from last year. Doc sucks this and my dad observed that.

The main objective of his posts are to get a laugh, and, given that mission, why would any one take him seriously?

Thing is, coaches invariably want to make basketball into some complex form of nuclear fission that no one but them can understand.

It isn’t, and there are a number of people on this board who understand the game well enough to coach it. Doesn’t mean they’re all like that. There are a couple of Celtics message boards which are totally in the dark about the game, and the team.

So from that standpoint, his argument falls upon deaf ears.

Hmmm.

Is the quote that you can’t criticize if you haven’t played or people should think twice before paying heed to that criticism?

“Answer me this. Why would someone listen to a guy that hasn’t played, he hasn’t coached.”[/i][i]

Like a lot of coaches, Doc is more comfortable going to the veterans at playoff time. That is why we see Brown and Cassell.
I think Brown is a good choice as he is a reliable player who usually makes the right play. If Cassell isn’t hitting his shots, there is no reason to have him in there. I would prefer
House playing when Rondo is resting and let Pierce bring the ball up.

I’m an engineer, have an engineering degree, took a lot of tough courses in college. Over the years I’ve worked hard to become proficient in using various software programs and to stay abreast of my field.

And yet… if Doc Rivers spent hours watching me and guys like me for months every year for decades, daily reading up on my field in blog sites, while listening to various commentators analyze my actions, I would guarantee you he’d understand a lot about what I was doing, and would be entitled to his opinion about my worth as an engineer.

Coaches are in the public arena, and public scrutiny comes with the job. If they don’t like it, tough.

I get what Doc is saying, but I don’t understand the tendancy among sports and political figured to assign more credibility to “reporters” than to bloggers.

In my early career, before I became a shill for wrinkle cream and credit card companies, I worked as a reporter. I can tell you definitively: There are plenty of uninformed reporters. Just because you have the name of a big newspaper or magazine of cable news channel on your business card, doesn’t automatically make you credible. And I think the staff writers on this site, in particular, have consistently shown equal or superior knowledge to any in the Boston media establishment. In fact, I’ll take Steve W. over almost anyone on the Globe or Herald staff.

I agree with you Justine, but I think people are ignoring a portion of the quote “some of the guys have never even been reporters”. What this tells me is that he considers reporters as lacking knowledge too, but the distinction has to be made that being a reporter does add to the credibility just because of the position, regardless of individuals.

There are some good bloggers out there, but the internet is LITTERED with blogs that are worth crap, and it’s them that give bloggers a bad name. Sure, there are poor reporters, but by enlarge the ratio between good reporters to bad reporters is far better than in the blogging scene.

And then you have to add that most blogs are from random faceless people, with who knows what kind of background… The main critique was for the amount of weight given to their opinions, and he’s quite accurate in that believe. Regardless how right or wrong bloggers feel they are, the opinions of proffessionals and experts should carry more weight.

Now who’s the fool? Me, or the people listening to them?’ ”

I guess I am. I’m not experienced enough as a professional coach to have 3 successive regressing seasons.
I will say this. Nobody in the history of NBA coaching annals have made more excuses for being terrible than Doc Rivers.

It takes true coaching genius and experience to lay down for half a season. It takes true coaching genius and experience to orchestrate a defense that played like it was laying down for 3 full seasons. It takes true coaching genius to shaft your players to the press.

Is it me or is it hard to imagine anybody doing any worst than Doc whether they’ve played/coached or not in his first three seasons here?

I don’t know if I’m too late for anyone to read this but I want to add my own thoughts here anyway.

This whole and very interesting thread started with a great approach article by Jeff Clark.

For the record, Jeff and I are not really ‘acquaintances’ though we live in the Celtics blog world together. While we know who each other is (I think), we haven’t had reason to have any real communication with each other.

But I want to say that….that kind of article is what makes Jeff special on the internet. It is an honest reaction to a set of comments can be construed to encompass him in its criticism.

Jeff’s response is thoughtful and honest -hardly a man that Doc’s comments would target. Jeff is a class act. That alone makes Jeff stand out on the ‘rip ’em a new one’ message board world. At the same time, he is not alone in using good judgment in his use of power here. And it a certain level of power that he has here. Make no mistake about it.

So, I agree with Justin that Doc’s comments must have a particular blogger in mind. When I saw the comments, my immediate thought was that it might even mean me. It could certainly include me. I’ve never even played on a high school team. I’ve played a lot of schoolyard pavement ball, but that hardly qualifies.

I moved from straight blogger to a bit of a hybrid position for the Connecticut Post. But I am mostly still a blogger. I just do it for a bigger, and somewhat different audience. I view myself as semi-legitimate.

To be truthful, I’ve asked myself the very questions that Doc asks. How interesting that those with limited real life basketball experience and qualifications are in the position to make opinions and judgments about those whose very livelihoods depend on their performance.

If I was in Doc’s position, I might feel the very same way some times. Other times, the opinions offered by many of those in this thread should be understood to be valid or at least part of the reality of the game and the business. But Doc knows this.

He has had shots taken at him for a long while. So he decides to give a few shots back. Utterly human. He knows it is a fans’ game as much as it belongs to the professionals. That’s just how it works.

I too have had direct ‘encounters’ with Doc both before and after games. It is almost always in a press conference setting. Honestly, before and after games, he doesn’t make himself very available for ‘one on one’ type questioning – even with the reporters, unless you’re with the Globe, Herald or some national media. I guess you would have to make a daytime practice to even be considered to get a ‘one on one’ with him. I can’t do that with my day job, if he would even agree to meet with me.

I’d love to talk to him – just him and me. There are a whole bunch of questions I would like to get his take on.

Think about the guys in front rows at games. They get to yell at multi-millionaire ball players for 2 solid hours, and critique their every move – no matter how intelligent, knowledgeable, or partial they themselves may be. It is pure Americanism. Probably worldwide even. But at least the team gets the value of selling them the high priced seats to do it.

Bloggers are the next step up. It takes no special hurdles to blog. And the vetting process is a lassez faire one at that. The people decide who they will read or listen to. Any gifted speaker, or writer can get an audience. Just sound like you know what you are talking about and you’ll acquire a following, whether you actually do or not.

Personally, I’m not a fan of Bill Simmons, if that is who the attack is about. I seldom (make that rarely) read him. In fact, a reader of mine has called me the “anti-Bill Simmons”. I’ll take that as a compliment, though it could also mean that I might be better than a sedative for going to sleep.

Anyway, this past season, I’ve made a solid effort to watch games far more closely, watch defense far more carefully, and watch ‘off the ball’ play far more than I ever have. I want to be worthy of the spot I have obtained.

I know one thing. I now view Pierce’s previously ‘poor’ defensive games in the past few years, where guys like Jared Jeffries have season high scoring games, in a different light. Most likely, that was part of the game plan. Let Pierce help on the real offensive players and see if Jeffries can do any damage. The defensive schemes are not always readily visible to the naked eye. Sometimes they are.

But I also agree that this isn’t nuclear science either. Bill Russell once said that he wouldn’t discuss basketball with fans. It was like a brain surgeon trying to explain what he does to a layman. So said Bill, one of my favorite players of all time.

Was he right? I guess that is what that article and this thread is about.

best,
T