Re: What I like

[bird <birdwl@earthlink.net>]

On Sunday, January 6, 2002, at 01:48 PM, R. Bentz Kirby wrote:

> If they were a good team, they would not have lost twice to the Bulls, at 
> least
> once to the Hawks, or been killed by Miami the other night.  Plus they 
> would
> have beaten Phoenix.  So, I stand by my opinion.  If they get a good big 
> man
> and a great back up point guard, they might become a good team.
>
> I agree that they are much more fun than years past, and I like their 
> record.
> But they are not playing the game of basketball at a consistently high 
> levels.
> As a Celtic fan, I am used to excellence and maybe what I consider a good 
> team
> is one that will be in the finals, and we know it in November or December.
> They are two players away from that.  But, do I like this team, oh yes I 
> do.
> That was my point.

Sure, that came across very well.  And I also know from your longtime 
posts that you are a reasonable person, even if I don't always agree with 
you, but I think the problem here is your use of "good".  To me, this team 
*defines* good.  They are a good team.  The kind of things you're talking 
about -- i.e. playing at "consistently high levels" and the like -- are 
indicative of "great" teams, maybe "really very good" teams, perhaps 
"dominant" teams.  "Good" teams occasionally lose to teams that aren't 
good.  You pick out a few examples, but they're not necessarily indicative.
   I could just as easily say they're a good team by picking out the Magic 
victory, beating a resurgent Wizards, beating the Suns once, etc.  In 
addition, I believe they are 2-1 this year against the Bulls, so your 
first example turns out not to be the case.

If you only consider "good" teams to be the ones that make it to the Big 
Dance, then that's your perogative, but it seems a bit silly to me.  There 
are probably a number of "good" teams that won't make it all the way, and 
would probably disagree with your use of the term "good".

I don't think the Celts are a dominant team, nor even a really good team, 
but they aren't chopped liver anymore, either.  Way/Ray hasn't posted very 
much recently; they must be doing at least decently.

Can we agree to call them decent?  Above mediocre?  Not-too-shabby?  
Above-average?  Not sucky?

Bird