RE: All You O'Brien Groupies Can Rejoice

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Kestutis Kveraga <Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu>
wrote:
> --- You wrote:
> A joint response to the Paul and Antione (you can
> argue among yourselves who is who--although Kestus
> has
> expressed a concern over being equated with Antione,
> cause he doesn't want the inference to be that he
> only
> performs well in writing his anti-Tione propaganda
> half of the time... *smile*) of the list:
> --- end of quote ---
> 
> That's pretty funny, Ryun. 


I'm wondering if you know my name is spelled Ryan; it
seems unlikely that you mis-typed (the 'a' is a long
way from the 'u' on the keyboard).  And if not and
it's supposed to be a pun of some sort, I missed it. 
Sorry.

> 
> 
> --- You wrote:
> So basically you're both calling out Tommy because
> he
> repeats the same three important points over and
> over,
> without adding any new analysis?  Unfortunately, the
> same criticism may be applicable to the two of you;
> in
> that all you guys talk about is how much Antione is
> controlling (and thus, in your opinion, ruining)
> this
> team, and how much the BDT has to go, and how a
> first
> round loss would be so beneficial long term.  
> --- end of quote ---
> 
> Yes, the irony occurred to me while I was writing my
> second or third response
> on the topic today :)
> However, you don't have to read us 90 times a year
> for 2.5 hours. You can do
> the same thing I did - tune out. 

True that, but I submit that Tommy says more than
simply basing the refs.  What about the frequent
shoutouts to the redhead in Needham?  Or the frequent
pleas to tape ankles?  Or the praise of Antione as the
best offensive rebounder in Celtics' history?  As you
can see, Tommy has many many stock points he likes to
make over the course of a game.  Is that bad?  i.e.
does that make a bad color commentator?  I would say
not.  In fact, every color commentator (and some poor
play-by-play men) has some sort of agenda to
further....i.e. they see the game in a certain manner
and everything they comment on is a reflection of that
manner.  Thus, all Tommy does in the process of
commentating is the furtherment of his Tommyesque
agenda, i.e., his perspective on how the game is to be
played.  Thus, he will repeat himself for the simple
fact that what he repeats is how he sees the game,
making each particular happening in the game a further
justification of what he believes.  It's the same
thing we all do on this board, and it is the way
humans communicate (at least in academia).  I don't
really know if I made a point or answered/refuted what
you said, but nonetheless remember that Tommy is
better than most other commentators around and he
actually isn't afraid to voice an opinion against the
officials (which is more than I can say for most color
commentators).  


> 
> Yes, it's a problem. But 1) Tommy's belief that the
> refs are conspiring against
> the Celtics is unreasonable (they may hate Toine,
> but that's his own doing),
> and 2) he's paid to provide insightful comentary,
> not to rant like a raving
> maniac about the refs, no matter how much it galls
> him. The refs do suck
> sometimes, but not all the time, and not just for
> the Celtics. 
> 

Yet there is something to the fact that the Celtics 
are hit with an inordinate number of bad calls when
compared with other winning teams.  It may be
unreasonable to say that this is some intentional
conspiracy against the Celtics, but nonetheless a
discrepency exists.  Why do Kobe or Iverson or McGrady
get calls that Pierce does not?  I would say there is
a sort of prejudice or unconscious bias against the
Celtics stemming from the emnity that past winning
creates in all the other losers.  Does this also
infect the officiating?  It's hard to say, but these
men (and a woman) are human....and they let
preconceptions skew the way the game is called.  You
can see it in the way travelling is called.  It is
extremely arbitrary.  If a good or great player makes
a move that involved a travel, it is usually ignored
as they give the player the benefit of a doubt. 
However, if a lesser, unknown, or even bad player
makes a move which involves a travel, usually the ref
is thinking to himself, "you can't make that move
[impling that there are not good enough] and I'm going
to make sure [by whistling it]"  These preconceptions
cause an observable inequality that deserves
attention, although Tommy, I will admit, does go
overboard in some instances.  But I appreciate that;
because it admits of humanity; a humanity that is
outraged by inequality.  And that is a good thing. 


> 
> --- You wrote:
> This argument, if it even is an argument, is built
> on
> a faulty premise; that the extensions are a result
> of
> the success of the Indiana series (which isn't over,
> mind you).  These extensions were always going to be
> tendered as long as O'Brien was coach; it was just a
> matter of when.  And when Auerbach got in the
> owners'
> collective ear, the time had come.  That is the only
> reason.  O'Brien, unlike Wallace, has never been in
> danger of losing his job.  
> --- end of quote ---
> 
> Unless you have some evidence OTHER than what they
> say in the paper, it sounds
> like an unsubstantiated opinion to me. The fact is,
> we don't know where Obie
> stood before this playoff series. Once they decided
> to keep him, they were not
> going to say, "we were considering firing Obie
> before Toine and Isiah pulled
> his bacon out of the fire" as a preface to the Obie
> contract-extension speech.
> That they met with him in the middle of the 6-game
> losing streak in what was
> described by both parties as not a very pleasant
> meeting that involved
> criticizing his coaching decisions, indicates to me
> that they were far from
> convinced that Obie is their man. That's just my
> opinion, it may be wrong, but
> at least I have some evidence to support it. 

I, unlike the rest, actually believe a portion of what
I read in the papers.  The reason, I believe, that
O'Brien was never in ultimate danger of being fired is
that his players would have been pissed.  Beyond
Antione (who you think is the defacto coach, and thus
by definition would have to love the faux coach who
provides the defacto covering), O'Brien's players love
him.  And you can't fire a coach that is loved by his
players unless it is obvious (to everyone) that a
change needs to be made.  An embarrasing first round
loss (such as a sweep) may have constituted that. 
Then again, it may have not, depending on varying
circumstances.  Thus, they have always been willing to
extend O'Brien and his assitants, unless unforeseen
circumstances warrant otherwise.  

The Celtics owners, I believe, can see the mistakes
that Wallace has made.  Firing Wallace does not
involve the players...and even the players can see the
mistakes he has made and rationalize his dismissal. 
Additionally, by firing Wallace, it shows a degree of
disapproval towards the basketball team, and thus
serves as motivation for O'Brien to make this team
better.  You just can't fire both GM and coach on a
whim.  It must be substantiated.  Bad trades that
don't handicap a team from making the playoffs and
potentially advancing is not a good reason to fire a
coach that sometimes makes some mistakes.  It's just a
reason to get him better players to see what he can
do.  Now, if the Celtics ownership provides better
players to O'Brien that they think can make them a
better team, and a better team doesn't result, then
that constitutes a removal of coach O'Brien.  But
until that time, he stays.  Tough luck to you all ;)  
 

 
> If Wallace is still around, he'll be kept on a very
> short leash, as he
> apparently  has been since the takeover (as the
> article makes clear). So, they
> may just use him as a glorified scout and make all
> the decisions themselves,
> after consulting with Obie. It was obvious from the
> article that the so-called
> "noble trade" (as Joe Hironaka described the Blount
> trade), was anything but.
> Wallace was simply carrying out direct orders from
> the ownership on a request
> by Obie. It seems he's little more than a scout and
> a paperwork man now, which
> is a very good thing. Needless to say, a better
> thing yet would be to find a
> competent  GM asap. 
> Kestas

Actually, Kestus, the situation you portray doesn't
sound that bad.  Make Wallace a glorified scout.  He
is pretty good at it.  Don't let him make decisions. 
Let it be a group thing, with O'Brien and the players
(who usually have a much better idea of what is
happening in terms of scouting than any executive)
having the majority of the decision making powers. 
There is credence to the "one leader" formula of sport
management, in that one vision is usually clearer and
better than a muddled and cloudy group decision. 
However, in our particular case, it would be better to
just delegate power in a proper manner.  Give Wallace
reign in the scouting department.  Give that scouting
information to the ownership.  Consult with O'Brien on
the players he feels he needs to add depth (so we can
be a running team the entire season, instead of just
the playoffs).  Consult the players.  Find a group of
5-10 players to target with the two picks.  Work them
out with Antione, Paul and anyone else who would show
up.  The current players will ultimately know if they
can compete and fit in on the team.  Then, on draft
day, make the appropriate decision.  It's all about
delegation.  Let people make decisions they have the
knowledge to make and we will be fine.  Of course,
this is all assuming that the new ownership is
competent.  But why not....the model I just proposed
is exactly how top business are run efficiently....and
judging from the money it took to purchase the
Celtics, at least we can assume the new ownership of
having competent business sense.  

Ryan



P.S.  Kestus, what do you teach at Dartmouth?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com