RE: All You O'Brien Groupies Can Rejoice

[Kestas <kkv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:03 PM 4/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:

> 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.
I was wondering the same thing - whether you knew that my name was spelled 
'Kestas'.


> 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).
It's all fine and I understand that. It's just when he starts ranting about 
the refs from the get-go and won't let up, it gets old - especially when 
you've already heard it 80 or 90 times this season.


> 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 don't know that there's any evidence to support either of your claims. It 
may have more to do with your bias as a Celtics fan than anything else. 
Pierce has been one of the league leaders in FTA the last couple of years. 
Toine may NOT get the benefit of the doubt - and yes, it's unfair - but he 
only has himself to blame. People don't take it well when you screech at 
them like a howler monkey every time a call is made involving you, or not 
made when you think it should have been.



> 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.
Sure, the players would have a better idea what the potential draft picks 
can do than Wallace, can't hurt to consult them. It also wouldn't hurt to 
compile a psychological profile on potential draftees so that we don't pick 
someone as timid as Kedrick and JJ, or a pain in the ass troublemaker like 
Forte. At least talk to them at length, get to know them beyond their 
vertical and wingspan numbers.


> P.S.  Kestus, what do you teach at Dartmouth?
I don't, at least not in the sense that you mean.  I'm a Ph.D. student in 
neuroscience.