CBS sports: coach of the year

I was tempted not to post this, but some people might enjoy it. It's too back handed and generic for my taste.(link) I added comments in the brackets for my own amusement. I recall busting Matt Moore's chops early this season, so this his take hasn't really evolved to show he's even watched a Blazer game.

Terry Stotts, Portland Trail Blazers (9.3) [9.3!?!? Stotts' scale goes to 11. Get on board or go home!] : Stotts coaches the league's hottest team and the biggest surprise team through the first half of the season. [NEWS FLASH!] The Trail Blazers were supposed to be better this season but not "homecourt advantage" good. [OR "best record in the Western Conference" good.] Instead, Stotts has orchestrated arguably the league's best offense, [arguable if you chose not to accept reality] with a decent chance of pushing two separate Blazers to All-Star status [Book it.] Portland spent much of the first two months of the season at the [VERY] top of the brutal Western Conference, and Stotts' management of both the rotations on Portland's bench, finding matchup advantages, and out of bounds play execution (the Blazers are No. 1 in side-out-of-bounds plays according to Synergy Sports) has to catch your eye. [Watching the Blazers play will have that affect too.]

Is their defense good enough to sustain what will inevitably be a comedown from their wild close-game record through the first two months of the season? [Is making a statement in the form of a question journalism? And, do you still beat your wife?] If the Blazers are still really good but slip from the top four of the West [or end up with the best record in the West], will the altered expectations hurt Stotts? [or make him the greatest coach in Blazer franchise history?] Had [Had to tell? You mean you were trying so HARD to think of something to say you didn't edit your article for CBS sports?] to tell but you have to think taking a fringe playoff team and making them what some [Some, but no you, amIright?] consider a title contender is going to earn you points. [precisely 9.3 apparently...]

 

Your inserted commentary isn't helpful. Better to quote him without remarks and then add your remarks later.

His point is well-taken, however. Stotts would seem to be the leading contender for Coach of the Year.

 

Really? I found them extremely helpful. Without them, it was like consuming a chunked and formed, char-marked, thermo-stabilized, meat patty from one of my Dad's MREs. They literally kept me from throwing up all over my keyboard.

The link was provided to his original article and you are certainly free to click on it to read something you already knew.

 

Your diatribe of critiquing every sports writer is getting played out. The guy gave Stotts a 9.3 out of 10 the highest score awarded to the coach of the team with the NBA's third best record. That certainly does not seem like a slight to me. I think you meant second best record in the Western Conference good.

Best offense is arguable Portland may have the best Off Eff rating but their EFG% and TFG% are 7th and 6th respectfully. They also score the most points but are 6th in Points Per Shot. One could easily argue Miami has the best offense because they shoot a lot higher percentages from the field and take more free throws.

The greatest coach is Blazers history is laughable at this point.

Your amazing homerism is commendable but when you start bashing article that praise the team you are grasping at straws.

 

I've heard such behavior called "soccer mom" behavior.

 

I read about two lines, then stopped reading, to be honest. Breaking up the analytics with your own diatribe makes it tough to read. I was trying to figure out if it was the author or you.

Nothing personal. I am quite guilty of doing the same, so I'm sure many people would say the same about my writing style. Consider yourself lucky - it's just one post. I do it in half my posts.

 

That's why I usually use the quote brackets when I want to highlight something from an article.

Like so.

 

Just like to add that there's really no need to critique someone's thread and post on it if it's not interesting or doesn't follow your own opinions. If I contested every post I disagreed with I'd fill up a lot of threads without saying anything about Blazer basketball. Hope it doesn't become like that here. If I can't follow someone's trade Batum thread, I don't go there. Works for me. As for something being played out, sometimes it's just best to lead by example.

 

Huh?? Half the fun on this board is commenting on and critiquing other people's posts. You must be VERY new around here.

 

I enjoyed the article with your commentary included. I have to agree that those that have no better idea other than too critique, should pass over and find another post to complain about. Your first paragraph forewarned of the content.

 

Actually it's important to properly cite something if you're re-posting it from another source.

Of course Sly wouldn't know anything about that because he's our resident piracy villain.

 

So what you're saying is if you have a different opinion on a topic, you shouldn't post? Really? So each thread should just be a bunch of back slapping and agreement? That's a terrible idea, and would lead to a pretty awful website, IMO.

 

riverman said if it doesn't follow your own opinions, there's no need to post in the topic.

As for critiquing, I think many in here have gotten critiques for their posting style, and I think quite a few have made some alterations to be more readable. Shooter, Nate and BG all pointed out how it was difficult to read. It can be taken as a mean insult to her post, or as a recommendation, the same way someone might tell someone with one super long post to break it up into paragraphs.

Otherwise, what might contain decent information or a funny comment will get glossed over because of the lack of a desire to read the format.

 

I think in this case they're critiquing how she presented the information, and that's what riverman was commenting on, but I think it's relevant for people to critique if they felt that the post was hard to understand or if they want to offer some form of constructive criticism. Hell, it never stopped anyone around here from saying that a post was stupid so I see no reason for someone to say that they had a hard time differentiating between the quoted material and her own analysis.

 

Bit of a distortion of my post don't you think? Do whatever gives you the greatest joy here, I'm all for it. I'm not in the business of defining posting rules, but having known both the parties involved here for a long time, just trying to be a voice of reason because what really sucks is a thread full of nothing BUT disagreement and personal attacks. In my world that sucks the joy right out of a fan base about as quickly as anything. People agreeing...wow, what a concept! How does one slap someone on the back with a keyboard across the internet? Maybe you're right and it's a terrible idea

 

I do think Stotts should get a coach of the year nod. Hornacek is his biggest competition for the award.

 

I don't understand how I distorted it. Sorry. You said there's no need to critique or post on someone's thread if it doesn't follow your opinion. What I took from that is there's no need to post on someone's thread if it doesn't follow your opinion. Which part of that am I distorting exactly?

As for agreeing, of course it's good for people to agree on things. We all agree on a lot of things. But it's also ok for people to have differing opinions on topics. And, along with my follow up post, I think it's ok to give feedback on a posting style, whether it's difficult to read, or, maybe someone consistently is attacking. I know someone new, maybe strenuus?? was called out early on, and he apologized, said it was more a case of being new, and has been a solid poster since. Sorry strenuus if it wasn't you or I am misremembering how it went. I skim sometimes. Anyways.