Looks like he is going to lose his butt “double-downing” saying Zion would not play this season. Anyone feel sorry for him?
Winner: David Griffin
 |
| . |
|
Reggie Miller “Double Down” not looking good for him
Looks like he is going to lose his butt “double-downing” saying Zion would not play this season. Anyone feel sorry for him?
Winner: David Griffin
No, I do not feel sorry for him.
Yeah, **** Reggie man. He was so adamant about his claim, and he would shove it in our faces. Hope he eats crow.
Reggie Miller is a terrible analyst and commentator, and should not do games. He, along with Ryan Hollins, Kendrick Perkins, Chris Webber, Shaq, Kenny Smith, and Barkley, are all brilliant examples of why being a player (even a very good player!) doesn't qualify you as a competent analyst/commentator.
That said, Richard Jefferson is pretty good.
Basketball.
I think at least Kenny, Shaq and Charles are entertaining. What is the point of Ryan Hollins, as a player or an analyst?Originally Posted by Pelicanidae
There is no point, aside from getting him to say various clickbait absurdities. But he's an ex-player, and people feel like that somehow confers some innate genius and wisdom upon people. No matter how many times that's disproved, through guys like Hollins or Webber, it will not go away.
Shaq, Kenny, Ernie, and Charles are the best on tv. Even if they are often wrong or it's obvious they haven't researched a damn thing. Especially Shaq and simple man Chuck. They are at least funny.
I don't find them funny.
But obviously that's personal taste: you're free to find them hilarious. But you can't deny that, as analysts who at least some people take semi-seriously, they are hot trash garbage.
They have a segment every year where they laugh about how funny it is that they don't even know which teams a bunch of guys play for. This is peak knowledge.
I loved me some Chris Webber as a player.
As a commentator he reminds me of nails on a chalkboard or angry cats mating.
It's the weirdest thing. Webber, like you say, really great player. Shaq, great player. Charles Barkley, great player.
All turrible analysts and commentators
A long day of work ended with meeting Sir Charles Barkley at a hotel bar and I can't say enough about his friendliness and willingness to talk hoops with a couple of huge NBA fans. Just awesome.
— Mason Ginsberg (@MasonGinsberg) January 22, 2020
And speaking of Barkley, we have a nice, Pels related tangent here.
Last edited by Pelicanidae; 01-21-2020 at 11:13 PM.
It’s almost a cliche that great players make bad analysts, no matter the sport. There are exceptions of course (McEnroe in tennis comes to mind) but generally speaking too many ex-players just serve up shop-worn generalizations and surprisingly emotion-based takes which they defend to their last breath, because the greatest sin of all is admitting you were wrong—ever. Tedious. When TNT did the “players only” broadcasts last year, they were unwatchable with large chunks of game time ignored while they went on and on about how things were “back in their day.” Ugh.
It's kind of sad actually. The game evolves, analytics advance (great episode of the Thinking Basketball podcast on how players use analytics recently, Ben Taylor had Shane Battier on to talk about it), sports science gets better, and the sport gets refined because of all of these things combined with more experience and historical experiments.
The game today doesn't look anything like it did 20 years ago, and in another 20 years it will probably look super different again and that's part of the fun: the sport doesn't stagnate, it just evolves and grows and changes to fit new discoveries, account for new experiments, always seeking to find the edge over one another. That's a great thing, and it would be cool if older players could recognise that this change doesn't insult their era, or denigrate their achievements: today's style couldn't exist without their contributions in the past. It's just the natural flow of time, and you shouldn't waste time trying to fight that. Just enjoy the new stuff; it'll be old stuff soon enough.
The best ones grow with the game, but the ex-superstars generally coast on their celebrity and worry about polishing their “brand” more than keeping pace with the sport. It’s lazy. Also wish reporters would stop asking players how the “feel”after a win or loss or “how they” were able to perform. Wealth of real time data available. Ask two or three simple fact-based questions after games. “Brandon, you only attempted three shots at the rim tonight. What were they doing defensively out there to keep you from driving to the goal?” “Brandon, you only had 5 FGAs in the first half tonight but 4 assists. Were you consciously looking to get your teammates going rather than look for your own shots?” “Brandon, you were a perfect 10-10 from the line tonight. What’s been the key to your improved FT shooting this season?” Simple stuff.
A general rule of journalism should be to try and ask as many open questions as possible. That is, if your question can be answered fully with a single word, it's a bad question. This isn't always the case, obviously (sometimes you need to clarify and then a closed question is perfect; to get confirmation or denial) but by and large a good question demands a real answer.
''How did you feel after the loss tonight, X Player?''
''Bad.'' <<< ----- bam, full answer that accurately summarises how someone feels after losing at something. Ergo, bad question, most of the time.
Your suggested questions are much better, in general, since they kind of call for a more detailed answer.
You're right as well about the ex-superstars coasting on their celebrity and not keeping up with the sport. Just pointless, imo. Who wants to hear when Kendrick Perkins has to say when there are hundreds of people just floating around the internet who are more well informed, have more detailed and reasoned arguments, and who care about the future of the sport?
Yeah I disagree. Outside of when they start talking over each other, I like players only. Especially the old stories about players like Jordan. The animated stories Jalen Rose used to do were awesome. Especially the one about stealing Patrick Ewings travel tv/vcr combo so he couldn't prepare for games.
Isaiah Thomas usaully has good insight and thinks about things. Unlike Chuck.
At least players have that unlike these straight up personalities like Skip.
I can't listen to the ESPN and TNT broadcasts. They treat it like we're there to listen to them and the game is just garnish. Awesome stuff is happening in the background and we're waiting for some acknowledgement but....nah....just small talk. And then when they do talk about teams, it isn't New Orleans.
I also love hearing Joel and AD echo my thoughts on the horrible officiating. The ESPN and TNT guys will make flippant comments like "well they have no star player to get that call" or "that's the NBA".
BI, Zion, and CJ had a net rating of +3 when on the court together. BI and Zion had a +13.4, BI and CJ had a +13.2, Zion and CJ was just +5.4.
BI and Zion worked. BI and CJ worked. It was CJ and Zion and all three together that didn't work.
I like some of these guys as personalities like you say. But asking them to commentate or analyse games is a fool's errand. Let them sit in a room together and talk about in-game stories or ''remember whens'' and it's fun and interesting, a great way to learn more about the game as-it-was-then. But when it's time to watch the Pelicans VS Spurs in 2020, let them stay home and get someone like Doris Burke or Joel, or Antonio Daniels, or Mike Breen, or Richard Jefferson, or even Matt Barnes to do it.
Know your personnel
We're very lucky because Joel might be the best commentator in basketball. So we get a little spoiled.
Yea Joel and AD are magic.
I pay extra for the nba league pass so that I can choose the Pelicans commentators. They are really awesome
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote