Playoffs discussion

[BeenLurkin]

Good luck Aussiewolf, these guys don’t like being told they are part of the problem

[FNG]

Like most people who follow the NBA, I'm a fan of Mark Daigneault. I think he deserves the accolades he gets. But I question why he has abandoned the rotation strategy he employed all season in the finals. I commented in another thread how in contrast to the Wolves who only had their Great Eight average more than 15 MPG this season (and again, I'm not faulting the coaching staff if they observed the young guys weren't quite ready), OkC had 12! Like Carlyle, he trusted and used his bench, and I think that was a big reason both teams were able to play the fast-pace style that made them so successful this season. So why is Daigneault channeling his inner Finchy and basically going with an 8-man rotation against the Pacers? Small sample size of course, but are Indy's relatively fresher legs why they are dominating 4th quarters this series? In the 2 close games (1 and 3), Indy outscored OkC by 10 and 15 points, respectively, and that's why they are up 2-1 against a team most of us here thinks is better. I hope Daigneault learns from this, and more importantly, I hope Finchy is watching closely. If TC doesn't shake things up too much this off season by trading away some of our impressive depth, I think we have a chance to play a style similar to the two finals teams (or, at least the way OkC played before the finals).

[AussieWolf3]

Yeah, I mean really?

Yall are wasting time and space complaining about nothing. The second you bring up woke or DEI your point loses all credibility.

Go somewhere else to talk about that if it floats your boat, this is a basketball forum. Pretty dope of you guys to call me a clown and then a 2nd person to echo that when I just *checks notes* asked you to stick to basketball..... nice

First off, I really like your addition to the discussion here. This site has a tough time attracting new members, so it's good to see you chiming in. But a couple things:

- If you don't think ESPN is woke, I'd have to wonder what you've been doing for the last 10 years. Maybe that's your ideology as well, and that's okay - you be you. But saying I lose credibility by suggesting ESPN is woke is ridiculous.

- You have what, 20 some posts on this forum? Why don't you build a bit of your own credibility before you start playing moderator with a bunch of guys who have been together for 20 years.

- I don't see anything wrong with commenting on the broadcast team who happens to be doing.........BASKETBALL! Why don't you put your list of demands together and we will get back to you. Or not.

Applicate the nod Cool, I like this forum, it provides by far the most depth of conversation. So let's put this little digression to bed lol.

I'd like to concede your point that I jumped the gun as the new guy here, and should take more time to get a feel for the flow of conversation here. I think you are correct about that.

I'll also concede that I was a bit reactive to your comment, about "woke DEI" (not any commentary on Burke, i have literally zero opinion of her as an analyst). And I was reactive because of discussions about her in other places has been gotten so toxic and down right vulgar, and I was projecting that onto your post.

Further about "woke DEI". Well it not a substantive argument, it offers literally nothing in terms of her ability as an analyst or anyone else's for that matter. The terms have become so ubiquitous that it transcends parity and they are devoid of meaning.

That's all I have to say about it, if you need anything else feel free to DM me.

Ps. I don't what your "list of demands" comment is abou

[AbeVigodaLive]

Clown

Yeah, I mean really?

Yall are wasting time and space complaining about nothing. The second you bring up woke or DEI your point loses all credibility.

Go somewhere else to talk about that if it floats your boat, this is a basketball forum. Pretty dope of you guys to call me a clown and then a 2nd person to echo that when I just *checks notes* asked you to stick to basketball..... nice

Obviously, I agree with Aussie on this one. I've previously championed (begged) having all political or conspiracy or social commentary nonsense sent to the forum dedicated to that on this site. As far as the actual discussion...

- I judge Burke on her job, not my own personal perceptions of how she got the job. And... I'm not a fan of Doris Burke either. The rub is that I don't think it's just her. She's a big part of the problem, but not the only one. I think the entire ESPN broadcast is meh, or disappointing, sans Mike Breen who's in year 2 of carrying his crew. I think JJ Redick is a good coach, good podcaster, et al... but he zoomed up the list to the Finals chair with a lot less on his TV resume than Burke. In addition, having a guy like Perkins on TV doing anything is worse than Burke on the game call.

- Similarly, I don't think men get the same "earn your way there" diatribes. Personally, I thought Magic Johnson and Bill Walton were terrible (worse than Burke) when covering NBA Finals in the past. Their qualifications were "former NBA star"... where-as Doris Burke at least handled sideline duties or the trophy presentation for about 15 years. I guess the proverbial line in the sand is actually calling games vs. being the token woman on the crew BUT limited to the sideline reporting. The sideline reporter is usually (almost always) a woman in recent years. It's even more amusing in the NFL... at least Burke is homely, so it's not as obvious as the NFL where the #1 quality for a female sideline reporter might be "pretty face."

The NBA talking head landscape is littered with bad takes from questionable sources. Most of those people are not the most qualified to be there, especially as more and more former players realize the cash grab it can be. Some of them offer the worst takes of all.

- I think the real miss is not having a coach on the crew. To be fair to guys like Johnson and Walton, they were former players and could offer some of that perspective. Jefferson is that guy now in the ubiquitous three-man crew. But neither Breen nor Burke can bring the in-depth, on-the-sidelines perspective credibility to the call. As a result, it seems more lopsided than in years past. (I think that's the real problem... and not "dEi hIRe.") It's even more noticeable since we're not too far removed from having two NBA coaches on the call (Van Gundy + Jackson). Fair or not, when you hear Burke's voice discuss the specifics of a play or player, it lacks the same credibility because you hear a woman's voice saying it vs. a guy who was walking the sidelines for 10+ years. Even when her takes are accurate.

- I'm sorta embarrassed to say I might listen to too many NBA podcasts. Does anyone else think Richard Jefferson sounds EXACTLY like NBA insider, player trainer and former ESPN guy, David Thorpe? Heck, the first time I heard him, I thought it was David Thorpe and I was shocked that he got that gig. Then, I was all confused after "Thorpe" started talking about his career. Find a clip of Thorpe and tell me I'm wrong...

[FNG]

I'll dip my toe into the Doris conversation, perhaps unwisely (but when has that ever stopped me ). I'm on both sides of the discussion. First, I think it's totally appropriate to discuss the merits of a TV analyst, although I agree that political viewpoints should be avoided here...we generally do a good job of that here. As for Doris, I think she knows about as much about basketball as anyone out there...so many times when she makes a point, it's something that I agree with. Her insights on defense are things that are largely ignored by many analysts. But (and I admit this prejudice is on me) I find her voice rather annoying. I actually would call her the mirror opposite of Mike Breen. I've never hear him state an insight about the game that I found worthwhile or valuable, but I think he has a great play by play voice. I guess that's why I find them to be a good complementary team. I'm gonna leave the sound on as I watch the rest of this suddenly more interesting finals!

[AbeVigodaLive]

Back to the actual game... and why I entered this thread...

TJ McConnell

Is it going too far to say that guy was arguably the reason the Pacers won that game?

The Thunder simply looked like the better team early, as they have all season. They were just trudging along, getting good looks while the Pacers were lingering but really struggling to get easy looks. It was about a 10-point game until...

McConnell drives for an assist. Steals the inbounds. Gets another assist. Gets another inbounds steal in the backcourt. Gets free throws. Gets another assist. Gets another steal... et al.

The guy stole the ball FOUR times on inbounds plays in this game. Eat your heart out, Jaylen Clark!

The energy and intensity he brought to the game was palpable. A guy who looks 5'7" on tv and with no place in an NBA game changed the entire complexity of the game... of the series... and maybe the season with his all-out hustle and anticipation.

That was fun to watch. He played his role to perfection.

[Q-is-here]

Also, "qualified" in this case may legitimately include being a female if ABC/ESPN found that having one on their broadcast crew increased female viewership, thus expanding their audience (I have no idea if it does or not in Doris's case). Candace Parker is someone I've found to be really good, but she's with TNT.

Being an on-air personality actually can require some demographic criteria for hiring purposes. That's different than say a brain surgeon, airline pilot, civil engineer, or food safety inspector. You want folks with deep expertise in those fields and should care less about their physical traits.

[AussieWolf3]

Also, "qualified" in this case may legitimately include being a female if ABC/ESPN found that having one on their broadcast crew increased female viewership, thus expanding their audience (I have no idea if it does or not in Doris's case). Candace Parker is someone I've found to be really good, but she's with TNT.

Being an on-air personality actually can require some demographic criteria for hiring purposes. That's different than say a brain surgeon, airline pilot, civil engineer, or food safety inspector. You want folks with deep expertise in those fields and should care less about their physical traits.

"Representation" is often corporate performance, BUT it does matter.

Both my wife and daughter interest in hoops skyrocketed when I started telling them about the Lynx and how incredible they've been for nearly two decades and how awesome Collier is, and hearing a woman doing the broadcast definitely had my daughter (9 years old) sitting up in her seat with a "hey it's a woman talking basketball!" Look on her face.

So it does matter.

Generally speaking I only have the volume up to hear the noise of the game and crowd, the broadcast team is just background noise

[Q-is-here]

Back to the actual game... and why I entered this thread...

TJ McConnell

Is it going too far to say that guy was arguably the reason the Pacers won that game?

The Thunder simply looked like the better team early, as they have all season. They were just trudging along, getting good looks while the Pacers were lingering but really struggling to get easy looks. It was about a 10-point game until...

McConnell drives for an assist. Steals the inbounds. Gets another assist. Gets another inbounds steal in the backcourt. Gets free throws. Gets another assist. Gets another steal... et al.

The guy stole the ball FOUR times on inbounds plays in this game. Eat your heart out, Jaylen Clark!

The energy and intensity he brought to the game was palpable. A guy who looks 5'7" on tv and with no place in an NBA game changed the entire complexity of the game... of the series... and maybe the season with his all-out hustle and anticipation.

That was fun to watch. He played his role to perfection.

I agree Abe, he totally changed the momentum of the game.

TJ is such an interesting player. He's had the best two seasons of his career these last two years, at age 31 and 32. He was undrafted, but has now become an elite backup PG. Go look at his per 36 numbers - they are right up there with some of the best starting PGs in the NBA. Of course being a backup and exerting that kind of energy is what enables him to be so effective, but still, he is truly starring in his role.

(also, he measured a half inch shorter than Rob Dillingham at the NBA combine!)

[D-Loser25]

Also, "qualified" in this case may legitimately include being a female if ABC/ESPN found that having one on their broadcast crew increased female viewership, thus expanding their audience (I have no idea if it does or not in Doris's case). Candace Parker is someone I've found to be really good, but she's with TNT.

Being an on-air personality actually can require some demographic criteria for hiring purposes. That's different than say a brain surgeon, airline pilot, civil engineer, or food safety inspector. You want folks with deep expertise in those fields and should care less about their physical traits.

"Representation" is often corporate performance, BUT it does matter.

Both my wife and daughter interest in hoops skyrocketed when I started telling them about the Lynx and how incredible they've been for nearly two decades and how awesome Collier is, and hearing a woman doing the broadcast definitely had my daughter (9 years old) sitting up in her seat with a "hey it's a woman talking basketball!" Look on her face.

So it does matter.

Generally speaking I only have the volume up to hear the noise of the game and crowd, the broadcast team is just background noise

I like how Aussie and Abe don’t wanna talk about this, but yet they continue talking about it