RealGM

I didnt want to muddle the game thread so I made this one.

What do you mean muff diving is not a sport??

Candace Walker. Did I get her name wrong? Well, I'm a Bears fan so...



Worth noting that Brunson was +3 in 45 minutes in G6 in a game that we lost by 4. Also worth noting who was on that team that was beaten in the first round.

Capn'O wrote:Candace Walker. Did I get her name wrong? Well, I'm a Bears fan so...

Read on Twitter

Worth noting that Brunson was +3 in 45 minutes in G6 in a game that we lost by 4. Also worth noting who was on that team that was beaten in the first round.

Wait, I'm a tad slow. Where's the Walker thing from?

MrDollarBills wrote:

Capn'O wrote:Candace Walker. Did I get her name wrong? Well, I'm a Bears fan so...

Read on Twitter

Worth noting that Brunson was +3 in 45 minutes in G6 in a game that we lost by 4. Also worth noting who was on that team that was beaten in the first round.

Wait, I'm a tad slow. Where's the Walker thing from?

It's what I'm calling her until she owns up to her mistake. If anyone calls me out? Well, I'm a Bears fan so... clearly that makes getting her name wrong and then gaslighting about it just fine.

With the access to information we have now, I think as a basketball analyst you either have to be really insightful and well-prepared, or have a huge personality that offsets that lack of information through sheer entertainment value.

Barkley, Shaq, SAS, Skip are entertainers and they're great at it. They'll make a great point occasionally but you follow them primarily for entertainment, not to get informed.

JJ Redick, Zach Lowe, Nekias Duncan, Chris Herring, Ryen Russilo and others bring serious basketball analysis. They know what they are talking about - from analytics, to Xs and Os, and also the more intangible aspects of the sport. They help you understand the sport better.

But there are many people in the NBA media who fall in neither category. I think Candace is in that group. She's neither charismatic nor insightful, despite her experience as a player. And it's part of a broader pattern of some ex-players resting on their laurels and not putting in the work regarding preparation. It just shows.

Who cares if Candace can't admit to being wrong. All I know is Inside the NBA's dead once Chuck retires and they rely on people like her to carry the show.

Capn'O wrote:Candace Walker. Did I get her name wrong? Well, I'm a Bears fan so...

Read on Twitter

Worth noting that Brunson was +3 in 45 minutes in G6 in a game that we lost by 4. Also worth noting who was on that team that was beaten in the first round.

Seriously...it shouldn't be a debate anymore, but Brunson really revealed who was the better player during this last playoff run. It takes a really special player to be this dominant when defenses are keying in on you, and to get to your spot and just dagger guys. Definitely haven't seen anyone on the Knicks ever iso as well as Brunson has, and it doesn't feel close.

Chanel Bomber wrote:With the access to information we have now, I think as a basketball analyst you either have to be really insightful and well-prepared, or have a huge personality that offsets that lack of information through sheer entertainment value.

Barkley, Shaq, SAS, Skip are entertainers and they're great at it. They'll make a great point occasionally but you follow them primarily for entertainment, not to get informed.

JJ Redick, Zach Lowe, Nekias Duncan, Chris Herring, Ryen Russilo and others bring serious basketball analysis. They know what they are talking about - from analytics, to Xs and Os, and also the more intangible aspects of the sport. They help you understand the sport better.

But there are many people in the NBA media who fall in neither category. I think Candace is in that group. She's neither charismatic nor insightful, despite her experience as a player. And it's part of a broader pattern of some ex-players resting on their laurels and not putting in the work regarding preparation. It just shows.

Who cares if Candace can't admit to being wrong. All I know is Inside the NBA's dead once Chuck retires and they rely on people like her to carry the show.

Add Tim Legler to the list of serious analysts. And even they get it wrong from ttme to time. But the one's with character will own up to it.

The doubling down on a simple mistake is so weird. I don’t expect everyone to keep an exact memory of every series that happens. A simple “I misremembered what happened in the series” would have sufficed cuz it’s not a major deal.

Even if you’re brought on as an analysis entertainer, you have a duty to be accurate when debating the facts. Otherwise it hurts your credibility. That’s not super important for someone like her than it is for a real journalist but even Stephen A admits when he’s made a mistake. Now there’s a bunch of nba fans that will never take her seriously and it will probably hurt her career. Just seems like a major unforced error.

RHODEY wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:With the access to information we have now, I think as a basketball analyst you either have to be really insightful and well-prepared, or have a huge personality that offsets that lack of information through sheer entertainment value.

Barkley, Shaq, SAS, Skip are entertainers and they're great at it. They'll make a great point occasionally but you follow them primarily for entertainment, not to get informed.

JJ Redick, Zach Lowe, Nekias Duncan, Chris Herring, Ryen Russilo and others bring serious basketball analysis. They know what they are talking about - from analytics, to Xs and Os, and also the more intangible aspects of the sport. They help you understand the sport better.

But there are many people in the NBA media who fall in neither category. I think Candace is in that group. She's neither charismatic nor insightful, despite her experience as a player. And it's part of a broader pattern of some ex-players resting on their laurels and not putting in the work regarding preparation. It just shows.

Who cares if Candace can't admit to being wrong. All I know is Inside the NBA's dead once Chuck retires and they rely on people like her to carry the show.

Add Tim Legler to the list of serious analysts. And even they get it wrong from ttme to time. But the one's with character will own up to it.

Watch on YouTube

Absolutely.

And even the best experts can be wrong. It happens in every field. But you're never improving if you can't admit to being wrong. And that's the difference between a Legler and others, which partly explains why his takes are generally more interesting.

Chanel Bomber wrote:With the access to information we have now, I think as a basketball analyst you either have to be really insightful and well-prepared, or have a huge personality that offsets that lack of information through sheer entertainment value.

Barkley, Shaq, SAS, Skip are entertainers and they're great at it. They'll make a great point occasionally but you follow them primarily for entertainment, not to get informed.

JJ Redick, Zach Lowe, Nekias Duncan, Chris Herring, Ryen Russilo and others bring serious basketball analysis. They know what they are talking about - from analytics, to Xs and Os, and also the more intangible aspects of the sport. They help you understand the sport better.

But there are many people in the NBA media who fall in neither category. I think Candace is in that group. She's neither charismatic nor insightful, despite her experience as a player. And it's part of a broader pattern of some ex-players resting on their laurels and not putting in the work regarding preparation. It just shows.

Who cares if Candace can't admit to being wrong. All I know is Inside the NBA's dead once Chuck retires and they rely on people like her to carry the show.

Too many jobs go to ex-players who are unqualified. I typically find the ex-coaches the most insightful out of the NBA experience guys.

On another note, who’s gonna be the first analyst talent to become a hybrid, providing top notch analysis AND entertainment value?

2010 wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:With the access to information we have now, I think as a basketball analyst you either have to be really insightful and well-prepared, or have a huge personality that offsets that lack of information through sheer entertainment value.

Barkley, Shaq, SAS, Skip are entertainers and they're great at it. They'll make a great point occasionally but you follow them primarily for entertainment, not to get informed.

JJ Redick, Zach Lowe, Nekias Duncan, Chris Herring, Ryen Russilo and others bring serious basketball analysis. They know what they are talking about - from analytics, to Xs and Os, and also the more intangible aspects of the sport. They help you understand the sport better.

But there are many people in the NBA media who fall in neither category. I think Candace is in that group. She's neither charismatic nor insightful, despite her experience as a player. And it's part of a broader pattern of some ex-players resting on their laurels and not putting in the work regarding preparation. It just shows.

Who cares if Candace can't admit to being wrong. All I know is Inside the NBA's dead once Chuck retires and they rely on people like her to carry the show.

Too many jobs go to ex-players who are unqualified. I typically find the ex-coaches the most insightful out of the NBA experience guys.

On another note, who’s gonna be the first analyst talent to become a hybrid, providing top notch analysis AND entertainment value?

But then they want the ex-players for name recognition. It takes awhile to become a Madden or a Marv but the players come pre-packaged.

I have the same feeling about the coaching ranks. If you look at the best teams in the league, only a couple are ex-NBA players. I do wish more from the non-league tree would be women/POC but it makes sense that players wouldn't necessarily be the best coaches/analysts. It's a different, though related, skillset.

As Chanel indicated, Barkley really is a one-of-a-kind personality. Always was too. I can't think of a recent player who puts on a persona in that way. Dame could be a good analyst but he's not a persona like that.

2010 wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:With the access to information we have now, I think as a basketball analyst you either have to be really insightful and well-prepared, or have a huge personality that offsets that lack of information through sheer entertainment value.

Barkley, Shaq, SAS, Skip are entertainers and they're great at it. They'll make a great point occasionally but you follow them primarily for entertainment, not to get informed.

JJ Redick, Zach Lowe, Nekias Duncan, Chris Herring, Ryen Russilo and others bring serious basketball analysis. They know what they are talking about - from analytics, to Xs and Os, and also the more intangible aspects of the sport. They help you understand the sport better.

But there are many people in the NBA media who fall in neither category. I think Candace is in that group. She's neither charismatic nor insightful, despite her experience as a player. And it's part of a broader pattern of some ex-players resting on their laurels and not putting in the work regarding preparation. It just shows.

Who cares if Candace can't admit to being wrong. All I know is Inside the NBA's dead once Chuck retires and they rely on people like her to carry the show.

Too many jobs go to ex-players who are unqualified. I typically find the ex-coaches the most insightful out of the NBA experience guys.

On another note, who’s gonna be the first analyst talent to become a hybrid, providing top notch analysis AND entertainment value?

That messiah once walked among us and his name was Jimmit79.

He died a martyr before he could reach fame, for he was too far ahead of his time.

PS: I agree about the coaches. Besides the Fiz types, they're really great to listen to. I find it fascinating how they catch everything that happens as they happen, and notice patterns that the untrained eye (like mine) would probably miss. I loved JVG on ABC. Doc was great with Bill Simmons, etcetera. They're not beyond criticism of course, but most of these coaches are just on another level in terms of understanding the game.

I often agree with Candace but she was wrong here. Dead wrong. Brunson's used to being underestimated though, and this is good fuel for him.