David Locke = Jazz Employee, Not Journalist

Post #1 » by **StocktonShorts** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 10:11 pm

I don't know how many of you listen to Jazz play-by-play guy David Locke and follow him on Twitter, but he puts out a lot of info on the Jazz and does a nice job using all the new media outlets around. I generally like his take on things, but lately I've been more and more wary of accepting his viewpoint at face value. The reason? He's a Jazz employee and effectively an embedded reporter. He travels with the team and talks with the coaches/players on the plane. He is not an objective reporter.

Whether he means to or not the nature of his job and his closeness to the Jazz players and staff almost certainly injects some bias into his reporting. Pay attention to the number of times he criticizes the Jazz organization or the decisions of Jazz personnel and compare it to the number of times he apologizes for them or explains why what they're doing is "the right move".

I'm not saying not to listen to him, just keep in mind who pays his salary.

Ugly0598 · Post #2 » by **Ugly0598** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 10:15 pm

I can't say I diagree, I like Locke, but it somewhat bugged me how he was standing up for Raja Bell to keep starting, and not even have Alec Burks see the light of day on the court.

babyjax13 · Post #3 » by **babyjax13** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 10:16 pm

I tend to trust him a lot when he talks about the draft and other teams, when he talks about the Jazz - at many times - he just seems like he's spouting a bit.

Paper Face · Post #4 » by **Paper Face** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:06 pm

Meh. At least with Locke you know what you are getting: an unabashedly biased reporter who is obviously a fan and an employee. He does a pretty fair job nevertheless. Tons of analysis and attention paid to the team, and enthusiasm. Overall, he contributes to a pretty good Jazz product.

Ugly0598 · Post #5 » by **Ugly0598** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:11 pm

Ugh, Locke's analysis in his Locked On Jazz article today pisses me off. His reasoning (and maybe Ty's reasoning) why Raja still starting is that nobody can take away the spot away from him? Really? Really? Josh Howard has played well, and while not the best efficiency, he has been good, and while people will resort to Raja's defense, his defense has been a JOKE.

UTJazzFan_Echo1 · Post #6 » by **UTJazzFan_Echo1** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:14 pm

Haters are gonna hate.

He's the smartest sports/basketball media guy here in Utah... and it's not even close.

Jazzfan12 · Post #7 » by **Jazzfan12** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:29 pm

UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:Haters are gonna hate.

He's the smartest sports/basketball media guy here in Utah... and it's not even close.

And he thinks Chauncey Billups is better than Chris Paul.

UTJazzFan_Echo1 · Post #8 » by **UTJazzFan_Echo1** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:38 pm

Jazzfan12 wrote:
UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:Haters are gonna hate.

He's the smartest sports/basketball media guy here in Utah... and it's not even close.

And he thinks Chauncey Billups is better than Chris Paul.

Lol no he doesn't.

Post #9 » by **StocktonShorts** » Mon Jan 2, 2012 11:52 pm

UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:Haters are gonna hate.

He's the smartest sports/basketball media guy here in Utah... and it's not even close.

He certainly thinks he is.

But don't get me wrong, I like Locke. I think he is smart. And I love his passion for this team. I guess I mostly posted this as a caution for people like me who do follow Locke and think highly of him to pay attention to his bias.

Xsy · Post #10 » by **Xsy** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 12:14 am

I read his articles sometimes, and I follow him on twitter.

He's definitely biased, and thinks he's a lot smarter than he really is-- but I still have no major complaints. He posts a lot of interesting stats on twitter, even though most of them don't really mean anything. Lots of 'huh, that's nice to know' posts.

MeestR · Post #11 » by **MeestR** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 12:56 am

his opinions are certainly biased. but he is also a numbers guy. i love hearing him talking about different players numbers compared to other players through the league. numbers can't be biased as long as they are applied across the board.

The59Sound · Post #12 » by **The59Sound** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 1:18 am

Locke is absolutely unlistenable. His attempts to make sure people realize he's "friends" with players and members of the front office are epically pitiful.

"Hey, Paul Millsap, Wes Matthews beats you at video games??? Haha! Should I text him and ask?! Haha! Let me text him; I have his number. I'll text him; haha!"

"Thanks for coming on, Randy Rigby! When are we going to get lunch? We usually meet for lunch because we're friends, but we haven't done it lately. When can we do lunch? Text me when you're back in town!"

blackham9258 · Post #13 » by **blackham9258** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:00 am

Locke is right, and so are the jazz right now (i stress right now) about starting Raja. Raja starting has more to do with Burks and CJ at this point than anything else. Be patient, sooner or later Burks will start to get minutes and his chance to prove that he is worthy of being on the court, and he will have to prove that on the defensive end. Howard is best suited to be a backup on this team unless he progresses more and wants to sign an extension (if that is even possible). Until we commit longer term to him we shouldn't be starting him over CJ, Burks or Hayward.

CJ is the real disappointment thusfar, and our ire shouldn't be directed toward Ty or Raja, but to CJ who can't seem to square his shoulders and shoot on balance. CJ has played terrible defense and has been equally bad on offense. Bell at least gives max effort on D.

Do I wish Burks got more burn right now? Yes. But the coaches are the ones who see the kid in practice and can tell if he understands the offense, or can keep up defensively. I have extremely high expectations for Burks and can't wait until he gets his time to shine but at this point last year Gordon Hayward was completely lost. We don't know if Burks is equally lost at this point.

CJ is showing no signs of giving the coaches a reason to start him over Raja, until he does or until Burks does I am fine with Raja making 1 of 4 shots a game and playing 17 minutes as a starter as long as he continues to give max effort defensively.

As far as locke, he is the best in the market...and i would much rather hear his imput than say Gordon Monson who has no inside information and doesn't travel with the team. But i do admit that Locke can be condescending and arrogant to his listeners. He also is hurt by a bad radio voice. If he had Bolerjack's voice he would be viewed as more definitive and as more of an expert. (Remember those Fedex commercials where the guy says the same thing as the nerd and people believe him.. that's locke.. he just doesn't have the voice to stave off the weisel vibe:).

Be patient, once the Jazz prove they aren't going to make the playoffs, or until CJ or Burks show they deserve it they will get the minutes that Raja isn't earning.

Jazzfan Bayamon · Post #14 » by **Jazzfan Bayamon** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:08 am

blackham9258 wrote:Locke is right, and so are the jazz right now (i stress right now) about starting Raja. Raja starting has more to do with Burks and CJ at this point than anything else. Be patient, sooner or later Burks will start to get minutes and his chance to prove that he is worthy of being on the court, and he will have to prove that on the defensive end. Howard is best suited to be a backup on this team unless he progresses more and wants to sign an extension (if that is even possible). Until we commit longer term to him we shouldn't be starting him over CJ, Burks or Hayward.

What?????'

We can't "commit" to Howard but we should to Bell?? WTF kind of (Please Use More Appropriate Word) logic is that?? Fact is there is NO REASON for Raja to play a single minute right now. NONE!!

blackham9258 · Post #15 » by **blackham9258** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 4:13 am

My point is that starting Raja and giving him 17 mpg (as a starter... which is nothing) is not by any means "committing to Raja". He is getting the fewest minutes of any starter this year. CJ is not earning anything and that is why you see Burks tonight starting to get some of CJ's minutes.

As far as howard... If we are on our way to not making the playoffs the minutes should be geared to Hayward and Burks with CJ, Howard or Raja getting the minutes Burks and Hayward don't get.

If we were to extend Howard (i don't think we can at this juncture) then I would consider giving him more of CJ's minutes. Raja is earning his minutes defensively... no one is derserving based upon their offense.

Jazzfan Bayamon · Post #16 » by **Jazzfan Bayamon** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 4:34 am

blackham9258 wrote:My point is that starting Raja and giving him 17 mpg (as a starter... which is nothing) is not by any means "committing to Raja". He is getting the fewest minutes of any starter this year. CJ is not earning anything and that is why you see Burks tonight starting to get some of CJ's minutes.

As far as howard... If we are on our way to not making the playoffs the minutes should be geared to Hayward and Burks with CJ, Howard or Raja getting the minutes Burks and Hayward don't get.

If we were to extend Howard (i don't think we can at this juncture) then I would consider giving him more of CJ's minutes. Raja is earning his minutes defensively... no one is derserving based upon their offense.

LOL

You can't even make sense. Raja is defending what?? His shadow?? He ain't defending jack and everyone knows it. The only thing he defends is his name and the little much overrated reputation he had as a defender. Howard has earned FAR MORE than Bell has. Burks with the minutes that he's gotten has earned MUCH MORE than Bell has, hell even CJ with his boneheaded plays has earned MORE than Bell has. And remember, the winner is the team that has MORE POINTS at the end, so yeah, defense is the anchor, but if you can't score, you DON'T WIN!! Raja has NO BUISNESS IN ANY GAME!! NONE!! It's silly arguing in his favor. LOL

JDubJazz · Post #17 » by **JDubJazz** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 4:44 am

Locke is a valuable resource as long as you understand where he's coming from. Its his job to spin for the Jazz. He can claim that he's unbiased all he wants, but you just have to listen to know half the time he doesn't even believe the crap coming out of his mouth. I do like his statistical analyses, and I think he's a pretty fair evaluator of talent once the Jazz-colored glasses come off. I will say, however, that when he talks college football, I change the station. I couldn't be less interested in his comments on that topic.

blackham9258 · Post #18 » by **blackham9258** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 4:44 am

Okay you are a little over the top with your rhetoric. I agree with you and everyone on this board that we want to see Burks and Hayward get more minutes... but coming into the night none of our wings have done much at all... untill someone does... status quo and a little loyalty are okay...

Especially if, as I suspect it encourages Burks, and CJ to work a little harder.

Stop hating on Bell dude... he will find his way to the bench because of the good play eventually of Burks and CJ... instead of his bad play... I for one would rather have CJ and Burks earn it rather than get it handed to them.

The best point today that Locke made was that Sloan gave CJ every opportunity to keep his job until he knew he wasn't contributing as such a level that he wasn't angry when he was demoted. There is something to that I think.

Make the kids really earn it. I think they will.

Jazzfan Bayamon · Post #19 » by **Jazzfan Bayamon** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 4:50 am

blackham9258 wrote:Okay you are a little over the top with your rhetoric. I agree with you and everyone on this board that we want to see Burks and Hayward get more minutes... but coming into the night none of our wings have done much at all... untill someone does... status quo and a little loyalty are okay...

Especially if, as I suspect it encourages Burks, and CJ to work a little harder.

Stop hating on Bell dude... he will find his way to the bench because of the good play eventually of Burks and CJ... instead of his bad play... I for one would rather have CJ and Burks earn it rather than get it handed to them.

The best point today that Locke made was that Sloan gave CJ every opportunity to keep his job until he knew he wasn't contributing as such a level that he wasn't angry when he was demoted. There is something to that I think.

Make the kids really earn it. I think they will.

Dude, the whole "kids argument" is ok. But not for Howard who has played far far far better than Bell in every facet of the game. There is NO REASON to start Bell over Howard. NONE!! This season, in 5 games, we have not WON a single time while Raja is on the floor. NOT ONCE!! Do you know what it is to start everygame behind. That's what has happened in all 5 games. The difference is at home, once Raja is out, we have recovered. On the road?? No. You have no argument to say that Bell deserves the position more than Howard, and that's basically the point. Raja should not play ANYMORE!! PERIOD!!

finnegan · Post #20 » by **finnegan** » Tue Jan 3, 2012 4:54 am

I used to hate Locke during his first tenure with the Jazz before he went to Seattle, and I do like the mellower version quite a bit better, but at a human level he has very little credibility with me.

I remember Boozer's last season when the Jazz had won three or four games in a row and Locke said that the Jazz were "unquestionably the best team in the league" at the time. Then a few weeks later he went the exact opposite direction when they were on a losing streak. I think they call that bi-polar or something.

And during close games Lock always say that the intensity of the atmosphere in "palatable." The correct word is "palpable." Locke is just too much of an idiot for me, but at least he is not super annoying anymore like he was during his first stint with the Jazz.

Maybe Gordon Monson should go to Seattle for five years and come back a differnt man like Locke did!