Suns Game Thread: I Still Believe With Wallstar

[dckingsfan]

The whole play-by-play announcer thing is odd on TV. Obviously, it comes from radio -- where, duh, you have to have it. I can see why it was helpful on TV up to a decade ago, and especially in the b&w era. Those were some small, fuzzy images; it wasn't always obvious who had the ball, etc.

But, at this point, e.g. on a 60" HD TV, why? I'd rather be hearing the ambient sound at "realistic" levels. It'd be more like being at the game. Especially since giving you game and player numbers -- which these days are easily available while watching -- is a significant part of what they do ("that's Wall's 8th assist"). There's some play analysis as well, of course.

I just mute the TV. I find Buc to be very annoying.

[TheSecretWeapon]

The whole play-by-play announcer thing is odd on TV. Obviously, it comes from radio -- where, duh, you have to have it. I can see why it was helpful on TV up to a decade ago, and especially in the b&w era. Those were some small, fuzzy images; it wasn't always obvious who had the ball, etc.

But, at this point, e.g. on a 60" HD TV, why? I'd rather be hearing the ambient sound at "realistic" levels. It'd be more like being at the game. Especially since giving you game and player numbers -- which these days are easily available while watching -- is a significant part of what they do ("that's Wall's 8th assist"). There's some play analysis as well, of course.

I just mute the TV. I find Buc to be very annoying.

Muting isn't a good solution, though because you don't get the game sounds. I agree with pif. I'd love to see someone rethink broadcasts. Announcers are a good idea, but I think a better model might be to go "friendly analyst." Like going to a game with a coach or a scout or a friend who REALLY knows the game.

As it stands, Buck is an ok play-by-play guy, but that's unnecessary beyond something confusing happening. And Phil is a horrible analyst -- no worse than most other analysts around the league (most of them are horrible too).

And their presentation of stats and other information about the quality of the teams and players is worse than useless -- it's often misleading and sometimes downright dishonest.

[nate33]

The whole play-by-play announcer thing is odd on TV. Obviously, it comes from radio -- where, duh, you have to have it. I can see why it was helpful on TV up to a decade ago, and especially in the b&w era. Those were some small, fuzzy images; it wasn't always obvious who had the ball, etc.

But, at this point, e.g. on a 60" HD TV, why? I'd rather be hearing the ambient sound at "realistic" levels. It'd be more like being at the game. Especially since giving you game and player numbers -- which these days are easily available while watching -- is a significant part of what they do ("that's Wall's 8th assist"). There's some play analysis as well, of course.

I just mute the TV. I find Buc to be very annoying.

Muting isn't a good solution, though because you don't get the game sounds. I agree with pif. I'd love to see someone rethink broadcasts. Announcers are a good idea, but I think a better model might be to go "friendly analyst." Like going to a game with a coach or a scout or a friend who REALLY knows the game.

As it stands, Buck is an ok play-by-play guy, but that's unnecessary beyond something confusing happening. And Phil is a horrible analyst -- no worse than most other analysts around the league (most of them are horrible too).

And their presentation of stats and other information about the quality of the teams and players is worse than useless -- it's often misleading and sometimes downright dishonest.

With digital TV, shouldn't we have the capability of multiple audio feeds by now? How hard could it be to overlay multiple sound tracks and choose which one you want to play? You could have the game sounds alone; you could add the play by play sound if you want; or maybe even the radio feed. Why not set it up so we can pick and choose? Heck, you could even have mics on individual players or coaches or refs to add to the experience.

[DCZards]

model might be to go "friendly analyst." Like going to a game with a coach or a scout or a friend who REALLY knows the game.

As it stands, Buck is an ok play-by-play guy, but that's unnecessary beyond something confusing happening. And Phil is a horrible analyst -- no worse than most other analysts around the league (most of them are horrible too).

And their presentation of stats and other information about the quality of the teams and players is worse than useless -- it's often misleading and sometimes downright dishonest.

I agree with most of this. Buck is just ok. He too often comes across as making it appear that he cares more about an individual player's stats (such as whether Wall has a triple double) than how the "team" is playing. And I definitely agree that the presentation of stats can be misleading. When they post the graphic showing that Wall has 22 pts., 10 assists and 6 rebs., they should also let us know that he has X turnovers.

Phil may may not be very good but I think "lousy" is too strong a word. I'd also call him "ok." To his credit, Chenier usually doesn't hesitate to criticize/question the play of Wizard players. I like, for example, that Phil will often say that John Wall is settling for jumpers when he should be attacking the basket. (I often wonder whether Witt and the coaching staff are also telling JWall that. I hope they are.)

Phil might not use the strongest words in his criticism of the play of the Wizards, but it's clear that he's being critical and questioning. If you want a lousy color analyst, listen to Tommy Heinsohn do a Boston game. His homerism is beyond disgusting.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Heinsohn must be nearly 80 years old.

Between him and Sonny Jurgensen we're talking old old men still on the airways.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Well, the word I used for Phil was "horrible" not lousy.

What I mean when I say that is he provides very little in the way of analysis. As you point out, he will at least say someone isn't playing well, which is better than some of the "analysts." Heinsohn is bad. The Indy guy is terrible too (Quinn Buckner?). But what I'm really talking about is the HUGE opportunity to educate fans about what's happening on the floor. They'll do telestrator stuff with Phil, and he merely describes what can easily be seen. Slow-mo play-by-play. This is a waste of time, AND a waste of what Phil is capable bringing to the broadcast. Having talked with Phil about hoops, he's very knowledgeable. He just doesn't communicate virtually any of it on the air because he doesn't want to alienate "casual" fans. I find this odd when contrasting it with football or baseball where there are analysts who break things down in considerable technical detail.

There's more time in those games to get technical between plays, but Phil is a very smart guy, and one of the nicest people I've met. I'd love to see him (or someone) really dig into the Xs and Os. It's interesting stuff that I think would draw fans in.

[Kanyewest]

Then the obvious conclusion is that their jobs are useless or lame at best.

Agreed. Or at least to more knowledgeable fans.