eViL wrote:I find basketball to be one of the worst-analyzed sports on television. There's a lot of stuff that goes on during any given play that gives opportunity to provide insight to viewers who may not be familiar with the strategies employed on each possession. Fratello was actually making a good point.

You also have to remember, to the big time fan like you and I, listening to what the different cuts and screens are is cool. When Fratello goes "Notice this flair screen at the elbow that Humphries set for Brooks. As he did it, his left shoulder was pointing towards the basket so he was ready to roll if he was freed up after the screen." To us that's cool, but do you really think the average fan wants to hear this? It's even quite hard to grasp since it's new terminology to a lot of people. Not saying that it's bad. Just looking at it from the typical fans perspective.

eViL wrote:I find basketball to be one of the worst-analyzed sports on television. There's a lot of stuff that goes on during any given play that gives opportunity to provide insight to viewers who may not be familiar with the strategies employed on each possession. Fratello was actually making a good point.

I don't know, baseball and football announcers are really terrible. Plus, Joe Buck announces those two sports but not basketball.

eViL wrote:

VCoug wrote:

eViL wrote:I find basketball to be one of the worst-analyzed sports on television. There's a lot of stuff that goes on during any given play that gives opportunity to provide insight to viewers who may not be familiar with the strategies employed on each possession. Fratello was actually making a good point.

I don't know, baseball and football announcers are really terrible. Plus, Joe Buck announces those two sports but not basketball.

But the announcers at least somewhat address strategy in a deeper way, no? Almost all announcers suck, but at least in football they'll show the LG who pulls to become the lead blocker on a Power O to the right to illustrate what's happening. Feels like basketball is only given surface level coverage strategy wise. There are a lot of cool things that happen away from the ball in bball that don't really get any shine: backdoor cuts, down screens, flex screens, etc.

Maybe the problem is that things move to fast in basketball. If you start trying to describe a play, the next one is already beginnning. Might be a cool thing to do with a replay of the game - to show the individual plays and how they might contribute up to a higher-level strategy.

mrKnickShot wrote:

BasketballJones wrote:

eViL wrote:

VCoug wrote:

eViL wrote:I find basketball to be one of the worst-analyzed sports on television. There's a lot of stuff that goes on during any given play that gives opportunity to provide insight to viewers who may not be familiar with the strategies employed on each possession. Fratello was actually making a good point.

I don't know, baseball and football announcers are really terrible. Plus, Joe Buck announces those two sports but not basketball.

But the announcers at least somewhat address strategy in a deeper way, no? Almost all announcers suck, but at least in football they'll show the LG who pulls to become the lead blocker on a Power O to the right to illustrate what's happening. Feels like basketball is only given surface level coverage strategy wise. There are a lot of cool things that happen away from the ball in bball that don't really get any shine: backdoor cuts, down screens, flex screens, etc.

Maybe the problem is that things move to fast in basketball. If you start trying to describe a play, the next one is already beginnning. Might be a cool thing to do with a replay of the game - to show the individual plays and how they might contribute up to a higher-level strategy.

I thing JVG is fantastic to listen to. And he kisses nobody's ass.

Only mark on JVG's resume really is saying Heat would beat the '96 Bulls record of 72-10 last year:

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5450211

Jeff Van Gundy: Heat can win 73
ESPNChicago.com

When Michael Jordan presents Scottie Pippen during his Hall of Fame induction this weekend, it's a safe bet the Chicago Bulls' record-setting, 72-win season of 1995-96 will find its way into the speech.
According to Jeff Van Gundy's thinking, it's a good thing Pippen is being inducted this year, because Van Gundy predicts that record might fall this season.
Van Gundy, speaking Monday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000, backed up a prediction he made to the Miami Herald that the Miami Heat can break the Bulls' record.
"I would think that everybody would think they would have a great shot at it," said Van Gundy, a former NBA head coach and current ABC/ESPN analyst. "I don't know if I said they will or they have a great chance, whatever I said, I just think if they're healthy, the discrepancy between their talent level and and the next level is so great, that I just don't see how they lose games. I think they're that good."
Van Gundy told the Herald that the Heat will break the record, and that they have a "legit shot" at the Los Angeles Lakers' 33-game win streak, which they set in the 1971-72 season.
Bulls vice president of basketball operations John Paxson, who retired after the 1993-94 season, did not dismiss the possibility of the Heat threatening the record.
"On paper, that's one heck of a team," Paxson said Tuesday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000. "You look at what they can throw out there, night in and night out, they're going to be difficult to defend at a lot of positions.
"When the salary cap came in higher than it was anticipated, not only did it help a lot of teams, but it really helped them because they were able to gain a little more flexibility and sign guys like Mike Miller. They're going to be very good, and only time will tell. But that's why we strap it up and play."
Van Gundy based his prediction at least partially on what James was able to accomplish in Cleveland.
"Erik Spoelstra is a heck of a coach, so they're going to be motivated to play well defensively, which is about coaching, and offensively they're going to be an absolute nightmare to deal with," Van Gundy said on ESPN 1000. "If LeBron James can win 66 games in the regular season with the guys he played with, who I think are better than people have given them credit for in Cleveland, then I think you add Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh and Mike Miller, it's not a stretch to say they can win six more."
Van Gundy backed off -- slightly -- from his claim that the Lakers are the only team that could beat the Heat in a playoff series.
"I think Boston -- with the [Shaquille] O'Neal signing -- has a legitimate chance as well," he said. "But I think those are the only two teams that have a chance in a playoff series to beat them."

Van Gundy said he likes what the Bulls have done in adding Carlos Boozer, Kyle Korver, C.J. Watson, Ronnie Brewer and Keith Bogans, but he still doesn't see Chicago among the elite in the Eastern Conference.
"I think you've got Miami, and you have Boston just a notch below them," he said. "Orlando would have to be right below them, then I think Atlanta's a very good team.
"I would put those four teams clearly ahead of them right now, and I think Chicago could be fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth -- somewhere in that range."
Van Gundy believes it's become popular to pick against the Heat.
"I think people are trying to pick on Miami right now instead of opening their eyes to just how great they are," he said. "There are going to be no chemistry issues. Wade and James are unselfish players.
"That doesn't mean if they win a championship it's a great accomplishment either, because they're so much better than everybody. But to discount just how good they are, I think people are making a mistake."