I can't stand the "dumbing down" of mainstream basketball today

ESPN, NBAtv, TNT. All of it.

NBA analysis today is all about hero-name dropping. "Can Kobe/Lebron/Durant pull out this win" Did "Kobe/Lebron/Durant" do something athletic tonight.

Nobody talks about actual basketball on tv. Nobody talks about great on-the-floor teamball and playmaking. It's literally all about creating stories about _____ star player willing their team to victory against ______ star player on the opposing team and above the rim highlights. It's all smoke and mirrors and no meat and potatoes. I love watching older Lakers games with Chick Hearn or games where Bill Russell is doing color commentating because they actually add insight to plays that are developing and they didn't just glorify the stars. I do not like the way the game is presented today, it is presented for casual mainstream fans who just want a hero not [I]actual[/I] sport/basketball fans who want to see and understand a good game.

Agreed.

Its been that way since those stations started covering baksetball, sooo..forever. Stop being a hipster, save that stuff for music and art.

Yeah, I especially notice this for the Heat. Even though they have star players, it's the system that helps them thrive with their "hockey-assists," their back door cuts (Wade's gotten terrific at it). Even when the stars sit, the team usually wins because they know how to swing the ball and play good defense whether they're stars are in or not.

[QUOTE=chosen_wun]Its been that way since those stations started covering baksetball, sooo..forever. Stop being a hipster, save that stuff for music and art.[/QUOTE]
No it hasn't, and being a basketball fan makes me a hipster?

[IMG]http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg[/IMG]

i agree and its awful. get used to it.

espn is to sports now as mtv is to music.

The recycled, tired cliches, counter-arguments, and arbitrary stats are what get me most. I blame ESPN primarily for lowering the intelligence of basketball followers by pushing their TV "analysts", bias web content, and contrived first take debates.

Examples of eye-rolling commentary:
"makes players around him better"
"replace player x with player y and the team is better/worse"
"team is better without star player x"

Too many variables to make simple-minded statements and pass them off as credible.

[QUOTE=WayOfWade]Yeah, I especially notice this for the Heat. Even though they have star players, it's the system that helps them thrive with their [B]"hockey-assists," their back door cuts (Wade's gotten terrific at it). Even when the stars sit, the team usually wins because they know how to swing the ball and play good defense whether they're stars are in or not.[/B][/QUOTE]
Youd think it was all about Lebron/Wade's killer instinct/athleticism/will-to-win that is entirely behind the Heat's success the way the game is presented too us. Backdoor cut probably isn't even a vernacular they're allowed to use on sports networks anymore :lol

Yeah, it's why people call a team like the Spurs boring despite the fact they're the most unselfish and well-coached team in the league. In general, people don't seem to understand the value of coaching which is why they wonder when a team like the Lakers struggles so much.

But basketball has been going in this direction for years. It started with the fascination of the Magic/Bird rivalry, then went to another level with Jordan and it's just been ingrained more and more into the casual fan and media in the 2000s/2010s with Shaq, Kobe, T-Mac, Iverson, Lebron, Wade, Durant ect.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Youd think it was all about Lebron/Wade's killer instinct/athleticism/will-to-win that is entirely behind the Heat's success the way the game is presented too us. Backdoor cut probably isn't even a vernacular they're allowed to use on sports networks anymore :lol[/QUOTE]

It's similar to how people view Phil Jackson's Lakers and Bulls. People talk about the triangle, but many seem to consider it irrelevant because of the great players, when it was an essential part of those team's success.

No matter how great your stars are, or how much talent you have, you need the entire team to know what they're doing at both ends, and play together. If someone gets beat and there's consistently no help defensively, you're not going to win anything, and if you're not moving the ball, and players aren't moving without the ball, you're going to be very easy to defend.

It's always been this way. Basketball is always about "that dude" and not the entire team.

Also, basic marketing. Hero-ball creates stories. That brings jersey sales, merchandising, viewership. Money.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]No it hasn't, and being a basketball fan makes me a hipster?[/QUOTE]
Basketball fans watch games and couldn't care less about the dweebs who broadcast them.

I do agree that they need to start giving lesser players storylines, like when say Earl Clark or Chris Anderson etc. is tearing it up.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, it's why people call a team like the Spurs boring despite the fact they're the most unselfish and well-coached team in the league. In general, people don't seem to understand the value of coaching which is why they wonder when a team like the Lakers struggles so much.

But basketball has been going in this direction for years. It started with the fascination of the Magic/Bird rivalry, then went to another level with Jordan and it's just been ingrained more and more into the casual fan and media in the 2000s/2010s with Shaq, Kobe, T-Mac, Iverson, Lebron, Wade, Durant ect.



It's similar to how people view Phil Jackson's Lakers and Bulls. People talk about the triangle, but many seem to consider it irrelevant because of the great players, when it was an essential part of those team's success.

No matter how great your stars are, or how much talent you have, you need the entire team to know what they're doing at both ends, and play together. If someone gets beat and there's consistently no help defensively, you're not going to win anything, and if you're not moving the ball, and players aren't moving without the ball, you're going to be very easy to defend.[/QUOTE]
I love catching Spurs games, that teams offense keeps everyone moving well without the ball - which is totally opposite of say, when Lebron played with the Cavs. In the Lebron-Cavs era Lebron's "teammates" weren't the problem, our (lack) of a moving team-offense was. Basketball involves all 5 players working together with or without the ball. Not 1 man dribbling at the top of the key "imposing his will" onto another team while 4 others stand around waiting which is often what happened with my team in the Lebron-Cavs era. The ESPN coverage loved presenting that too, even thought it was TERRIBLE basketball. They thrive off heroball. The National media always covered Lebron, and almost never "teams" like the dominant Spurs unless the Spurs forced the media to give them attention by winning a title. But even then it was presented like it was all about Ginobli, Duncan or Parker - saving the day/series whoever did better on a given night was given credit for winning the game.

Now like someone said, the Heat have a great moving offense where (similar to with the Spurs) there's always people rotating and there's a lot of off the ball movement. Yet ESPN still presents the sport as if it's just hero-ball like in Lebrons Cavs days and they just want to talk about Lebron. Exept now they talk about one other guy (Wade) if their stats go lopsided. Then it's "Lebron disappeared" and "Wade stepped up". It's frustrating because if I miss a game I've got no hope of knowing what actually happened, the TV networks will just talk about some weak narrative. And it seems to be brainwashing future generations of fans into being just hero-stans, without actually presenting the truth about how/why some teams and players are winning and others aren't.

Good comment that if you miss a game, youll never know the story of it.

and **** off whoever says modern coverage = MTV and its everywhere so deal with it. That is a shamefully dumb opinion to have.
Milwad was trying to start an account for people to watch Rockets games so ppl could actually chat about what was going on in the games. If you go to the games, you get a different story than you do if you lsiten. There are less conventional ways to have a deeper basketball experience. Dont just deal with it.

It's not basic marketing, either. What in "basic marketing" says that people are drawn to hero-ball over anything else? There's no book that tells you what people are going to eat up. Its ALOT more complicated than that. Basic Marketing LOL. Didnt know harvard was so well represented on ISH :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps][IMG]http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

:roll:

It's become more and more about the fulfilling of media narratives, than the actual game itself. It's pretty pathetic.

This seems to be another thread created by you which is more about your underlying bias and obsession against one player, then what you actually pose your threads as.

[IMG]http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/george-mikan-marquee.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=NugzFan]i agree and its awful. get used to it.

espn is to sports now as mtv is to music.[/QUOTE]

And I don't watch either.

So, you don't have to watch it to get coverage or "get used to it". I feel you can get so many different forms of information online.

[QUOTE=plowking]This seems to be another thread created by you which is more about your underlying bias and obsession against one player, then what you actually pose your threads as.[/QUOTE]

Not really, since the OP and I have talked about this conversation before.

Hubie,Fratello,Weber all do a relatively decent job in breaking down the game , but I genuinely hate that idiots who know less about basketball than a 6 year old are getting paid millions to talk garbage.

I'm going to get mocked for this and have more "old man" jokes (despite being only 26 years old) but I'm going to post an example of what is being shown today for fans to experience the game of basketball vs what was being shown, say... in the 1960's, and 1970's

------------------------------------------------------------------

Short sports segment from 1960 on the 1960 Olympic basketball team
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL2zjev335Q[/url]
Explains some of the ins and outs of the game with some footage of team ball. Lots of use of words like "team".

Short sports segment from 1973 on the 1973 ABA ASG
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9VayNJ9G2s[/url]
Explains some of the ins and outs of the game with lots of footage. Plenty of coverage of everyone, majority of clips shown is of great team plays.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sports segment on the 2012 Olympic basketball team:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nboi2vwYmg[/url]
Non-stop hero-name dropping.

Sports segment on the 2013 NBA ASG:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR2Til9KaqE[/url]
"KOBE AND LEBRON" - again, just hero name dropping - with some "stats" (of the hero's in question). No coverage of the teams, whole game, or other players.










I don't care that we have shows like ESPN first take, but I do care that we DON'T have some sort of channel or program we can turn too to get [I]actual[/I] basketball insight presented too us today. There should be shit out there today that is way more educational than everything I've seen so far. Nobody is actually learning the game anymore with the kind of stuff presented today, we're just learning about hero's. It's embarassing how little information is presented about basketball today on "Sports" networks. It's just hero-talk.

Stats - and the extent to which they have penetrated all sports talk is a huge reason for this. Before someone cares to explain what players do for a team they just call out their stats.

Makes it impossible to have an actual basketball conversation.

All sports are headed this way, QB's in football and now even Baseball is getting this treatment which is hilarious. They make it seem like one pitcher or power hitter is the reason for a teams success

The "dumbing down" began with ESPN. They create heroes/legends. That's why Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan are the Holy Trinity of the sport. They are the first NBA players of the ESPN era of sports media coverage.

[QUOTE=plowking]This seems to be another thread created by you which is more about your underlying bias and obsession against one player, then what you actually pose your threads as.[/QUOTE]
No, this is a genuine complaint about the presentation of the game today. It's not about your hero. In fact, my complaints about ESPN and the overall presentation of basketball today is probably the underlying reason why you worship your "hero" the way you do and think everyone is out to get him and hate him.

This has always been the case. This is not new and it happens in every sport. Sports is soap opera. It's not marketed to people who enjoy watching the sport at the highest level but to fans of teams and players who want to cheer their favorites on while watching the opponent fail.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I love catching Spurs games, that teams offense keeps everyone moving well without the ball - which is totally opposite of say, when Lebron played with the Cavs. In the Lebron-Cavs era Lebron's "teammates" weren't the problem, our (lack) of a moving team-offense was. Basketball involves all 5 players working together with or without the ball. Not 1 man dribbling at the top of the key "imposing his will" onto another team while 4 others stand around waiting which is often what happened with my team in the Lebron-Cavs era. The ESPN coverage loved presenting that too, even thought it was TERRIBLE basketball. They thrive off heroball. The National media always covered Lebron, and almost never "teams" like the dominant Spurs unless the Spurs forced the media to give them attention by winning a title. But even then it was presented like it was all about Ginobli, Duncan or Parker - saving the day/series whoever did better on a given night was given credit for winning the game.

Now like someone said, the Heat have a great moving offense where (similar to with the Spurs) there's always people rotating and there's a lot of off the ball movement. Yet ESPN still presents the sport as if it's just hero-ball like in Lebrons Cavs days and they just want to talk about Lebron. Exept now they talk about one other guy (Wade) if their stats go lopsided. Then it's "Lebron disappeared" and "Wade stepped up". It's frustrating because if I miss a game I've got no hope of knowing what actually happened, the TV networks will just talk about some weak narrative. And it seems to be brainwashing future generations of fans into being just hero-stans, without actually presenting the truth about how/why some teams and players are winning and others aren't.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the Cavs offense or lack thereof was a big reason for their 2009 loss. Not much ball movement or player movement, and the result was Lebron averaging 39/8/8 while his teammates pretty much watched. There was a lot of talk about Lebron losing, and his teammates deficiencies, but not as much about why his teammates weren't involved or Mike Brown failing to make adjustments to Orlando's offense which is why Howard and Lewis killed them all series and why the 3 point shooters continued to get open shots.

[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol]Stats - and the extent to which they have penetrated all sports talk is a huge reason for this. Before someone cares to explain what players do for a team they just call out their stats.

Makes it impossible to have an actual basketball conversation.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, stats are fine to some extent, but the last decade or so has gotten ridiculous. Basketball is the sport where the least of what goes on can be accounted for with stats, yet we see people mash up all the stats into these ridiculous formulas with subjective values given to each part of the game, subjective adjustments and some flat out assumptions. It's a sad commentary that people actually give these ridiculous formulas credibility.

They're ridiculous even in a sport like baseball which has always been more of a numbers game(virtually every time baseball is discussed on ESPN you'll hear garbage like WAR mentioned) and even more ridiculous when applied to basketball. You'll actually hear nonsense like PER and win shares mentioned on TV at times, and I cringe when I do.

[QUOTE=FKAri]This has always been the case. This is not new and it happens in every sport. Sports is soap opera. It's not marketed to people who enjoy watching the sport at the highest level but to fans of teams and players who want to cheer their favorites on while watching the opponent fail.[/QUOTE]
Did you not see the videos I posted? No it has not always been that way. It became that way over a period of time and from what I can tell has gotten progressively worse through the decades and is flat out awful now. There will always be some avenue for the "dumb down" version - and there always has even in the past, such as poorly written newspaper recaps by bias journalists and such. But the mainstream video presentations of games back then was focused on educating fans on the game not plugging hero's into everyone's mind. There is quite literally no mainstream avenue for actual intelligent basketball segments today. The NBA and other sports networks used to have a deliberate emphasis on educatition about the game. Perhaps for $$$ things changed. But they need to bring back some sort of educational interest in the game for at the very least, the sake of integrity. There are some ACTUAL basketball fans out there. Not everyone just wants to hear Skip and SAS yell at each other while dropping Kobe or Lebron's name 50 times in 5 minutes.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I love catching Spurs games, that teams offense keeps everyone moving well without the ball - which is totally opposite of say, when Lebron played with the Cavs. In the Lebron-Cavs era Lebron's "teammates" weren't the problem, our (lack) of a moving team-offense was. Basketball involves all 5 players working together with or without the ball. Not 1 man dribbling at the top of the key "imposing his will" onto another team while 4 others stand around waiting which is often what happened with my team in the Lebron-Cavs era. The ESPN coverage loved presenting that too, even thought it was TERRIBLE basketball. They thrive off heroball. The National media always covered Lebron, and almost never "teams" like the dominant Spurs unless the Spurs forced the media to give them attention by winning a title. But even then it was presented like it was all about Ginobli, Duncan or Parker - saving the day/series whoever did better on a given night was given credit for winning the game.

Now like someone said, the Heat have a great moving offense where (similar to with the Spurs) there's always people rotating and there's a lot of off the ball movement. Yet ESPN still presents the sport as if it's just hero-ball like in Lebrons Cavs days and they just want to talk about Lebron. Exept now they talk about one other guy (Wade) if their stats go lopsided. Then it's "Lebron disappeared" and "Wade stepped up". It's frustrating because if I miss a game I've got no hope of knowing what actually happened, the TV networks will just talk about some weak narrative. And it seems to be brainwashing future generations of fans into being just hero-stans, without actually presenting the truth about how/why some teams and players are winning and others aren't.[/QUOTE]

I'm with ya brother. You're not an old man by saying this, just in a pretty small minority. Its where the money is and everything trends to what sells the best eventually. Luckily team-ball still beats hero-ball most times so its not going away as much as the ESPN brass would like it to.

[[QUOTE]
Yeah, it's why people call a team like the Spurs boring despite the fact they're the most unselfish and well-coached team in the league. In general, people don't seem to understand the value of coaching which is why they wonder when a team like the Lakers struggles so much.

[/QUOTE] I honestly didn't know coaching was that important until last year with the Knicks. The difference between Woodson and pringles is like the sky and the earth. That is when I started to admire good coaching and what makes coaches like Pop and Phil so effective.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]ESPN, NBAtv, TNT. All of it.

NBA analysis today is all about hero-name dropping. "Can Kobe/Lebron/Durant pull out this win" Did "Kobe/Lebron/Durant" do something athletic tonight.

Nobody talks about actual basketball on tv. Nobody talks about great on-the-floor teamball and playmaking. It's literally all about creating stories about _____ star player willing their team to victory against ______ star player on the opposing team and above the rim highlights. It's all smoke and mirrors and no meat and potatoes. I love watching older Lakers games with Chick Hearn or games where Bill Russell is doing color commentating because they actually add insight to plays that are developing and they didn't just glorify the stars. I do not like the way the game is presented today, it is presented for casual mainstream fans who just want a hero not [I]actual[/I] sport/basketball fans who want to see and understand a good game.[/QUOTE]

That's life in the US. Everything and anything that makes money is produced for mass consumption. Goes for food, entertainment, everything. You have to do your own searching for hardcore/old school basketball coverage. That stuff doesn't get the ratings that would justify broadcasting it. It's just the way it is.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I don't care that we have shows like ESPN first take, but I do care that we DON'T have some sort of channel or program we can turn too to get [I]actual[/I] basketball insight presented too us today.[/QUOTE]I feel your pain. Though, I [i]do[/i] care that shows like First Take and Sportscenter are the way they are. I used to be able to count on Sportscenter to provide an informational and succinct wrap up of all that day's sporting news and events. Now it is a monster largely made up of your aforementioned hero talk, rumors, speculations, and arguments (with an occasional 30 second Lakers highlight mixed in somewhere).

I'm not necessarily looking for Basketball 101 shows (though I wouldn't mind having one out there). I'd just like to be able to turn on ESPN and NBATV and not immediately feel frustrated with the nature with which they attempt to shove mindless drivel down our throats. Why can't there just be basketball highlights with the host leading the narrative and analysts providing actual analysis? Why does it always have to go like this:

Rick Kamla: Early third quarter, Brandon Jennings scooping inside for two...

Dennis Scott: HO! B-Jenn-Jenn slicin' inside for the scoop job!

Brent Barry: Yeah, Jennings did a great job of sliding inside there and you saw that with the scoop.

WHY!?!?!?!

You guys should check out the bballbreakdown youtube channel if you want more x's and o's talk [URL="http://www.youtube.com/user/bballbreakdown/videos"]http://www.youtube.com/user/bballbreakdown/videos[/URL]

[QUOTE=Heavincent]You guys should check out the bballbreakdown youtube channel if you want more x's and o's talk [URL="http://www.youtube.com/user/bballbreakdown/videos"]http://www.youtube.com/user/bballbreakdown/videos[/URL][/QUOTE]
I know I've been a subscriber of his since almost the beginning, but see the problem is he isn't getting paid on TV to offer his well-informed opinion and share his knowledge with widespread fans. Skip Bayless and SAS are the "experts" that most fans are forced to see. Guys like Coach Nick need MUCH MORE exposure in the mainstream (because currently he and others who have his kind of knowledge get ZERO exposure - or in the case of former professioanls - aren't being greenlit to offer their legitimate knowledge of the game because it doesn't fit the script). Guys/shows like SAS/Skip on First Take need much LESS exposure and air-time. They need to at least share airtime with some legitimate shows. Youtube isn't good enough for a guy like Coach Nick.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]I know I've been a subscriber of his since almost the beginning, but see the problem is he isn't getting paid on TV to offer his well-informed opinion and share his knowledge with widespread fans. Skip Bayless and SAS are the "experts" that most fans are forced to see. Guys like Coach Nick need MUCH MORE exposure in the mainstream (because currently he and others who have his kind of knowledge get ZERO exposure - or in the case of former professioanls - aren't being greenlit to offer their legitimate knowledge of the game because it doesn't fit the script). Guys/shows like SAS/Skip on First Take need much LESS exposure and air-time. They need to at least share airtime with some legitimate shows. Youtube isn't good enough for a guy like Coach Nick.[/QUOTE]

Like you, I prefer more in-depth and less sensationalized analysis than what the mainstream has to offer. But this is the case in any medium. Fact is, a lion's share of nba viewers are casual fans. They don't want the x's and o's, they want the Oh's and Ah's, and that is perfectly reasonable...

Gotta dig a little deeper for the good stuff. This has always been true.

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps][IMG]http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]


LMAO

Man I'm starting to become that way as well. lol

[QUOTE=Leftimage]Like you, I prefer more in-depth and less sensationalized analysis than what the mainstream has to offer. But this is the case in any medium. Fact is, a lion's share of nba viewers are casual fans. They don't want the x's and o's, they want the Oh's and Ah's, and that is perfectly reasonable...

Gotta dig a little deeper for the good stuff. This has always been true.[/QUOTE]
Again though, it hasn't always been like this, and we shouldn't have to settle for it either. In fact literally the opposite was true 40+ years ago. The "ooh's and ah's" plays were ones that used to be hard to come by in coverage about the league and the intellectual ones were the norm. I've been skimming through basketball videos from every decade all day today and I'm noticing the 1980's is when content started getting over simplified and hero-fied. Now into the '10's it's literally flip flopped and there is literally [I]nothing[/I] intellectual presented on tv about the game anymore. Surely there should be [I]some[/I] broadcasted programming oriented to fans with higher IQ's. Heck I even remember a few years ago I used to enjoy a few of Kevin McHales breakdowns. But he's gone and replaced with Shaq who's just there for more drama. There's nothing to watch on tv unless you want a good laugh, or catch the actual games. If you need a recap or would like to learn some more insight about the game or some teams your SOL.

[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]Again though, it hasn't always been like this, and we shouldn't have to settle for it either. In fact literally the opposite was true 40+ years ago. The "ooh's and ah's" plays were ones that used to be hard to come by in coverage about the league and the intellectual ones were the norm. I've been skimming through basketball videos from every decade all day today and I'm noticing the 1980's is when content started getting over simplified and hero-fied. Now into the '10's it's literally flip flopped and there is literally [I]nothing[/I] intellectual presented on tv about the game anymore. Surely there should be [I]some[/I] broadcasted programming oriented to fans with higher IQ's.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, this is true of visual media in general. The belief is that in order to achieve mass appeal, one must "aim low." High IQ fans are not who they're targeting, as there aren't enough of them for them to concern themselves with. As Leftimage said, the lion's share of NBA fans are the casual viewers, so they're who it's geared for. Mass appeal is the goal, hence the simplism and sensationalism, since that's what "most people" want to see.

remember back in the eighties when the play by play announcing was so good, you could look away from the tv and still be painted a perfect picture? it was like listening to the radio so to speak.

You would think that with all the networks that show sports now that someone would get back to the basics and start covering sports the way they deserve to be covered.