Re: What's with Walton?
posted at 2/24/2011 11:29 AM EST
In Response to Re: What's with Walton?
[QUOTE]For all of his bombast, Walton is more interesting than Tommy Heinsohn, by far. And Donny Marshall is better than either of them, because Donny provides more information and real analysis than either of them. By the way, have you ever noticed that most guys on TV and the radio are completely incapable of analyzing shots taken stats? It never occurs to them that frequently the reason why a team has taken fewer shots than the other team is neither turnvers nor rebounding, but is because one team is going to the line far more than the other. Fewer shots does not necessarily mean fewer offensive opportunities - it can mean that you are getting a lot of two-shot fouls, which are, on average, a better way to score than taking FGs.
Posted by jerrycole[/QUOTE]
Spare me the Donny Marshall hype, please, he is an irritating narcissist with zero personality who thinks he knows-it-all but who is often so far off the mark it is laughable. To claim that either he or Walton is better than Heinsohn seems to me a good way to establish a lack of credibility for oneself.
It seems to me that a lot of the criticism on this thread is about the lack of an ability to listen and discern the gist of a speakers comments and understand their style.
Tommy is quite laconic, which I see as a good thing, for with him and Mike you can focus on the game, and when something needs commenting on, Tommy usually has a spot on explanation. But they are comfortable with silence and in their broadcasts sometimes the only sound you hear is the ball and sneakers squeaking on the floor. That is a thing of beauty.
Walton is, by contrast, quite loquacious. and he says some off the wall stuff. But the stuff he says is largely entertaining, and his knowledge of basketball fundamentals, how a successful team operates, cannot be questioned.
Walton grows quite emotional with the ups and downs of a game and in that he is no different than most of us. When the C's played well in GS, he was effusive with his praise, and when they stunk it up he grew frustrated with their play and this was reflected in his commentary. -Being innovative and fun with your comments is one thing. Making No sense at all is another. Against G.S. he was all over the place. I'll turn off the sound when he is around, thank you very much.-
I find that Walton's being all over the place reflected the way in which the C's at times looked virtually unbeatable while at other times looked as if they were self-destructing. As a viewer I noticed the same things, and his reaction, much the same as mine, made me chuckle and made him seem even more human.
Maybe Bill is a little off his game, not having done much commentary since his illness and recovery a few years ago, but he should improve and get his edge back.
As for being a Celtic fan, his loyalty, his bona fides should not be questioned. I don't get where this is coming from.
But for God's Sake, anything is preferable to the Van Gundy crew who manage to spoil every Celtic game they work.
I also do remember Mike and Tommy commenting on the number of shots thrown up and the impact the number of fouls and free-throws has on this stat.