From Hollinger's chat
DW (SF, CA)
John, if I MUST see one NBA player play in person, who would it be?
John Hollinger (2:28 PM)
I'm a big Ginobili guy for that, but I've only seen Griffin in person once. CP is great in person too ... his game comes across as kinda boring on TV but up close you see it in a different light.
You find that surprising? Hollinger was the one who boldly wrote an insider piece on Manu > Kobe a couple of years ago in 07-08. He's always respected Gino this is nothing new.
You can acknowledge the props but it shouldn't be surprising. Hollinger is among the most neutral and objective analysts at ESPN.
Now granted his comment was purely subjective, the point is that he's been aware of ginobili's style and excellence of play forever.
Yes, I found it surprising he would mention Manu first...no LeBron, no D Wade, no Kobe.
Not totally surprising that a thoughtful guy who tries to do metrics watches instead the one player that stats cannot totally measure his value.
Those three are slammed down NBA fans all the time anyway and he is probably rightfully sick of it. He has given each plenty of props though especially James for several years of historic PER value.
He'll change his mind tonight that's how the media rolls
Hollinger and Henry Abbott are not your typical misinformed, media hype-induced superstar suckers.
Much of the Spurs recognition from ESPN comes from those two analysts.
If somebody like Chris Broussard or Jalen Rose answered Ginobili, I would be ing flabbergasted.
Hollinger? Not as much.
He wrote an entire piece on how Derrick Rose isn't an elite point guard (yet). He always tries to undermine the media hype with facts an figures if at all possible.
Now, granted, it's obviously a little overboard to say Rose isn't an elite point guard, and if you read the article the only negative Hollinger had about Rose is that he doesn't look for contact more when he drives hard to the rim (and therefore his free throw attempts are uncharacteristically poor for a player of his caliber).
The point is that Hollinger doesn't fit the mold of artificially hyping players up more than need be and ignorantly ignoring other great players in the league.
Ginobili sells tons of jerseys. Ok he doesn't like sell them out of his trunk or anything, but those with his name sell. He's a really exciting player, one of the most exciting in the game actually.
Manu getting props from Hollinger does not suprise me because Hollinger is a student of statistics. If you know statistics, you know Manu Ginobili is a baller.
Stats love Manu Ginobili. Therefore, Hollinger loves Manu Ginobili.
Ohh..add Marc Stein to the discussion about informed NBA analysts. The trouble with ESPN is that they have the best analysts, but are driven by a market model that wants to keep pandering to the average fan's tastes, which unfortunately is sneaker, highlight driven. So, a superb breakdown analyst like Kevin Arnovitz (a Clipper fan!) is reduced to a Miami Heat beat writer, while he can do a much greater job trying to show us why the Spurs win so "confoundingly" well.. or why NBA defense is so crucial as compared to NBA offense and the likes.
But thats the name of the game everywhere else in sport. Before the current love for the Barcelona squad for example, there were pretty few in English writing sports journalism who gave a damn for the Spanish La Liga. Even then, its star coverage more now than covering sports as it is.
Too many sports analysts forget that sportsmen/women are just humans as we are, who are skilled at a particular vocation and not demigods. The Spurs' players and coach themselves realise it, which makes them a cut apart from others in the profession. The stats guys are forced by habit to come around to the same view. As they see the Matrix reduced to a bits, bytes and numbers; all that matters to them is the organisation of these numbers than the glamour surrounding it. No wonder Hollinger or a Kubatko or a score other are far more objective than the lot.
Great post
Adding onto it, ESPN is not just a sports company. It's an entertainment company, it has several shows to entertain AND inform. In any given sports debate, they need to present alternative views with some of their analysts, otherwise, they don't have much of a show and simply information.
But yeah, I do not think the majority of it is justified. They still could do a much better job, without really sacrificing any business. I really wish they would because ESPN is just too damn powerful with all of its resources at this point, they will always be the top sports media company.
More to say, again. With everything I just said, ESPN and American sports commentary/analysis are miles ahead from every other country in the world. The international soccer coverage in Europe or really anywhere really is just absolutely absurd in every imaginable way, they are the opposite of professionals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
