The importance of commentary

How much do you value commentary? Can it make or break the fun you have watching a game? To me, it's always been very important. I collect classic NBA games and I've had games where not having home commentary or commentary of the team winning kill the excitement, thus me deleting the game (I keep games I like to re-watch at certain times). Even as a non-American, non-Houstonian and only starting to be real fan of the Rockets since 07-08 - although loved Olajuwon since 1997 when I saw NBA Action highlights - Worrell is a piece of nostalgia and part of me. Same goes for Marv, Hubie, Bob Costas, Dick Stockton and plenty of other voices part of the game, including some local ones who just bring a certain excitement to the game like Steve Martin of the Hornets, the mid 90s Supersonics commentators, among others.

The importance of it for me, has come to the point of me being so annoyed with certain voices that I really struggle to enjoy the game at times. There's just commentators I cannot stand, some local that you're sometimes force to listen to like Sean Elliot, Cavs commentators (L-Trainnnn) and even our local hero Clyde Drexler and Matt Bullard. While that is an issue, with streaming you can view both home and away during the regular season so it's not too bothersome. I mean, the nostalgia factor for Worrell usually makes me see past the senile comments and dumb jokes for example. National commentary is a different ball game. For years, Ive been bothered by the co-commentators like Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson, Doris Burke, Jon Barry - loved him as a player, did not realise he could be such an ass. Even moreso though, I've become bothered by almost every single main commentator.

Marv Albert and Hubie Brown might take the cake, but even Mike Breen and Kevin Harlan have started to annoy me. The problem with the latter is their reliance on catch phrases, mainly Breen (BANG!), and overly enthusiastic reaction to every single play, mainly Harlan. They also tend to go with the national narrative so they tend to drool all over whoever's is liked, while not really knowing about stats and the actual impact a player has. That is actually not up to them, that is what the co-commentators are for, but when they are even more delusional and caught up in the narratives most of the time, I will hold them accountable. Then we have our fantastic duo of a long forgotten glorious past when their voices were iconic and they provided a more objective commentary of games, mainly Hubie, and made less mistakes, mainly Marv.

Now I haven't watched all the games, but based on what I could find, Marv Albert and Hubie are not in the bubble and there's a report prior to the re-start that Marv would not be doing commentary outside of maybe some remote work. I don't know if anyone can confirm, but I haven't heard Marv nor Hubie. In any case, I am overjoyed not having to hear Marv in particular in these play-offs. Hubie might not be so bad, since he roots for the underdog which we will be in any series past the 1st round. His voice hasn't changed, which cannot be said for Marv who just sounds like he's smoked too much with that hoarse throat.

I don't know what it is about these networks that keeps them from making changes, bring in some fresh faces and sending these guys into retirement. It's not like they're under 65...And I'm 100% honest when I say I rather hear Ian Eagle - one of the best in the game ever - or Brian Anderson on TNT and Mark Jones or Dave Pasch on ESPN than all of those I mentioned. As co-commentators, I can deal with McHale, Stan van Gundy, JVG, Grant Hill, Jim Jackson or Chris Webber. No real preference there. But to me it is very important, especially when it gets to the Conference Finals who is going to be commentating. We know the finals are Mark, JVG & Breen and that is fine. They balance each other out.

This year the Western Conference has TNT, which I hope will be a rotation of commentators since I'd love to hear Eagle or Anderson over Harlan. In any case, we won't have Marv, so that's always good, as he was the one who did the whole Conference Finals last year. They alternated between Reggie & Webber based on location, so I fear if we get there, we might be stuck with the Harlan & Reggie duo. However, anything better than a Marv with anyone combo. Let's see what happens. At least the half-time shows have a chance to be fun, ESPN is just awful.

As you can see, this is a big deal for me and I sincerely hope for more changes of the old farts and dreadful commentators who are probably just in the booth because they are legends, not for their analysis - looking at you Drexler - or unbiased and positive commentary - looking at you Sean Elliott. Worrell can stay as long as he likes, especially given Ackerman is one of those typical radio heads who maybe never tone it down or get rid of the incessant talking. This is a problem for most commentators though. I remember back in the day, there could be moments of silence. Imagine that now!

So how important is to you and are you excited not having to hear Marv Albert nor Hubie Brown this year?

 

Glad to hear I'm not the only one. It has bothered me so much how commentary has gone down over the last 10-20 years. It's all just bad jokes, incessant banter and talking, less and less about basketball. The game itself seems of secondary importance.

I wanted to add that with this bubble and the game already much less energetic, no real crowd and that annoying ticking sound - what is that??! - that commentary becomes even more important to keep me engaged. Can't wait to find out who we got!

 

Fair enough, two things though:
1. If every 3 pointer or big basket down the stretch is followed by BANG, then it gets old pretty fast. Same with Harlan who used to use those crazy lines like sucking gravity right out of the building once in every blue moon. Now it seems every game or a few times a game there’s something mind blowing. Which leads me to:

2. Not every single play needs to be celebrated like it’s the most amazing thing ever. This might be hard for Americans to understand, but when everything is amazing, nothing is. You feel me? Then special plays, spectacular dunks lose their allure and I cannot really enjoy those special plays as much.

If you watched 80s and 90s in particular, commentary was way different. It was only the hot streaks, clutch shots, circus shots, cross overs and great blocks that really warranted a response that nowadays can be for even making a simple 2pt shot. There’s exceptions of course, but it really needs to be balanced.

 

The reason I said that, was not aimed at you but anyone with only having heard American commentary, it stands out compared to more neutral or sober approach here in North-Western part of Europe. There are other, Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern commentators can go quite nuts and talk very fast, constantly, but that's what's usually in soccer because they're so nervous for their specific club and there's only one a few shot at the goal (basket) in every few minutes, if that. So it's more spread out. This should help explain my point of view that I'm not into celebrating every basket like it's amazing. Even if it's a dunk.

It's personal taste as well, but I do think it comes more natural to Americans to call something amazing, be excited over every single thing whereas in Europe we are much less inclined to do that. Here in the Netherlands we have a saying "act normal, that's already crazy enough", which really shines through in sports commentary as well. Granted, our commentators suck 90% of the time because they sound bored as hell. So there's a middle ground. I think Worrell shines particularly in this department. He really has a feel for what gets the crowd going, what pleases the fans, though he's been more overt in recent years compared to the days with Calvin.

I didn't meant to be negative, apologise if it sounded offensive or derogatory. I just like it when commentators go nuts over the truly great plays, dunks, threes, tough shots, clutch time shots, steals etc. But In general I like it actually more when commentators point out a great pass, move and everything leading up to the result rather than the obvious. And again, when every dunk is amazing, then it all becomes the same in terms of excitement. Like Harlan making a rather simple dunk sound like he just did T-Mac's dunk on Bradley.

Now, that being said, I may have been a bit hard on Mike Breen as yesterday's game between LA and Dallas he was very good and only used bang every so often. I could do with a different reaction every now and again, but it's his catch phrase so what the hell. As far as your scenario, that's very black and white isn't it. I mean he doesn't have to do it every time, one 3 is not the other. A clutch time one, late in shot clock, momentum shifter, tying it up warrants a more enthusiastic reaction than just a random 3 when already up by 5 or just a simple catch and shoot etc. Now Breen actually does distinguish, but it depends from game to game.

There's no need to go that far to say I should just mute, that's completely disregarding what I'm saying, but maybe my American remark triggered that emotion so it's all good.

 

Actually he used to be great, love his 1994 finals commentary and he made exciting plays more powerful, but now he's underwhelming and actually doesn't sound that excited anymore. That could be largely due to his voice. I see what you mean though and of course I'm not saying don't be excited, quite the contrary, I love it. But just saying that not every single play needs to be considered great, earth shattering etc.