Last night Matt, while discussing the Stros bullpen, suggested that Russ Springer be given a shot as closer in part because "he did it in Atlanta, and a bit in Arizona". Springer has 8 career saves, 1 with Atl and 1 with Zona.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=97308&page=7&pp=20 here's the thread I was referring to, and a particular post from some guy who never posts named "regul8r". he regulated in this thread like warren g. On the Celtics, it wasn’t necessary—“[D]ifferent players had to play different roles in order to win. We couldn’t expect to do so if each player took on the identical role of scoring as many points as possible, hoping that ours added up to more than our opponents’. … If [Red had] said to me, ‘What we need from you is twenty-five points a game,’ I might have been able to do it, but we wouldn’t have won much.”—but he could score if necessary for his team to win. EXAMPLE: In the 1962 NBA playoffs, Russell led the Celtics in scoring at 22.4 ppg, and in the NBA Finals, which would have been one of his NBA Finals MVP awards had it existed then: team-high 22.9 points and 27.0 rebounds per game, becoming the first player in NBA history to average 20 points and 20 rebounds during the course of a Finals, and in the deciding Game 7, he had 30 points and 40 rebounds in a game the Celtics won by three points in one of the greatest single-game performances in NBA Finals history. 1963 NBA Finals: 20.0 points, 26.0 rebounds, 5.3 assists per game, averages 20-20 for the second consecutive NBA Finals. 25 points on 10-of-19 shooting and 29 rebounds in Game 2 in a three-point Boston win. 21 points, 19 rebounds, five assists in Game 3. 22 points, 19 rebounds in Game 4. 24 points on 7-of-13 shooting from the floor and 10-of-13 from the free throw line, 27 rebounds and five assists in Game 5. Finished one assist shy of a triple double in the deciding Game 6. He, not Willis Reed, would have been the first player in NBA history to win All-Star Game MVP, regular season MVP, and NBA Finals MVP in the same season. Oh yeah, plus the Defensive Player of the Year Award, had it existed, making the him first one ever to do that, winning every damn award he would have been eligible for. 1965 NBA Finals: Set an NBA Finals record for highest field-goal percentage in a 5-game series (70.2 percent), a record which still stands to this day. In the deciding Game 5, he had a team-high 22 points on 6-of-9 shooting from the floor and 10 of 12 shooting from the line, 30 rebounds and four assists before leaving the game with six minutes remaining. Yet another NBA Finals MVP award to go with his regular season MVP award. 1966 NBA Finals: Led the Celtics in scoring at 23.6 points-per-game and shot 74 percent from the free throw line, and in the deciding Game 7, he had a team-high 25 points and 32 rebounds to lead Boston to a 95-93 win. Tom Heinsohn: “His detractors are always quick to say he couldn’t score, which isn’t true; he scored plenty of points when it counted.” But of course, people just talk without knowing what they’re talking about. Quote: Originally Posted by JumpMan Russell was 6-9, he rarely played against a center that was smaller than him. Jerry West: “Russell is not big for a center … but he’s so smart and so quick he has complete control of the middle of the court. He stops guys from driving and shooting and passing near the basket because he blocks so many shots and intercepts so many passes he inhibits the other guys.” Quote: Originally Posted by francis 4 prez and hakeem couldn't dominate the boards and block shots with the best of them? and shaq wouldn't have torn down rebound after rebound and had tons of blocks? it's not that russell didn't do these things and do them very well, but kareem, shaq, and hakeem could have all been monsters on the glass and been as dominant defensively (well maybe not shaq since he didn't care), but they could also dominate offensively. you know, for those times when you don't have 4 other hall of famers on the court with you to do the scoring. they could do what russell could do, but he couldn't do what they did. B.S. Shaq never dominated the boards or got tons of blocks NOW. Mr. MDE couldn’t rebound with the 6-8 Rodman, so how’s he going to rebound with Russ and Wilt? And apparently you’re unaware of one of the knocks on Kareem at the time: “Though [7 feet 2 inches] tall, Abdul-Jabbar is not a good rebounder. Because of his size, he has done adequately in the statistics, but he could do more. Defensively, he plays hard in spurts. There are days when he roams the court like an aggrieved Goliath searching for missing offspring behind every rival pick. Then there are days when he resembles a lifelike statue placed under the basket.” But of course, you wouldn’t be aware of that. Kareem couldn’t have done for the Celtics what Russell did, and more scoring isn’t what they needed. And Kareem couldn’t have done what Russell did against Chamberlain. Look at what Moses Malone did to Kareem, and then imagine a PRIME Wilt. As it was, a NON-prime Wilt held his own against Kareem. Quote: Originally Posted by JumpMan You'd also see that plenty of them had stats that would make you wonder why the heck they belonged in the Hall, I believe only Havlicek, Heinson, Sharmon and Cousy had stats that belonged in the Hall. KC Jones didn't average double figures in anything, not even points, EVER, in his whole career, but I believe he's in the Hall of Fame and if not mistaken that was before his coaching career. He wasn't the only guy who had similar numbers but still made the hall over guys that were better individual basketball players without the rings. Exactly. Everyone talks about all the Hall of Famers Russell was surrounded with, yet fail to consider how many of them would have been Hall of Famers if they hadn’t played with Russell on a part of the greatest dynasty ever. Case in point, K.C. Jones: career averages of 7.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.5 apg. Shot 38.7% from the floor and 63.2% from the line as a GUARD. Never averaged more than 9.2 ppg in a single season. HE WAS NEVER EVEN AN NBA ALL-STAR (how do you get to be a Hall of Famer when you were never even an ALL-STAR???). Damn it was good to have been a teammate of Russell for his entire basketball playing career. Quote: Originally Posted by giddyup How did Bill Russell only make one all-NBA Defensive Team? Is that a mistake? That and winning championships is all he is known for... The NBA All-Defensive Teams didn’t come into existence until the 1968-69 season, which was Russell’s last in the league. Yet he was still First Team All-Defense at 34 years old. Quote: Originally Posted by London'sBurning People like to mention Russel as one of the best, but people also forget the cast he had along with him. Pretty much the whole Celtics roster back then were full of hall of famers. Wilt had less to manage with, but was still the most dominant force in the game. See above. And from the 1965-66 season to the 1968-69 season, Chamberlain had the cast, but he could only win once. His teams had a better record every year from that point on, and in ’69, he Baylor and West could be three-fifths of an ALL-TIME TEAM. NO ONE had the Celtics winning. They weren’t even supposed to GET that far because they were a bunch of “old men.” And you tell me that Jordan, Magic, or Bird is going to lose a series after going up 3-1. Russell won when his team had the better record, he won when his team didn’t have the better record, he won when he wasn’t supposed to win (1968, 69). The bottom line is, he just won. Quote: Originally Posted by Desert Scar Russell is great, but had you put Kareem or Hakeem or Wilt or Shaq on those Celts teams do they miss a beat, doubtfull or at worst questionable. See above. And Wilt for one, disagrees: Quote: A lot of people have said to me, “Wilt, what if you had that team? Boy, you would never have lost!” Not true. If I was on their team, I would be taking away from some of what the other guys were doing. Everybody had a role on that team. (Tom) Heinsohn wouldn’t be getting the same number of shots, nor would (Bill) Sharman, nor would Bob Cousy because I’d be shooting the ball a whole lot more. Bill Russell gave them just what they needed. I would’ve given them a little bit more in certain things, which I think would have made the team not as good. I’ve always believed that he made that team exactly what it was supposed to be. And you couldn’t get any better. Shaq wouldn’t provide the rebounding and defense the Celtics needed to fuel their fast-break offense, and waiting for him to get down the floor would slow them up. Shaq also couldn’t have played the minutes Russell did, and if he didn’t adjust, he’d foul out. And against the Warriors/Sixers, no way he could keep up with Wilt, who played 48 minutes a game. Quote: Originally Posted by dharocks I don't think stats tell the whole story with Russell, personally. No, they don’t. Stats don’t even begin to do the man justice. Quote: Originally Posted by Dr of Dunk People scream that an in-his-prime Shaq isn't great because you couldn't leave him in at the end of games due to his horrific FT%.... tell me what Russell's was. Pure ignorance, spoken by someone who—like the majority of people, unfortunately—didn’t bother to do his research before making a statement. But unfortunately for that little argument, I’m here with the facts to shoot that down. One of the things about Russell is that he made his free throws when winning or losing the game depended on it. “What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting,” said Fred Schaus, coach of the Los Angeles Lakers for four of their six NBA Finals defeats at the hands of Russell and the Celtics. “For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. … Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.” EXAMPLE: Game 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers. The Celtics won.110-107—a three point margin. Russell scored 30 points and grabbed an NBA Finals single-game record 40 rebounds. You know what else? HE MADE 14 OF 17 FREE THROWS. That’s 82.4 percent. Since you compared his free throw shooting to Shaq, made me an instance where Shaq did that, and in a game of such magnitude. The Lakers kept putting him on the line, and he kept making his free throws. As a matter of fact, Russell shot 75.4 percent from the line for that series. Russell also led the Celtics in free throw attempts during the Finals with 61, 26 more than Tom Heinsohn, and only Elgin Baylor (100) and Jerry West (83) went to the line more in the series. Game 1: 122-108 Boston. Russell: 3-3 Game 2: 129-122 LA. Russell: 3-9 Game 3: 117-115 LA. Russell: 8-11 Game 4: 115-103 Boston. Russell: 5-5 Game 5: 126-121 LA. Russell: 6-6 Game 6: 119-105 Boston. Russell: 7-10 Game 7: 110-107 Boston. Russell: 14-17 Russell was being put on the line and he was making his free throws. Because that’s what he needed to do for them to win. How about another example? 1966 NBA Finals: Russell shoots 74 percent from the line. In the deciding Game 7 which Boston won 95-93, Russell was perfect from the line because in a close game they could have meant the difference between winning and losing. That’s why the man never lost a Game 7 in his life. See, you can get away with stuff like that with other people, but I actually have the evidence to the contrary. Most people say the same thing over and over again, so I compiled the evidence to refute what seem to be the most common statements. But you could have read that in the newspaper: Quote: his laughable free-throw percentage became irrelevant when he sank the big ones, time after time, against the 76ers, Lakers and Cincinnati Royals. And as far as the Russell vs. Chamberlain argument, Chamberlain and Russell played four Game 7s, all of which were won, of course, by Russell. The Celtics won those games by a total of nine points. Chamberlain missed 24 free throws. Game 7 of the 1962 Eastern Conference Finals — The Celtics won 107-105. Not Chamberlain’s fault here. Chamberlain was 8 of 9 from the free-throw line, and Russell made all five of his attempts. Game 7 of the 1965 Eastern Conference Finals — This is the game where Havlicek stole the ball. I used to have the box score, but I can’t find it at the moment. Game 7 of the 1968 Eastern Conference Finals — Boston won 100-96. Chamberlain was 6 of 15 from the free-throw line (40 percent). Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals — In a game the Celtics won by two points—108-106, Chamberlain was 4 of 13 from the free-throw line (30.8 percent). Considering the fact that the Celtics weren’t blowing Chamberlain’s teams out, Chamberlain’s abysmal free-throw shooting hurt. With the exception of the ’62 ECF where he went 8 of 9, things could have been different if he’d simply made his free throws, and he could have won despite Russell’s “superior supporting cast.” But of course, it’s just easier to say that the only reason Russell won is because of his superior supporting cast, and he just went along for the ride. Russell did WHATEVER it took to win. If it meant making free throws, that’s what he did. Russell didn’t cost the Celtics games with poor free throw shooting. Another reason why Russell’s better than Chamberlain, who for three straight years couldn’t even shoot 40 percent from the free throw line in the playoffs. Quote: Originally Posted by JumpMan Russell made most of his game winning plays on the defensive either with a block or big rebound that usually led to an easy basket the other way. He was one of the most clutch players of all time, but not with scoring, pretty much like Magic, there's no way you win 11 championships against some of the greatest players of all time if you're not. Quote: Originally Posted by JumpMan In the Eastern Division Finals, the club came back from a two-game deficit to force a seventh game with Chamberlain and the 76ers. The Celtics were leading, 97-95, with 34 seconds left when Russell took over. He sank a foul shot, blocked a shot by Walker, grabbed a rebound off a Greer miss, and fed the ball to Sam Jones, who made the final basket in a 100-96 triumph. I was going to cite this very instance. There are a couple others too, but unfortunately by computer crashed in the past, and I’ve had to painstakingly start from scratch in putting everything back together again. Quote: Originally Posted by Panda Now onto his defense, the notion Russel is the best rebounder and shot blocker of all time is quite baseless. His rebounding numbers were closely matched by his peers like Wilt and later on guys like Artis Gilmore. That’s a bald-faced lie. As part of a project I was working on, I compiled the top 137 single-season rebounding averages in NBA history, which extends to the cutoff point of 14 rebounds-per-game. I have that list in front of me and am looking at it. Nowhere is Artis Gilmore’s name. I present to you Gilmore’s rebounding numbers. 13.0 13.1 12.7 9.0 10.1 10.2 12.0 10.3 10.4 8.5 7.1 2.6 3.1 3.0 As we can see, Gilmore NEVER averaged as many rebounds as Russell. His rebounding numbers were closely matched by his peers? He and Wilt were the only ones rebounding like that, so that’s also a lie. An average of 20 or more rebounds per game was achieved 25 times in NBA history. Russell achieved it 10 times, Chamberlain achieved it 10 times, Jerry Lucas did it twice, Nate Thurmond did it twice, and Bob Pettit did it once. The two times Thurmond did it was in 65 and 51 games, one of Lucas’ times was in 66 games. If you’re talking about Gilmore while he was in the ABA: 17.8 17.6 18.3 16.2 15.5 Russell’s career low rebounding average was 18.6 in his next-to-last season, when he was 33. So the best a 25-year-old Artis Gilmore could do was 0.3 away from Russell’s career low when he got when he was 33. Okay… Quote: Originally Posted by Panda For a guy with average or below average offense who sucks at FT, the only way he can make it up in the ranking of greats is through the greatest defense that's ever played. Unfortunately, there is either no proof on his blocked shots or the proof says his rebounding is only marginally standing out among his elite peers. I already showed concrete evidence that Russell didn’t “suck” at free-throw shooting when winning and losing hinged on it. So you’re saying that Russell’s rebounding only marginally stood out among his elite peers when the only man who rebounded like he did was Chamberlain. CAREER REBOUNDS PER GAME Chamberlain 22.9 Russell 22.5 Bob Pettit 16.2 Jerry Lucas 15.6 Nate Thurmond 15.0 Wes Unseld 14.0 Walt Bellamy 13.7 Dave Cowens 13.6 Elgin Baylor 13.5 George Mikan 13.4 Yeah, Russell’s rebounding was only marginally better than his peers… Quote: Originally Posted by francis 4 prez it seems if russell was better at offense the celtics offense would become better and they would win more. Wrong. The Celtics didn’t need more scoring. The Celtics were leading the league in scoring before Russell got there, and they went 11-17 in the playoffs. As one player said about the Celtics: “When you played the Celtics, Cousy would get 20 and Sharman and Macauley would get their 20, but you still could beat them by 20.” Look at the top offensive teams in the league and where they are right now. Will adding more offense make them better and win more? Quote: Originally Posted by francis 4 prez and how in the world does hakeem not compare to russell on defense? the all-time leader in shot blocks I find it funny how everyone keeps saying this: “Hakeem is the all-time leader in blocked shots.” Of course, that’s leaving out the fact that blocked shots were not recorded until the 1973-74 season, after which Russell and Chamberlain were both retired. Olajuwon is the all-time leader in blocked shots since they began recording the statistic. To say anything else is misleading. EXAMPLE: For Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s first four seasons (321 games), blocked shots were not kept. He has 3,189 recorded blocked shots in the 1,239 games for which blocked shots were tabulated, an average of 2.57 per game. Now Kareem did not have zero blocked shots for the first four seasons of his career. If you the average of blocks per game that we have for his games where they WERE recorded and apply it to the 321 games for which blocks WEREN’T kept, he’d have an extra 826 blocks, which would give him 4,015, 185 more than Olajuwon. FACT: Olajuwon is NOT the all-time leading shot blocker. Quote: Originally Posted by francis 4 prez who just happens to be #7 all time in steals Steals weren’t recorded until the ’73-74 season either. Quote: Originally Posted by francis 4 prez the only guy with over 2000 of each. See above. Quote: Originally Posted by francis 4 prez what, hakeem couldn't have pulled down 20+ a season back in the 60s? even with the lesser athletes, even with all the extra shots taken, even w/ the extra minutes per game russell and wilt played? he would be every bit the rebounder those were. so would shaq. who in the world would stop shaq's fat ass from getting rebounds back then? Hakeem wouldn’t have rebounded like Russell or Wilt, no. Don’t get what you’re trying to make about the extra minutes. Are you saying that Hakeem would be able to play the minutes that Russell and Chamberlain did? And Shaq? Shaq didn’t dominate the boards in THIS era. And are you suggesting that Shaq would be able to play the 40+ minutes that Russell and Chamberlain did? Right… Okay, this is probably already lengthy enough as it is, as people usually complain about my posts being too long. But I’m going to say this: one of the things that really bothers me about Chamberlain—something which isn’t reflected in the stats and hardly anyone talks about—is that he didn’t have the killer instinct of a Russell, a Jordan, a Bird. As Bill Bradley observed: Quote: He never developed the killer instinct necessary for team victory. In his rookie year he was constantly battered, kneed, elbowed, tripped, and gouged. He did not hit back. Instead, he threatened retirement. In his duels with Bill Russell he patted him on the behind when Russell made a good play, showing what Wilt thought was magnanimity. It was as if he were paralyzed within his enormous body, unwilling to strike out for fear of injuring an opponent or demeaning himself. Above all, Wilt, sensitive to being called a bully, made sure he never took unfair advantage. If someone said Wilt could only score by dunking, he retaliated by taking fall-away jumpers. If critics questioned his passing ability, he stopped shooting and rolled up the assists. He seemed driven to be the best, and on everyone else’s terms. In Chamberlain’s own words, the year after he finally beat Russell: Quote: I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself--whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more times than I could count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and [Philadelphia 76ers owner, Irv] Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself--and too much affection and respect for my teammates to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free throws, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking. What else could he do? How about win again? Was one title enough for Russell? Magic? Bird? Jordan? After they won for the first time, they kept winning. When the Bulls finally got past the Detroit Pistons after getting knocked out of the playoffs by them every year, Jordan made sure it never happened again. You’d think if Chamberlain took such exception to people regarding Russell as a better player than him, he’d have made it a point to do something about it now that he finally had the teammates around him which he lacked earlier. But no, he was content with getting his ring, and decided he’d turn his attention to leading the league in assists. That’s one of the reasons why the Celtics wouldn’t have won as many titles with Chamberlain as they did with Russell, as some argue they would have. After a while, Chamberlain would get bored and set his sights on some personal goal. You notice that Chamberlain did win with Philadelphia in ’67 and Los Angeles in ’72, but he couldn’t sustain it like Russell, Magic, and Jordan did. Winning never got old for Russell. It never got old for Magic. Bird. Jordan. Chamberlain was awesome in the 1967 playoffs where he finally overcame Russell and got his ring. Why couldn’t he decide to do that EVERY year? All of the other candidates for the title of THEE greatest of all time have that killer instinct where they’d rip your heart out. Russell was “the foxiest, smartest, meanest player, psychologically, that ever played the game. Whatever it took to win, Russell would do.” Jordan was “an assassin in shorts.” That’s one of the reasons I have Chamberlain below Russell and Jordan, who are IMO, the top two greatest players of all time. Stats don’t tell the whole story. in john madden voice "now here's a guy who knows what he's talking about"
Yeah, that was my favorite post of all time... I've read a lot about them (any NBA fan should check out books on them and that era in general) and the more I read the more I believe that Russell would be the man to go with if you were starting a team from scratch.
that post was so badass, that its the first thing I thought about when they were having the discussion. i've never seen someone put so many myths to rest with that post. and he made his point very clearly, russell did what his team needed to win.
Sportsradio like any other form of entertainment is subjective. There is no real best or worst, all programmers can do is put a team out there and hope that they relate to the audiences. I really like listening to Marc and Rich. Marc is my friend but aside from that he is a really cool, clever guy. Rich and Charlie bored me, but Rich now sounds like he is having fun as opposed to being in competition. I don't get Dave Har "bore" son. Again it's just what I like. Sure I'd love to have my interests integrated in to a sports show! Real hip hop references, guys talking about my favorite TV shows, Rocket talk 90% of the time and some black presence that could provide a solid outlook on the racial issues, but we don't have that, yet it's still all good. Adam and Matt have a dynamic that is still evolving and will probably move on to bigger an better things. I personally think that they are too good for where they are slotted. John and Lance are an Institution. Remember when they first came on? Man I was so happy to have a sports station here I could look over "aight" and "cough" (LOL RM). And now even though I can't listen to it all morning , it's like they're family. Complain all you want but we are better with SR610 than without.
You complete me. I agree. Especially on the black perspective. That is the something that is missing.
Cough. Seriously, I'm starting to really like Marc and Rich. The show's really come into its own, IMO. They play off each other really well now.
Ahhhh...Another Brother, my Another Brother from Another Mother, check is in the mail, and by all means go check Billy D. Washington.com!!!
I switch back and forth in the afternoon. I like 790, because I have been able to call in when I needed to. Everytime I have tried to call in to 610, it has been busy. Perhaps it's just bad luck. As for the morning show - - - COUGH!!!! RM95 is right. Lance needs to wake up an hour ealier and get the crud out, before he gets on the air. Sometimes it's kinda gross.
i'm sort of a 610 homer.... but honestly, in my opinion it's not even close, really. one has local programming..the other doesn't, save an afternoon show. the rest is all national programming, which doesn't interest me.
Quick takes Rich - awful. Needs a straight man like Charlie so he can play the Jerry Lewis to Charlie's Dean Martin. Marc - a fate worse than a fate worse than death. After all this time, he's still clueless about everything besides the Texans. Matt - a more juvenile version of Rome. Attitude leads me to thoughts of suicide. Adam - love him. A triumph of substance over style. Lance - like him. Too goofy sometimes, but still likeable. John - a fate worse than death. At least he's better than "The Voice". Weekend local guys on 610 - solid, if unspectacular. Dave Harbison - like his low-key style. Welcome change of the pace from the in your face style typical of 610. Charlie - brilliant, and if you doubt it, just ask him. Mike and Mike - one Mike too many. Did 790 finally beat Keep Walkin' With Jesus?
I know that the hosts of the morning show in particular and matt jackson get annoyed with black callers making some issues racial subjects. everytime they express their agitation I want to call in and say "put some brothers on the wall". I find it amazing that a station who spends its time discussion, lets face it, majority of black people (athletes) can't make more of an effort to at least broaden its perspective. they don't neccessarily have to hire black hosts, just be sensivtive to the racial element in sports. because no matter what you say, its there.
I guess I'm atypical, but I think there is already enough personality in sports without having your sports media try to take that route. I prefer guys who give me the score and analyze the games. I don't care about the latest teenage tart du jour and her upcoming movie and Maxam spread. I don't care for the "boo-yah" when you're showing me highlights, nor for your lame attempts at humor. On a national scale, I'm also tired of each sport being reduced to about 5-10 players and breaking news about whenever one of them takes a dump. Whatever happened to team performances meriting coverage?
What you describe is called an update, not a show. I don't care about The Dynamo, but given your example should there be extensive scores and analysis on soccer just because they're a sports team and this is a sports station? I remember when Granato's baby took a dump on a plane and him telling the story about how he didn't know what to do with the diaper, not your typical sports story but very funny insight into the guy I was going to be listening to for the next 10 years. These guys aren't perfect but they show up everyday with something to talk about.
What you apparently want is "guy talk", and I hate that. It's nothing more than the male equivalent of Oprah or "The View".
I did say I am aytpical, and certainly the consultants that run TV and radio understand that there are a lot more people like you than there are like me. Since they no longer make an effort to appeal to me, I rarely listen or watch anymore.
