Locke Bias makes me sick

[vslice02]

I understand why Bolerjack, Harpring and Locke (to some extent) are unwilling to be overly critical about the franchise. Primarily because they're employed by them - but also because of the close proximity they have with the team (coaches and players).

That said, my problem with Locke is he'll go completely out of his way to use some absurd statisics and numbers (as well as his own basketball opionion which is normally quite off) to prove that the majority of fans have no idea what they're talking about and don't understand how much better/worse a particular player is to fit his agenda/argument. The fact that he passes himself off as some sort of statistical expert is nauseating.

 

[hhhhkau]

Blame Locke if you don't like his voice, stats, or the way he says 'essence' all the time.

'Narrative' is the new 'essence'.

 

[candrew]

Locke Bias < Len Bias

 

[gomretat]

Having lived in 6 NBA cities, I would point out that Locke is easily if not more critical at times of his home team than most announcers I have listened to. The sensitivities described above about being paid by the organization and spending a lot of times around the players definitely impact what one says. However, if you think he is a homer relative to others in that role you have not been around. And I will always miss Hot Rod - he was a hall of fame announcer IMO - but I think Locke's analysis is great. Whether I agree with everything or not is not the issue but it causes me to think and often see the game differently. He is a keeper and much better than most in his role. As for the accusation that most fans don't know what is going on - amen to that.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

So I'm catching part of the game while going to dinner with the wife and I hear the following from Jazz Employee Locke.

The only reason the lineup of Burks, Carroll, Favors, and Kanter is doing so well tonight is only because of matchups. They are not that good.

I know Portland had a weak bench but at that time Batum, Lillard, and Aldridge were all on the floor.


At what point does his love for Jefferson and Millsap fade? At what point is he told his metrics and formulas don't matter and are wrong. Is he simply auditioning for the next stats guy for ESPN?

I don't get it and turned it as I decided that waiting until I got home was better than listening to him.

As the guy in Happy Gilmore would say..... jackass

I'm not asking this to be snarky, but what is the evidence that he is biased, other than his analysis disagrees with yours? Is he citing some statistics, or is he just eyeballing it?

One reason I ask, I've been doing reading on the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) debate in baseball--pros vs. cons, traditionalists vs. sabremetricians, etc. One thing that this debate makes crystal clear (and which should be a lesson we've learned from Nate Silver during the last election) is that careful analysis of good data using sound metrics beats 'gut' and eyeball tests on consistent basis. So if anyone knows, what data is Locke using for this, and is there data that says otherwise?

 

[LunaticWolf]

So I'm catching part of the game while going to dinner with the wife and I hear the following from Jazz Employee Locke.

The only reason the lineup of Burks, Carroll, Favors, and Kanter is doing so well tonight is only because of matchups. They are not that good.

I know Portland had a weak bench but at that time Batum, Lillard, and Aldridge were all on the floor.


At what point does his love for Jefferson and Millsap fade? At what point is he told his metrics and formulas don't matter and are wrong. Is he simply auditioning for the next stats guy for ESPN?

I don't get it and turned it as I decided that waiting until I got home was better than listening to him.

As the guy in Happy Gilmore would say..... jackass

He stated today in tipoff that he thinks Favors could start 30 minutes and perform.

What Al bias?