Annual Announcer Kvetch Thread, 2022-23

[ClemmonsDevil]

Thanks! Nice crunching and nice explanation. (We'll see if changes anyone's mind.)

Now can you figure out those Iverson references? The "Iverson Split" and such?

-jk

The initial cut off the double screen from the horns set here is the Iverson cut followed by a double screen where the ballhandler has the option to run off the double drag screen, split the drag screen (which he does) or discard the screen. Sorry hyperlink doesn't work.

https://youtu.be/-C9chNzRYL4

[ClemmonsDevil]

Have you ever kept track of how many times he says "screens" or how many types of screens he discusses in a broadcast? That has the makings of one helluva drinking game!

One reason he does that is offensive sets have gotten way more intricate than they were in response to defensive sense like the pack line.If he mentions something I didn't know, then I will frequently look it up. Like I didn't know what an Iverson cut was. We didn't run those in school. We ran shallow cuts. We ran high / low off the ball screens with big men inverted and wings in the post where the big screens down for the guard against really quick teams. And I played in Surry county. Everybody was quicker than we were. There are lots of ways to initiate offense and learning about a new type of cut is interesting to me.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I am not going to do this anymore, but I did do it one more time, for the championship game last night. Methods essentially the same. To cut down on the kvetching about this post, I will clarify my methods here.

....
People have mentioned confirmation bias as a reason why an otherwise reasonable person could so misrepresent what actually happened, and there may be a component of that, but I have another theory, which I call the “shoe paradigm.” In essence, it is this: you only notice your shoes when they pinch your feet. According to this theory, the reason people think he is exhibiting an anti-Duke bias is because when he says good things about Duke, or when he points out that Duke player was fouled but no foul was called, you don’t notice it that much; your shoes are fitting you perfectly, as you expect them to. But when he says something that favors the other team, or criticizes a call that went Duke’s way, it hurts (it pinches your feet); therefore, you notice it. At the end of the game, looking back, the only things you really recall are the times when you got that twinge of pain. That’s my theory.

f.

That was a great effort...and for all that effort...I didn't see a category for how many times he offers coaching advice on how to beat Duke....during the game. He seems to do that mainly in UNC games...and I'd love to see a chart for any Duke UNC game in that regard.

The other thing that bothers me is his silence on obviously bad calls that hurt Duke. You did chart that...and I think over the course of a season, that would be quite a stat.

As for positive comments about Duke / Va per se...this was a very good game for Duke and not a good one for Virginia. Those kinds of comments are not what bothers a lot of people anyway.

but one helluva effort..

[ClemmonsDevil]

That was a great effort...and for all that effort...I didn't see a category for how many times he offers coaching advice on how to beat Duke...during the game. He seems to do that mainly in UNC games...and I'd love to see a chart for any Duke UNC game in that regard.

The other thing that bothers me is his silence on obviously bad calls that hurt Duke. You did chart that...and I think over the course of a season, that would be quite a stat.

As for positive comments about Duke / Va per se...this was a very good game for Duke and not a good one for Virginia. Those kinds of comments are not what bothers a lot of people anyway.

but one helluva effort..

The phrase "obviously bad calls" is doing some heavy lifting in this post. As a history major, this seems somewhat like the use of the term original intent in legal arguments. There was never a point of agreement about the Constitution and there are never points of agreement about officiating. This starts to veer towards people's thoughts and feelings because these things aren't actually provable. I work in science and medicine and get positively giddy when someone tells me their thoughts or feelings. Those don't matter. There are a whole lot of times on the in-game threads where a lot of our fans go absolutely ballistic over a call while I'm thinking about what a good call it was.

[jimmymax]

rsvman is an excellent analyst. I keep waiting for Bilas to say "so and so is an excellent driver" -- channeling Rain Man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1uX6VliMpw

[kako]

If I can make a suggestion. Bilas won't be calling anymore Duke games this year. So next year, have two threads:

"Annual Announcer Kvetch Thread (except for Bilas), 2023-24"
"The Jay Bilas Announcer Thread"

The Bilas stuff tends to dominate the annual thread. So much like Daniel Jones, it would seem Bilas rates his own thread, and it does not have to have a time period limit. In that way, the pros and cons of Bilas (which seem to go on forever) can be contained in one area. If people want to go there to sound off, they can. In the annual kvetch thread, other announcers can be discussed. I personally wonder how many more posts would be in one thread versus the other.

Just a suggestion.

9F

[ClemmonsDevil]

If I can make a suggestion. Bilas won't be calling anymore Duke games this year. So next year, have two threads:

"Annual Announcer Kvetch Thread (except for Bilas), 2023-24"
"The Jay Bilas Announcer Thread"

The Bilas stuff tends to dominate the annual thread. So much like Daniel Jones, it would seem Bilas rates his own thread, and it does not have to have a time period limit. In that way, the pros and cons of Bilas (which seem to go on forever) can be contained in one area. If people want to go there to sound off, they can. In the annual kvetch thread, other announcers can be discussed. I personally wonder how many more posts would be in one thread versus the other.

Just a suggestion.

9F

An "I do want to jinx Jay Bilas" thread?

[fidel]

An "I do want to jinx Jay Bilas" thread?

‘Jay Bilas - Elephant in the Room’ thread.

[ClemmonsDevil]

‘Jay Bilas - Elephant in the Room’ thread.

Ha! This is good work.

[doctorhook]

I am not going to do this anymore, but I did do it one more time, for the championship game last night. Methods essentially the same. To cut down on the kvetching about this post, I will clarify my methods here.

1) I started, this time, with Duke pro/con and UVa, pro/con. I ended up adding a “neutral” column, too, for comments that focused on one of the two teams but were truly neutral, such as “Virginia is putting so-and-so on Roach.”

For further clarification, if he said, for example, “Virginia can’t seem to get off any good looks,” I chalked it up as a negative comment about Virginia, whereas if he said, “Duke’s defense is smothering Virginia right now,” I would chalk it up as a pro-Duke comment. Both comments are really saying the same thing, but in either case, it could not be construed as an anti-Duke comment, whether I called it “anti-Virginia” or “pro-Duke,” so in the end, it doesn’t bias the analysis. If the main focus of the comment was Virginia, I put it under Virginia, either pro or con, and if his main focus was Duke, I put it under Duke, pro or con.

2) Like before, I had two reffing columns, too, one “pro-Duke” and one “anti-Duke.” If he said, for example, that one of the Virginia players got fouled but there was no call, I put a mark under “anti-Duke.” If he said that Flip was fouled but there was no call, I put a mark under “pro-Duke.” I also included a “no comment” category under reffing, as well. Many of you noticed there was one pretty awkward no comment moment in the game.


OK, so here are the results.

First half. In the first half, he made 37 comments about Duke; 34 of them were positive. There was one negative comment and two neutral comments.

He made 33 comments about Virginia; 18 of them were positive, 9 of them were negative, and 3 of them were neutral.

Reffing-wise, in the first half, he made 5 comments, 3 of which were pro-Duke and 2 of which were anti-Duke. I know, it’s hard to believe. I couldn’t believe it myself. But it is what it is.


Second half. In the second half, he made 34 comments about Duke; 31 of them were positive, one was negative, and two were neutral.

He made 22 comments about Virginia; 14 were positive, 5 were negative, and 3 were neutral.

Reffing-wise, in the second half, he reverted to the mean: he made 5 comments, 3 of which were anti-Duke, one of which was pro-Duke, and one of which was neutral.

There was one “no comment” that was obvious, and that was when Virginia “saved the ball” but it appeared to have hit the end line without a call. When they showed the replay, he didn’t say anything, and it just seemed like a time at which he would typically interject something like, “Looks like that ball hit the baseline” or words to that effect. He had several “no comment” moments in the Miami game, as well. I wonder if his bosses have been telling him to tone down criticism of the officials.


Anyway, final tally, for those of you at home keeping score. 71 comments about Duke, and only two were negative. 55 comments about Virginia, and 14 of them were negative. (UVa fans could rightfully complain that he was actually biased TOWARDS Duke in last night’s performance.) As for the reffing, there were FOUR pro-Duke comments and 5 anti-Duke; worse than what he did in the Miami game, but better than I expected. Before I did this, if you asked me, I could swear that he NEVER said something like “Flip got fouled on that play, but no call.” It seemed to me that he ONLY did that with the other team. But last night he did that, or its equivalent FOUR TIMES. In one game.

Yes, he said he thought the ball might have hit Derek Lively, but he fairly quickly corrected that when he saw the replay. The no comment thing was interesting, to be sure. It LOOKED like it hit the line, to ME, with my eyes. Am I 100% certain the ball hit the line? No, but it looked like it did.


Anyway, after doing these two games (and that’s all I’m going to do, folks, with the possible exception of doing the first Duke-UNC game next year to see if it’s different during that game), I have become convinced that I was hearing bias that wasn’t really there. At one point I actually searched the web, trying to find that “Whatchu talkin’ ‘bout, Bilas?” T-shirt.

People have mentioned confirmation bias as a reason why an otherwise reasonable person could so misrepresent what actually happened, and there may be a component of that, but I have another theory, which I call the “shoe paradigm.” In essence, it is this: you only notice your shoes when they pinch your feet. According to this theory, the reason people think he is exhibiting an anti-Duke bias is because when he says good things about Duke, or when he points out that Duke player was fouled but no foul was called, you don’t notice it that much; your shoes are fitting you perfectly, as you expect them to. But when he says something that favors the other team, or criticizes a call that went Duke’s way, it hurts (it pinches your feet); therefore, you notice it. At the end of the game, looking back, the only things you really recall are the times when you got that twinge of pain. That’s my theory.

He is still going to annoy me, with his glib personality and endlessly repeated phrases, but maybe I will finally be able to hear him as a competent, neutral observer of the game itself.

Great work and I plan to re-watch the game with an open mind.

Did you include his comment about the call at the end of the UVA game?

He referred to it as controversial when it was not controversial, it was incorrect.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Bilas just picked Duke to make the final and lose to UConn. That is quite a bit of respect for Duke.

[arnie]

Bilas just picked Duke to make the final and lose to UConn. That is quite a bit of respect for Duke.

The entire crew did. Bilas just following the others😊.

[doctorhook]

No one that I know is saying he does not respect or love Duke basketball or the school.

This about his broadcasting.

[ClemmonsDevil]

No one that I know is saying he does not respect or love Duke basketball or the school.

This about his broadcasting.

Inaccurate. Read the in game threads and some on here. If you don't like his style or mannerisms, sweet! People ain't got to like the same things. But there is a ton of calling him a traitor or a UNC lover and saying he hates Duke.

[doctorhook]

Inaccurate. Read the in game threads and some on here. If you don't like his style or mannerisms, sweet! People ain't got to like the same things. But there is a ton of calling him a traitor or a UNC lover and saying he hates Duke.

No one that I know personally

[ClemmonsDevil]

No one that I know personally

Ha! I only know like 4 people on here personally. Meeting a new one in San Antonio to watch this week though!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Ha! I only know like 4 people on here personally. Meeting a new one in San Antonio to watch this week though!

*Waves to ClemmonsDevil*

[ClemmonsDevil]

*Waves to ClemmonsDevil*

I have met you, OPK, DevilDeac, RichardJackson (same hometown), DinK (nicest human alive) and hanging out with Ymo this week. All great folks. Even you.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

All great folks. Even you.

There goes your credibility, bub.

[ClemmonsDevil]

There goes your credibility, bub.

Hahahaha! From now on I will be referred to as "Jay Bias".