Steve Albert deserves his own thread--and that's not a good thing

[BC867]

There have been various opinions about our new TV play-by-play announcer posted to threads about other subjects.

My reaction after our first few games was not good and I was raked over the coals for it. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt and hoped he would get comfortable with experience, having previously worked play-by-play for the Nets, Hornets and Warriors.

Steve Albert is showing that he is the runt of the trio of Albert brothers who have announced many games. His self-deprecating sense of humor is wearing thin. If he doesn't think highly of himself, will we?

And following the action on the court as it happens? Too often, he doesn't have a clue, as many of us have posted by now.

My pet peeve is his prefacing his calls with, "It seems that . . ." That is a cop-out. He is not telling us what is happening. He is guessing, leaving himself the out of editing it afterwards.

Then when Eddie Johnson tells us (and him) what happened. he tags along with what EJ said by stating it in other words. Weak!

If he doesn't get with the program, I'll be watching the game on screen with muted sound and listen to the call by Al McCoy on KTAR radio.

Just as I did for most of last baseball season when I couldn't take the self-promoting of Daron Sutton and Mark Grace (each of whom was dumped for immature behavior).

I wonder if the NBA has a five-second delay on the TV side as MLB does, with cameras closer to the action, picking up vulgar language from the players and fans. Probably not.

 

[Errntknght]

I'm lucky - my brain automatically filters out most everything Albert says. Now and then I'll notice when what he says is different from what I saw. I'd mute it but I rather enjoy EJ's analysis - though it seems to me that its not as astute as it used to be.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike Albert enough that I'd rejoice in his departure from the scene - I fast forward when his mug appears on the screen because then I hear what he says.

One good thing this season is that the Suns are not in any national broadcasts so we don't get stuck with their most annoying 'analysts' - those guys I do mute in short order.

 

[Black Jesus]

Who is the awful woman that does games?

Our NBA announcers are by far the worst. EJ, no offense to the man, speaks in ebonics, although I often like his dry analysis.

 

[BC867]

Who is the awful woman that does games?

That is Ann Meyers-Drysdale, a V.P. with the Suns and Mercury and one of the greatest female basketball players off all time. And the widow of Don Drysdale.

Awful? Everyone should be so awful!

 

[Stop Whining]

Other than Al McCoy who is the best of painting an exact picture of whats happening on the court at all times, I really dont care for any of the Suns other hires. I like Eddie's contribution during the game but I cant see ever getting used to Steve Albert as Suns TV play by play announcer. Tom "tissue soft" Leander was annoying to listen to but was easier to take than Albert to this point. Maybe its a good thing the Suns are horrid this season, dont have to subject myself to listening to closely anymore.

 

[Mainstreet]

One interesting tidbit from the game last night I heard Steve Albert say Luke Zeller was checking into the game when he already had been on the court for several minutes. I'm thinking what game is he watching. It's almost like he is on tape delay.

 

[AzStevenCal]

One interesting tidbit from the game last night I heard Steve Albert say Luke Zeller was checking into the game when he already had been on the court for several minutes. I'm thinking what game is he watching. It's almost like he is on tape delay.

I heard that too. It's consistent with his performance so far. I really don't know much about his history or whether he was always this bad but I'd have to think he wasn't. Which leads me to think that either his mind can no longer handle the speed of the game or he simply can't see the court effectively.

Steve

 

[JS22]

That is Ann Meyers-Drysdale, a V.P. with the Suns and Mercury and one of the greatest female basketball players off all time. And the widow of Don Drysdale.

Awful? Everyone should be so awful!

Wow, I actually agree with BC.

She is fantastic and really seems to know what she's talking about.

And yeah, Albert is kinda bad. Never thought I'd prefer Leander. Although he's not bad enough to make me not want to watch. (The on-court product is starting to be enough.)

 

[Superbone]

I heard that too. It's consistent with his performance so far. I really don't know much about his history or whether he was always this bad but I'd have to think he wasn't. Which leads me to think that either his mind can no longer handle the speed of the game or he simply can't see the court effectively.

Steve

I noticed it too. He also said Tyler Zeller was Luke's baby brother whereas Cody is the baby in the family.

I'm just surprised at his ineptness considering his family lineage and his oldest brother, Marv, being arguably the most famous NBA play-by-play guy of all time.

 

[Mainstreet]

With the exception of Dick Van Arsdale and maybe Markieff Morris the Suns have a history of signing the less talented brother. However, there may be others I have missed.

 

[Superbone]

With the exception of Dick Van Arsdale and maybe Markieff Morris the Suns have a history of signing the less talented brother. However, there may be others I have missed.

AFAIK, this is the first time it's moved into other areas of operation other than on the court.

Pretty funny, I hadn't thought of that angle with our new announcer.

 

[BC867]

I'm just surprised at his ineptness considering his family lineage and his oldest brother, Marv, being arguably the most famous NBA play-by-play guy of all time.

Imagine being either of Marv's brothers and having to face the expectations as sports announcers (until Marv's sexual indiscretion kicked him off the top of the mountain).

Marv's name certainly helped both Al and Steve. But it also left them with expectations they could never live up to.

I think that is why Steve's attempts at humor are so self deprecating. He seems to see himself as a poor imitation of Marv (as well he should).

Unfortunately, we got Steve Albert at a time when keeping up with the hectic pace of basketball TV play-by-play has left him not just inferior to his big brother(s), but also to all of his competitors.

He should have asked the D'backs or Cardinals for a try-out. The stop-and-go pace of baseball and football is far less challenging than the back-and-forth of basketball or hockey, where simply following the ball causes you to miss out on a lot.

With the exception of Dick Van Arsdale and maybe Markieff Morris the Suns have a history of signing the less talented brother. However, there may be others I have missed.

Ironically, Tom Van Arsdale joined the Suns (and brother Dick) for the 1976-77 season, which was the final year for both of them, so they did eventually sign the less talented brother.

Dan Majerle's skinny brother joined him on the Suns, but had nowhere near the basketball talent. He did have a good outside shot, though. Jeff wound up managing their first restaurant, around the corner from America West Arena.

OK, it's anecdote time! After they had retired, I stopped in a super market for some groceries after work and "Mr. Van Arsdale" was in the checkout line in front of me. Although I was 90% sure it was Dick, I asked, "You are Dick, aren't you?" He smiled and said, "You'll never know."

So I changed the subject and said that he, Tom (his twin), Dr. J and I have something in common. He said, "Your birthday is February 22nd?" and I said, "Yup."

You tend to think of a Guard (even at 6'5") as small when you see them on the court. But not when you are 5'10" and standing next to them.

 

[elindholm]

With the exception of Dick Van Arsdale and maybe Markieff Morris the Suns have a history of signing the less talented brother. However, there may be others I have missed.

Next they'll hire Clint Howard to put together an amusing short film about life with the Suns behind the scenes.

 

[BC867]

Oh, Steve. You did it again!

Against Toronto at the end of the 3rd quarter, EJ had to reverse Albert's call and explain to him what a continuation is when the Suns fouled before the buzzer and the Raptors were allowed to finish the shot for a 3-point play, just as the refs called it after reviewing the replay.

There really is no excuse for an NBA play-by-play announcer to not be familiar with the rule book. Unless you can slide in on your brother's name.

It is just another thing that defines our home team as a day late and a dollar short. It's sad that the NBA's 5th biggest city in America still operates like a small market team.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Oh, Steve. You did it again!

Against Toronto at the end of the 3rd quarter, EJ had to reverse Albert's call and explain to him what a continuation is when the Suns fouled before the buzzer and the Raptors were allowed to finish the shot for a 3-point play, just as the refs called it after reviewing the replay.

There really is no excuse for an NBA play-by-play announcer to not be familiar with the rule book. Unless you can slide in on your brother's name.

It is just another thing that defines our home team as a day late and a dollar short. It's sad that the NBA's 5th biggest city in America still operates like a small market team.

Yeah but that one surprised me too. I've never seen that call made before. Continuation and clock are two different things. I always thought you had to get the shot off prior to the clock expiring and that's it, nothing else enters the equation. At least, that's what I always thought. As the refs called it otherwise I'm inclined to think I'm wrong but I have to say I'm a little shocked by it. It just isn't consistent with the way rules are usually established, the clock is inviolate. It isn't something that can be ignored.

Steve

 

[Mainstreet]

Yeah but that one surprised me too. I've never seen that call made before. Continuation and clock are two different things. I always thought you had to get the shot off prior to the clock expiring and that's it, nothing else enters the equation. At least, that's what I always thought. As the refs called it otherwise I'm inclined to think I'm wrong but I have to say I'm a little shocked by it. It just isn't consistent with the way rules are usually established, the clock is inviolate. It isn't something that can be ignored.

Steve

Maybe should have only been two FTs.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Maybe should have only been two FTs.

Well, that's the way I would have expected it to be called but the refs know the rules inside and out so I have to believe they called it right. It just doesn't seem logical to me though and I can't ever remember anything like that ever happening before.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

Yeah but that one surprised me too. I've never seen that call made before. Continuation and clock are two different things. I always thought you had to get the shot off prior to the clock expiring and that's it, nothing else enters the equation. At least, that's what I always thought.

The problem is that Eddie Johnson didn't explain it correctly either. The whistle for the foul should have stopped the clock at 0.3 seconds. That was the call. There was no issue about whether the shot itself beat the clock, because the clock should not have been running by that point.

 

[BC867]

Maybe should have only been two FTs.

Apparently, EJ and the refs were the only ones to know about the continuation rule at the buzzer. Steve Albert and we didn't.

We didn't announce 19 years of Nets, Warriors and Hornets games. Albert is not a rookie at doing play-by-play! Yes, I hold him to a higher standard than us.

Al McCoy is the Suns Sr. V.P. of Broadcasting. I'm sort of curious who chose Albert and if they auditioned him or took him based on the Albert name.
The call, or lack of it, was an EA -- error-announcer. On his 6th of each game he should foul out and Leander called in from the bench.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The problem is that Eddie Johnson didn't explain it correctly either. The whistle for the foul should have stopped the clock at 0.3 seconds. That was the call. There was no issue about whether the shot itself beat the clock, because the clock should not have been running by that point.

That makes sense.

Steve

 

[BC867]

I checked the NBA Case Book -- Questions & Answers to NBA Rules.

Rule 46 (under Continuation) states:

Player A1 attempts a field goal and is fouled after the ball has been released. The foul occurs with Player A1 still in the air and/or not having regained a normal position.Is Player A1 still considered in the act of shooting?

Yes. Until such time as Player A1 regains some kind of normal playing position or even if the horn sounds to end the period, he is still
considered in the act of shooting and free throws are awarded accordingly.

EJ knows his stuff about continuation. As did the refs. Eric is right in that the clock was stopped.

http://www.nba.com/.element/mp3/2.0/sect/podcastmp3/PDF/2011-12-NBA-Case-Book.pdf

 

[AzStevenCal]

I checked the NBA Case Book -- Questions & Answers to NBA Rules.

Rule 46 (under Continuation) states:


EJ knows his stuff about continuation. As did the refs. Eric is right in that the clock was stopped.

http://www.nba.com/.element/mp3/2.0/sect/podcastmp3/PDF/2011-12-NBA-Case-Book.pdf

Yes but he should have stated it the way Eric did instead of saying he gets continuation. He made it sound like it was okay to shoot past the clock running out when all he had to do was point out that the clock did not run out because the clock stops at the moment of the foul. If I had the game on mute I probably would have reasoned it out but after hearing him, I got so locked into it being okay to shoot after time expired that I missed the obvious.

Steve

 

[BC867]

Yes but he should have stated it the way Eric did instead of saying he gets continuation. He made it sound like it was okay to shoot past the clock running out when all he had to do was point out that the clock did not run out because the clock stops at the moment of the foul. If I had the game on mute I probably would have reasoned it out but after hearing him, I got so locked into it being okay to shoot after time expired that I missed the obvious.

Steve

It's getting confusing. When a shooter continues after the foul and makes the basket, isn't that when time out is called and the ref indicate an "and-1".

Do the refs have the clock re-set back to when the foul was committed? I guess so, because that is what they did after the game clock (in this case) had run out and they called the players back onto the court.

I had never come across that rule but, then, I ain't getting paid the big bucks that a play-by-play announcer is to know the rules and make the fans aware as it goes down. Or to know against whom fouls are being called or which team has the ball, etc., which was my point about Albert.

 

[elindholm]

Do the refs have the clock re-set back to when the foul was committed?

Any whistle stops the clock. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Errntknght]

The problem is that Eddie Johnson didn't explain it correctly either. The whistle for the foul should have stopped the clock at 0.3 seconds. That was the call. There was no issue about whether the shot itself beat the clock, because the clock should not have been running by that point.

Something isn't right about that, though I admit it does sound good. If a whistle stops play instantly, so that what happens after the whistle doesn't count, then there could no such thing as a continuation call because in a continuation the shot comes after the whistle. In fact, if the guy is in the act of shooting when the whistle is blown, but the ball is still in his hand, the shot wouldn't count. Since we know that a whistled foul does not stop play, does it make any sense for it to stop the clock? I don't think it does as I've always thought the clock was supposed to measure the time the ball was in play - and I've never seen the refs put time back on the clock after a continuation call, though it appears they did in this case. I suppose its possible they are supposed to do it but since its only a couple of seconds, they don't worry about it unless it near the end of a quarter. Or maybe the timekeepers are supposed to stop the clock at the whistle all the time and maybe they usually do - I've never paid close enough attention to exactly when they stop the clock on foul calls to know what the rule is supposed to be.
Not that it matters but I think it ought to be simple - if play continues then the clock continues to run. I would guess that most fans, and most players for that matter, believe that is the rule. What the heck is the clock for but to measure the time elapsed during play? Only a lawyer would think of any other interpretation. In that case, of course, there would be no shot taken during the game so no continuation foul, indeed no shooting foul could be called. Only a plain foul. (We need to get lawyers away from the controls so common sense can reign again. Starting with David Stern.)

Incidentally, he just fined the Spurs a quarter of million dollars for not suiting up Duncan et al for the Miami game. Another dumb move. Kudos to Pops for another shrewd mind game, I say.