There’s must be a good reason why aerosol cans of Stink don’t sell. Even Midtown serial shoplifters avoid stealing Stink. Perhaps it has something to do with how it smells.
Yet Stink predominates game broadcasts. The most offensive assaults of the olfactory senses are indulged, excused and even portrayed as carrying the aromas of honeysuckle and garlands of gardenias.
And so we must believe what we’re told — especially if it’s shouted at you — and ignore what you see and what you know.
Monday, late in the third quarter of Game 1 of Pacers-Knicks we witnessed one of the most reckless, brainless, senseless, selfish, team and self-imperiling plays we once could not have imagined because it would not have entered into a professional’s on-the-job thought processes.
And on TNT, pandering, easily excited play-by-play man Brian Anderson claimed — thrilled, shouted — to a national audience loaded with those who know better, that he and we absolutely loved what we just saw:
With Indy up, 80-77, Obi Toppin, on a breakaway layup, perhaps in search of nonexistent degree-of-difficulty style points and lasting infamy, prefaced his leaping slam by passing the ball to himself between his legs before jamming it through.
Instead of logically asking something along the lines of “What the heck was he thinking?!” — Anderson erupted for joy, like a kid who had Lik-m-Aid for breakfast, lunch and dinner:
“Oh! Toppin goes between the legs! The former slam-dunk champ! Gives you a taste of it!”
Yes, Anderson confused a a close playoff game with a gimmick in the throes of a close playoff game.
And as the quarter ended, Anderson continued to carry on: “Obi Toppin, in a playoff game, gives us a little highlight! Pow!”
Where was Stan Van Gundy, Anderson’s broadcast partner, during all of this? Not a word. Perhaps he didn’t want to embarrass Anderson, TNT and Toppin, but not a word. Or maybe he was too busy vomiting.
Fox’s Wainwright getting it wrong as MLB analyst
The preconditioned knew this would happen the day Fox announced it had signed Adam Wainwright to become an in-game analyst.
Wainwright, throughout his career as a Cards’ pitcher, was never shy. He was most always pleasant, engaging, friendly, happy to make your acquaintance and to talk baseball, especially the humorously anecdotal. He was the guy you’d be happy to sit beside during a game.
But would Fox encourage him to just relax, pay attention and speak only when he had something worth hearing? Or would it have him copy the foolish, wasteful plan of its No. 1 analyst, the dreary, three-hour forensic pitch examiner and telecast butcher, John Smoltz?
Thus far, it’s leaning toward the latter. Saturday, during Mets-Rays, Wainwright analyzed and overanalyzed far more than what we — or he — needed or wanted.
But has there ever been a TV game analyst criticized for not talking enough?
Is there no one at Fox to guide him, to have him play the hand the game deals as opposed to filling in every moment that a televised game presents? I know; silly question.
The media could cause misfortune in black cats. Last weekend it was widely reported that the Kentucky Derby is known as “the fastest two minutes in sports.”
No, it ain’t. It’s known as “the most exciting two minutes in sports.” After all, notes Mike “The Chef” Soper, “Whether you’re a horse or a human, two minutes are two minutes.”
The epidemic of senselessness will not end. Friday, the Cubs led the Brewers, 1-0, going into the eighth. Cubs reliever Richard Lovelady had pitched the seventh, went 1, 2, 3 with a strikeout on 15 pitches.
Not good enough.
Cubs’ manager Craig Counsell brought in Adbert Alzolay. He retired one batter while allowing four hits and three earned runs. Cubs lost, 3-1.
And they’ll do it over and over and over.
Reader Don Scarpelli: “The bigger our screens get, the more the networks try to fill them with useless graphics. TV should have quit after giving us the computer-generated yellow first down line.”
Stan Van Gundy has coached over 1,000 NBA games. That’s over 1,000 more than I. But when he declared on TNT, this week, that, “I just don’t understand the need for all these replay stoppages,” we now have that in common.
Wonder how many pro-Hamas demonstrators find the location of the next vandalize-the-campus rally by consulting Waze, the ingenious Israeli-invented direction finder?
Praise for showboating a poor call
Pandering II: Sunday, in the ninth inning against the Mets, the Rays’ Randy Arozarena — an inveterate all-about-me showboat who was hitting a robust .140 and had already struck out three times — homered to tie the game.
The last I looked Arozarena hadn’t yet reached home plate as his sojourn in that direction was self-interrupted to perform such selfless acts of slowing to fold his arms in self-affection and other acts of Ain’t I Special.
You know, the kind of behavior Rob Manfred advocated to appeal to kids. Not his kids, but yours.
Sadly, but not unexpectedly, Rays’ TV man Rich Hollenberg, normally a strong and candid listen, provided his joyous stamp of approval.
In reading Hollenberg’s bio we find that he has three kids. I seriously doubt he’d encourage them to play any kind of team ball as Arozarena does.
As for ESPN’s Stanley Cup coverage, we have to take the good with the bad — not that there are options.
It was, for example, good that ESPN and the NHL provided OT in Game 2 of Canes-Rangers with limited commercial interruption.
But if ESPN wants us to watch, then let us watch! To mindlessly decorate the top strip of the screen with players’ photos and their individual stats — during live OT play! — is a “Look what we can do!” distraction for the sake of distractions.
And of course, those name plates that flit and flee over the heads of players with the puck during power plays remain the triumphant teamwork of dolts.
Or would an ESPN exec choose to attend a game in which the guy seated behind him drops a players’ name cards in front of his eyes every half-second during significant moments?
As for stats, one must ignore a lot in order to reach hard, fast, erroneous conclusions. As reader Marty Hull noted ESPN’s studio during Game 2 emphasized that while the Rangers led, 3-1, Carolina had a big advantage in “offensive zone time.”
But that stood to reason as opposed to an oddity. The Rangers scored — and quickly — on both their power plays, while Carolina went oh-for-five — providing the Canes a large but ultimately worthless O-Zone Time advantage.
