RealGM

StickeeFingaz wrote:Listened to Marques’s first episode of his Bucks podcast “The Hear District” and it was very good, definitely the best Bucks pod out there.

Marques is a treasure.

I don't think Sparky is super insightful in terms of breaking down what's happening on the floor but he's definitely passionate and I dig that. I'm a fan

Not being able to hustle back to the car after a big Bucks win and get Sparky and the callers dialed in left a big void in my fandom. I am definitely excited he's back. I have specific memories of doing this after the Mo Williams shot, the Toronto comeback, the finals win, etc.

Agreed. Sparky was such a huge part of my resurgence of fandom with the Bucks. Similar to Tim Allen (and Sparky at the time) with the Brewers. Great to have him back. As much as people liked to rag on Gary and many of the hosts at 1250, nothing replaces it. 97.3 is borderline unlistenable.

jimmybones wrote:I don't think Sparky is super insightful in terms of breaking down what's happening on the floor but he's definitely passionate and I dig that. I'm a fan

Yeah, he still looks at the league through a '90s/00s lense and has a lot of old takes but he's entertaining and loves the team, so can't hate on it too much.

I absolutely miss that one guy who'd call in for every Bucks loss and say that Middleton just doesn't have that dawg in him and that we need a "20ppg scorer".....despite Middleton averaging 20+ppg. I think I just enjoyed all the ludicrous takes from the callers.

soboMP3 wrote:Agreed. Sparky was such a huge part of my resurgence of fandom with the Bucks. Similar to Tim Allen (and Sparky at the time) with the Brewers. Great to have him back. As much as people liked to rag on Gary and many of the hosts at 1250, nothing replaces it. 97.3 is borderline unlistenable.

It was a nice emotional shot in the arm after a big win. Or a chance to vent after a bad loss. Just glad it’s back.

Those other two stations aren’t even sports IMO. Whenever I spin the dial, all I hear is them talking about some barbecue recipe they just tried or a story about how their wives or GF’s didn’t like the Valentines Day card they got.

Hear District is the best Bucks related podcast ever by far.

ColeWorld23 wrote:Hear District is the best Bucks related podcast ever by far.

I started the first episode, didn't get far yet, but I'm already a big fan.

ColeWorld23 wrote:Hear District is the best Bucks related podcast ever by far.

It's good, but Nehm was so cringe.

I could listen to Marques all day.

RiotPunch wrote:

ColeWorld23 wrote:Hear District is the best Bucks related podcast ever by far.

It's good, but Nehm was so cringe.

I could listen to Marques all day.

Why do you say that? Thought he was great.

JimmyTheKid wrote:

RiotPunch wrote:

ColeWorld23 wrote:Hear District is the best Bucks related podcast ever by far.

It's good, but Nehm was so cringe.

I could listen to Marques all day.

Why do you say that? Thought he was great.

His insight was fine, but I found his attempts at being funny and his seemingly *adjusted* vernacular to be cringeworthy. I've always been kinda meh on Nehm as a personality, though.

I generally like Nehm, but he can get a little overexcited on some things and have blinders to legit issues of the team, which was most notable on LoB. I could see how he could be grating to some and I thought Frank Madden helped quite a bit in the balance of things on that show. I grew to definitely prefer Kane though and really miss him covering the team regularly.

My problem with Eric Nehm is that he is not a journalist. He is a better analyst than an actual journalist.

What's cringeworthy are his questions to players and coaches. A good journalist doesn't ask questions over and over like "Bud, what did you think of Giannis's 40 point 16 rebound effort? "

He would never ask: "Bud, why is the three point defense thirtieth in the league?" Or "why did you play this guy in this series and not in the other series?"

He's afraid of alienating coaches, which a good journalist would never do. I rarely read his stuff anymore.

RiotPunch wrote:

JimmyTheKid wrote:

RiotPunch wrote:It's good, but Nehm was so cringe.

I could listen to Marques all day.

Why do you say that? Thought he was great.

His insight was fine, but I found his attempts at being funny and his seemingly *adjusted* vernacular to be cringeworthy. I've always been kinda meh on Nehm as a personality, though.

Gotcha. Had an inkling this might be the criticism. I've gotten to know Eric a bit in the past five years and, yeah, thats just him. In any casual room. No matter the group. He's not frontin', as the kids *might* still say? I'm not entirely sure, I'm old and my kids are too young for slang. Although "suss" and "yeet" have both made it into their vocabularies, which bothers me.

I personally think Eric does a great job covering the team. At the beginning I found his staunch, condescending, and what I perceived to be blind defense of Khris Middleton extremely annoying. But then KMiddy hit every big shot he took in game 6 and I've done my best to avoid sharing any negative opinions I might have.

BucksStatsGuy wrote:I absolutely miss that one guy who'd call in for every Bucks loss and say that Middleton just doesn't have that dawg in him and that we need a "20ppg scorer".....despite Middleton averaging 20+ppg. I think I just enjoyed all the ludicrous takes from the callers.

It confuses me listening to the callers. Like the comments they make are so paradoxical...

1. Guy who can't even remember a rotational players name:
"I HAVE A VERY STRONG OPINION ABOUT ...I cant remember his name, hes the white small forward..."
2. Guys analysis makes it seems like he has never seen another NBA game besides the Bucks and only has seen a few bucks game, but yet passionate to call into a post-game show. You would think there was some selection bias to get a little better takes.

BigO wrote:My problem with Eric Nehm is that he is not a journalist. He is a better analyst than an actual journalist.

What's cringeworthy are his questions to players and coaches. A good journalist doesn't ask questions over and over like "Bud, what did you think of Giannis's 40 point 16 rebound effort? "

He would never ask: "Bud, why is the three point defense thirtieth in the league?" Or "why did you play this guy in this series and not in the other series?"

He's afraid of alienating coaches, which a good journalist would never do. I rarely read his stuff anymore.

I want you to point out one reporter who asks those questions you are demanding in 2024.

KidA24 wrote:

BigO wrote:My problem with Eric Nehm is that he is not a journalist. He is a better analyst than an actual journalist.

What's cringeworthy are his questions to players and coaches. A good journalist doesn't ask questions over and over like "Bud, what did you think of Giannis's 40 point 16 rebound effort? "

He would never ask: "Bud, why is the three point defense thirtieth in the league?" Or "why did you play this guy in this series and not in the other series?"

He's afraid of alienating coaches, which a good journalist would never do. I rarely read his stuff anymore.

I want you to point out one reporter who asks those questions you are demanding in 2024.

Most reporters in Chicago, New York, Philly and other big cities. Matt Schneidman of The Athletic doesn't usually ask "suck up" to the coach or player questions.

In most other big cities, there are more media critics who write for the newspapers or are regulars on the radio, so there are more eyes to hold reporters accountable.

If you've ever listened to The Score out of Chicago, they'd have a field day with Nehm and the Journal writer if they were beat reporters in their city.

As I said before, Nehm does a pretty good job of analyzing things, but even then with an eye to make sure he isn't overly critical of the coaches or players. He's much more critical of Griffin, now that he's gone.

The thing that is bothersome about your question is that it implies that it's ok to be fanboy as a reporter. Or it may mean that you are so cynical that you don't expect reporters to actually ask tough questions.

BigO wrote:

KidA24 wrote:

BigO wrote:My problem with Eric Nehm is that he is not a journalist. He is a better analyst than an actual journalist.

What's cringeworthy are his questions to players and coaches. A good journalist doesn't ask questions over and over like "Bud, what did you think of Giannis's 40 point 16 rebound effort? "

He would never ask: "Bud, why is the three point defense thirtieth in the league?" Or "why did you play this guy in this series and not in the other series?"

He's afraid of alienating coaches, which a good journalist would never do. I rarely read his stuff anymore.

I want you to point out one reporter who asks those questions you are demanding in 2024.

Most reporters in Chicago, New York, Philly and other big cities. Matt Schneidman of The Athletic doesn't usually ask "suck up" to the coach or player questions.

In most other big cities, there are more media critics who write for the newspapers or are regulars on the radio, so there are more eyes to hold reporters accountable.

If you've ever listened to The Score out of Chicago, they'd have a field day with Nehm and the Journal writer if they were beat reporters in their city.

As I said before, Nehm does a pretty good job of analyzing things, but even then with an eye to make sure he isn't overly critical of the coaches or players. He's much more critical of Griffin, now that he's gone.

The thing that is bothersome about your question is that it implies that it's ok to be fanboy as a reporter. Or it may mean that you are so cynical that you don't expect reporters to actually ask tough questions.

You gave one example of a guy who doesn't cover basketball, then talked about guys who host sports talk radio shows.

I was driving tonight, so a turned on 620 for the second quarter.

The Bucks radio guy is not good.

He consistently misses plays while trying to elaborate on a previous play.

Just call the game.