David Thorpe Chat

[GaBerkowitz]

Im not usually a huge David Thrope fan but I was checking out his chat on Espn.com.  Liked this quote:

Clement (Phils.): Dave, Paul Pierce is more overrated than J-Kidd. If not for KG, Pierce will be eaten alive by Lebron. Can the new-look Cavs take revenge at the Celts next season?

SportsNation David Thorpe: (12:56 PM ET ) Pierce is a monster beast. Period.

[Kwhit10]

Man I can not stand his chats.  Whenever someone asks a question he gives the most vague of answers.  He writes little 3 word answers and never gives a definite answer at that.  Reading his chats like reading a book written by a 5 year old kid with ADHD.

[indeedproceed]

Example:

IndeedProceed: Dave, I really like what the raptors have done this past offseason. Letting Ford walk was a logical choice but they made a nice gamble on O'Neal that didn't severely hamper their cap like the Sixers have done. Any thoughts?

Thropedo: Yeah. Cool.

[Petro]

Personally I think alot of these writers are overrated. In my opinion David Thorpe doesnt really know much about the game or he does his job half assed. I remember last september he was saying on a  ESPN podcast show and he was explaining how the Celts will struggle to even make the playoffs. He killed Rondo for the entire season. He always dogs the celts and just always seems off when analyzing teams and players. I would say he is one of the worst in the business and I have no clue how he has that job.

[Kwhit10]

He's a trainer that works with C level players at best he can't write and is horrible at answering questions.  Nice job on the example IP, TP for you.

Another example

Kwhit: Thorpe, do you think the Bulls will still miss the playoffs since Gordon says he's played his last game there.  Also how do you think they'll be with Rose running the point?

David:  They could still possibly miss the playoffs.  Rose is young.

Oh really David? I'm so glad you are hear to suck at your job for ESPN chats.

I don't even read them anymore it gets me so frustrated.

[crownsy]

He's a trainer that works with C level players at best he can't write and is horrible at answering questions.  Nice job on the example IP, TP for you.

Another example

Kwhit: Thorpe, do you think the Bulls will still miss the playoffs since Gordon says he's played his last game there.  Also how do you think they'll be with Rose running the point?

David:  They could still possibly miss the playoffs.  Rose is young.

Oh really David? I'm so glad you are hear to suck at your job for ESPN chats.

I don't even read them anymore it gets me so frustrated.

tp that might be the greatest chat response of all time. he repeated your question as a response to the question. incoming mobius strip. 

fakeposter: thorpe, what do you think of the sky being blue?

Thorpe. the sky is blue, and thats good.

[crownsy]

actually, are we sure this isn't the swimmer and he just doesn't understand why everyones asking him b-ball questions?

[Kwhit10]

He's a trainer that works with C level players at best he can't write and is horrible at answering questions.  Nice job on the example IP, TP for you.

Another example

Kwhit: Thorpe, do you think the Bulls will still miss the playoffs since Gordon says he's played his last game there.  Also how do you think they'll be with Rose running the point?

David:  They could still possibly miss the playoffs.  Rose is young.

Oh really David? I'm so glad you are hear to suck at your job for ESPN chats.

I don't even read them anymore it gets me so frustrated.

tp that might be the greatest chat response of all time. he repeated your question as a response to the question. incoming mobius strip. 

fakeposter: thorpe, what do you think of the sky being blue?

Thorpe. the sky is blue, and thats good.

That wasn't actually a question, that was what I thought he would say if I asked him that and I don't think it's too far fetched.

[crownsy]

He's a trainer that works with C level players at best he can't write and is horrible at answering questions.  Nice job on the example IP, TP for you.

Another example

Kwhit: Thorpe, do you think the Bulls will still miss the playoffs since Gordon says he's played his last game there.  Also how do you think they'll be with Rose running the point?

David:  They could still possibly miss the playoffs.  Rose is young.

Oh really David? I'm so glad you are hear to suck at your job for ESPN chats.

I don't even read them anymore it gets me so frustrated.

tp that might be the greatest chat response of all time. he repeated your question as a response to the question. incoming mobius strip. 

fakeposter: thorpe, what do you think of the sky being blue?

Thorpe. the sky is blue, and thats good.

That wasn't actually a question, that was what I thought he would say if I asked him that and I don't think it's too far fetched.

given the response indeed got, i tend to agree. 

[Hoops]

I find the disconnect over the David Thorpe chats intriguing. Some people love him and some people absolutely hate him. I happen to love his chats. I think a lot of people don't appreciate his style. People complain that his responses are too short. But he often says more in 3 words than many others do in a paragraph. A typical Chad Ford chat or J.A. Adande chat will only cover a few dozen questions, if that. Their answers may be longer, but they aren't necessarily "deeper" and their chats on the whole don't end up covering a lot of material. Thorpe, on the other hand, will get through 5 or 6 times as many questions. When you put all the questions together, you get a much more complete picture of the weekly NBA landscape. I think a lot of the depth and information in the Thorpe chats comes from the questions themselves, not so much the answers. People will ask questions about little things like how to improve so-and-so's shooting mechanics or so-and-so's compatibility playing under a certain coach's system. Add all those little bits of info together and you can really get some substantive depth about the dynamics of the NBA. The other chats only hit the major bullet points that are already in the news - sometimes exciting, but oftentimes kind of boring.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm perfectly happy with the chats. If others don't like them, no love lost with me.

[Chris]

I just don't think I have ever felt like I learned anything from Thorpe's chats...unlike Ford's, where there always seems to be a nugget or two.

The only time Thorpe ever seems to say anything with any substance, it is just him trying to pump up one of the players he has trained, so I can't even take it seriously.  I really don't see how this guy has earned his spot as a national sports writer.

[JR Giddens]

Thrpedo also claims Bill Russel isn't a top 5 center of all-time becaue he shot a 44% FG and that Dwayne Wade is the best player in the NBA today 

[indeedproceed]

I find the disconnect over the David Thorpe chats intriguing. Some people love him and some people absolutely hate him. I happen to love his chats. I think a lot of people don't appreciate his style. People complain that his responses are too short. But he often says more in 3 words than many others do in a paragraph. A typical Chad Ford chat or J.A. Adande chat will only cover a few dozen questions, if that. Their answers may be longer, but they aren't necessarily "deeper" and their chats on the whole don't end up covering a lot of material. Thorpe, on the other hand, will get through 5 or 6 times as many questions. When you put all the questions together, you get a much more complete picture of the weekly NBA landscape. I think a lot of the depth and information in the Thorpe chats comes from the questions themselves, not so much the answers. People will ask questions about little things like how to improve so-and-so's shooting mechanics or so-and-so's compatibility playing under a certain coach's system. Add all those little bits of info together and you can really get some substantive depth about the dynamics of the NBA. The other chats only hit the major bullet points that are already in the news - sometimes exciting, but oftentimes kind of boring.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm perfectly happy with the chats. If others don't like them, no love lost with me.

See, I think your theory is exactly what thorpe is going for but there are two huge problems. 1) Thorpe is a talent scout. He scouts talent, he knows little in comparison compared to Ford the Sheridan about 'rumors' or 'feelings inside the lockerroom', he knows about the mechanics of a jumpshot. Perfect Thorpe question: Rate the top 5 low post scoring centers in the league with justification. He too often however answers "What do you think Artest's rap career will bring to Yao Ming's soap opera aspirations?"

He's a talent scout, he should answer talent scout questions. Espn is marketing him as an 'NBA Expert'. He's a basketball talent expert, and its a huge difference that for me has made his chats unreadable.

[Hoops]

Thrpedo also claims Bill Russel isn't a top 5 center of all-time becaue he shot a 44% FG and that Dwayne Wade is the best player in the NBA today 

He's also a "founding member" of the Jordan-Bird-Magic club. I'm totally with him - those 3 stand above the rest in NBA history.

Everyone has an opinion. Just because he isn't enamored of Bill Russell doesn't mean that he's an idiot who doesn't deserve a voice on the national sports media stage. It's not like he's Stephen A. Smith who says things just to be controversial. Thorpe is nothing if he isn't sincere.

[Hoops]

I find the disconnect over the David Thorpe chats intriguing. Some people love him and some people absolutely hate him. I happen to love his chats. I think a lot of people don't appreciate his style. People complain that his responses are too short. But he often says more in 3 words than many others do in a paragraph. A typical Chad Ford chat or J.A. Adande chat will only cover a few dozen questions, if that. Their answers may be longer, but they aren't necessarily "deeper" and their chats on the whole don't end up covering a lot of material. Thorpe, on the other hand, will get through 5 or 6 times as many questions. When you put all the questions together, you get a much more complete picture of the weekly NBA landscape. I think a lot of the depth and information in the Thorpe chats comes from the questions themselves, not so much the answers. People will ask questions about little things like how to improve so-and-so's shooting mechanics or so-and-so's compatibility playing under a certain coach's system. Add all those little bits of info together and you can really get some substantive depth about the dynamics of the NBA. The other chats only hit the major bullet points that are already in the news - sometimes exciting, but oftentimes kind of boring.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm perfectly happy with the chats. If others don't like them, no love lost with me.

See, I think your theory is exactly what thorpe is going for but there are two huge problems. 1) Thorpe is a talent scout. He scouts talent, he knows little in comparison compared to Ford the Sheridan about 'rumors' or 'feelings inside the lockerroom', he knows about the mechanics of a jumpshot. Perfect Thorpe question: Rate the top 5 low post scoring centers in the league with justification. He too often however answers "What do you think Artest's rap career will bring to Yao Ming's soap opera aspirations?"

He's a talent scout, he should answer talent scout questions. Espn is marketing him as an 'NBA Expert'. He's a basketball talent expert, and its a huge difference that for me has made his chats unreadable.

Totally disagree with you there. As a talent scout (and a skills trainer), you could argue that he's much more of an expert than guys like Chad Ford. Look, I like Chad Ford. But I've also been to his little office at BYU-Hawaii where he teaches history or whatever - sure he's got lots of connections, but he's 3000 miles away from most of the action holed up in a tiny crappy office. What makes Ford such an expert? Or Sheridan? Or Adande? Thorpe spends the season traveling to games, generating scouting reports, working with players - he's in the thick of things all the time. His JOB is to help NBA players improve their games. You don't think that qualifies him as an NBA expert? He gets to see behind-the-scenes stuff, talk to players. His perspective is unique, informed and different. But at the same time, he doesn't try to be an "expert" about everything. Who is really qualified to comment on Artest's rap career anyway? Quincy Jones? He keeps the chats interesting and fun by taking some questions that are not about shooting mechanics and pick-n-roll defensive schemes. He answers with his opinion. If you follow the chats long enough, you get to know him a little, and his two words answers speak volumes. Oftentimes I totally disagree with him. But it's still interesting to me to know what he thinks. Anyhow...I'm obviously NOT preaching to the choir here.