Celtics coverage in general is AWFUL. I like Mannix bc he is somewhat impartial, and I like Scal bc he'll give you some actual X's and O's... but besides that it's all biased crap. I mean Abby Chin and Amanda Pflugrad aren't exactly asking tough questions or breaking down our Pick and Roll defense...
I love Mike Gorman for what he does, but listening to his radio interviews ("Celtics will beat Cleveland in 5", "I wouldn't trade Tyler Zeller", etc) is like listening to Fox News talk about Trump. It's borderline Yellow journalism.
It isn't just him, it's all of them. It's just superficial coverage. You rarely get actual game analysis or specifics. While every other sport gets covered to the point where we understand the Double switch in baseball, who is our best right tackle and why, D to D passes in hockey, etc... Our local NBA coverage just gives you nothing. Quick highlights followed by a box score.
Instead of "Al Horford had X number of rebounds", how about an explanation about where he was positioned defensively or offensively against a particular team or player? Instead of "Isaiah is the King in the Fourth", how about we have this +/- debate that many are having on Twitter?
I grew up in an era of coverage from GREAT basketball writers, now they are all older and fading away and I get f*cking Jim Murray screaming year after year at the deadline about how we didn't do XY or Z... he's a radio disc jockey.
I also think it's time to move on from Tommy Heinsohn. I feel bad saying that but at some point we need ACTUAL in game analysis. I know he's a sacred cow, but he isn't offering much anymore.
Michael Felger and Mazz COULD go into X's and O's if they wanted to, they just won't for whatever reason.
(small amendment) Holley and Keefe is emerging as a viable Hoops go-to.