Yeah you're overthinking the Nick Wright resistance..
He talks too slow, as if he's explaining some complex mathematical model and doing us a service to help us understand it, and yet he's rarely saying anything more insightful than the typical takesman.
He comes across as a guy who takes himself too seriously. He lacks ANY playful tone. He has this self-important scowling style of delivery. Even when he is admitting he was wrong on something he finds a way to congratulate himself in a round about way. He also doesn't communicate his love of any of the sports he watches ever. He loves to win arguments far more than he loves to watch sports. Think of the passion of Bill Simmons (he still cares). And we can hear Ethan's passion for understanding what is going on beneath the surface of sports.
He uses numbers and statistics like a college freshman who thinks he has just obtained the statistical prowess of Nate Silver. And this is annoying because he beats people over the head with it like a snarky 17 year old on Reddit.
He comes across as contrarian for the sake of a contrarian. He loves to present himself as if he's a purist who believes 100% of what he says and yet he's clearly calculated in how he markets himself, pushing buttons that irritate people repeatedly for viewership.
And all that would be fine if he was honest about it but he comes across as a calculated phoney. Kind of like LeBron, which is probably why he doesn't hold that schtick against him.
Nick Wright is in the sports personality game and he doesn't come across as someone we'd want to hang with. To be a great sports personality, you either have to have analytical + communication chops (like many at The Ringer) or a really cool personality (Inside the NBA), and Nick excels at neither.
Woa! You literally just lit Nick Wright on fire 🔥 🔥 🔥.
In fairness, I think Nick Wright is very intelligent and thoughtful. The hate he generates is good for ratings.
I like how he really deconstructs things and presents a case for you to agree or disagree with. He’s an intellectual , even if he comes off as prickly.
I’m not even a Nick Wright “Stan” but still your harsh take on Nick Wright is exactly why he’s so successful
Great summary. There's a guy in my market (Pittsburgh), Andrew Filliponi, who operates in more or less this fashion. One day he mentioned he was out of town due to being at Wright's wedding and I thought oh of course they're friends.
Put me down for the “No” column for the Nick Wright guest pool. I’ve never been a fan of the Takes Guy genre of TV, but Wright’s version is particularly uninteresting and uninsightful.
A lawyer manipulating a jury is done in service of protecting the accused from overreach of the state. A coach manipulating players is done in service of eliciting a performance out of his team.
A Takes Guy manipulating his opposition and his audience is in service to himself. An audience learns nothing when a Takes Guy repeatedly appeals to something other than the subject at hand. It’s that annoying sports guy from the dorm room broadcast on cable.
When they were talking about Steven a Smith getting blowback for being too much of a homer on his commentary to a national audience, I was hoping they would reflect back on the first 10 minutes of San Francisco 49ers talk
Good discussion, Nate is just so reasonable, really appreciate how he tries to remain above the BS on social media.
I’m in the segment of listeners that actually appreciates Nick Wright more with his appearances on the pods, I think he has a greater sense of self awareness around his trollishness and rhetorical tricks than people give him credit for. When he actually interacts with fans (like he did when he entered a Twitter Space of Warrior fans to defend Steve Kerr), I never got the sense he condescended to them, he was surprisingly measured and listened to their arguments.
But sure, if you hate Lebron or love Josh Allen, I imagine Nick is unbearable, but I appreciate Nick on more of a meta level (how he makes his arguments and reacts to counter arguments) rather than getting caught up in who’s winning The Debate (which bores me).
People take the Nick Wright and Stephen A Smith's of the world way too seriously. I know they take themselves seriously, but it doesn't mean you have to. Stephen A Smith is a comedian and I say that with all due respect (in my Stephen A Smith voice). They are there to help the sports masses move their shitty day along. If you think you are above them, just do what I do, and don't watch. There's no reason to waste your energy talking shit about people you allegedly don't watch.
I love watching Inside the NBA. I watch it because they make me laugh, not for the sports takes. As a recent HOS guest said, in talking about JJ Redick, don't come over to my checker's party, and complain that we aren't playing chess. When you tune into the debate shows, you know what you're getting into to.
And gone are the days where you get to complain that nobody gets into the X's and O's. There are plenty of podcast and YouTube channels that break down games in detail. There's no reason to watch the debate shows if you aren't into it. Unless you like to watch to shows while thinking to yourself, "I'm so much better than the people who watch this."
People don't like Nick or Steven A because they come across as fucking annoying idiots. Some of your market overlaps with people who enjoy such things for "entertainment value" or "takesmanship", but a lot of the "Thinking Basketball" "Nate Silver" type people specifically fled to those things and fled to places like this to get away from that mindless garbage.
I think a good litmus test would be "has a particular listener ever enjoyed listening to sports radio". I suspect a good half of your audience has never liked or been interested in it, and is even actively disdainful/hostile to it. You seem to have an appreciation of such things, but I would be careful of dabbling in that world too much as it is VERY large with a lot of competition, and it is not something you do particularly well.
Stay in your lane. Approaching it from the business angle is a bit interesting, but the personalities themselves are frankly loathsome. Selling mindless slop. Why not interview some Bachelor contestants too while you are at it?
I liked sports talk radio before the internet. That's all there was. Also - they talked about the games. There was actually discussion about the baseball/hockey/basketball game the night before. I'm here for that.
Interesting point on how one format seems to be dominating ESPN. The very clever economic analyst Dan Davies makes a similar point about this happening all over the business and political world—it might be one of the key problems of our modern world…
> The problem with both these operations is that they were operating in a niche that was small and regarded largely positively while it was a niche, but which became a threat when it was industrialised...
Well and there is the adjoining problem of the internet and this new era of everything being more measurable sort of encouraging a more “min/max” short term kind of thinking. Back when it was harder to know what was working, broader longer term approaches are more attractive. Once you have really good data it becomes hard to leave the free money on the ground. Especially if the costs from over focusing won’t arrive for several quarters.
This is an unpopular take I know, but the “oh god, what will we do without Inside the NBA” discourse has gotten a little overboard. I like the show and it’d be sad if the show disappeared or was diminished in a new form, but everyone is acting like we will have to fly our flags at half mast
Agree with Daryl, and also NO ONE did the Magic and Bird suck compared to Jordan thing in the 90s. A whole generation was raised on Manning and Brady being great without this being an indictment of Favre or Marino. There wasn't a grifter with a pimp haircut ripping Walter Payton or Barry Sanders in favor of Marshall Faulk. People hated Bonds and loved Griffey but the Costas generation tolerated nothing short of worship of Mantle Aaron and Mays. It's not just that Nick Wright sucks, he's bad for the discourse. He's a parasite. The Draft Kings of people.
Nate Jones couldn't get a word in with Wos, this is a very good listen just the two of you
Your point about espn turning its coverage of the Knicks entirely to Stephen a Smith away from the actual games reminded me of some of the weaker parts of Pardon My Take nowadays. Rather than come up with funny takes on the games, they’ll often turn the result immediately into a roast of whichever member of their podcast is a fan of that team, which feels a bit lazy.
The most interesting wnba story is that the Indiana professional women’s basketball team is 0-5 and it’s totally unclear whether Caitlin Clark will be an above average pro
Ethan—the idea that there are more than 2-3 current NBA players that could transition to the NFL is absolutely insane. And the idea that a whole bunch of them would do it if it weren’t for the fact that they gain more fame and money in the NBA is maybe even more insane.
Draymond Green is an alpha in the NBA. He’s just some dude in an average NFL lockerroom. It is a completely different level of toughness and physicality required to play in the NFL. 99% of these NBA dudes aren’t built like that. They just aren’t.
Is the idea that there are 20-30 guys who could switch to football right now, or that, if they had focused on football from age 16 or so, that 30 guys would be in the NFL? Agree that very few could instantly make the transition, however if we're saying focused on football from a young age, it's probably more than 30 NBA guys who would be in the NFL if that's the sport they focused on.
Yeah you're overthinking the Nick Wright resistance..
He talks too slow, as if he's explaining some complex mathematical model and doing us a service to help us understand it, and yet he's rarely saying anything more insightful than the typical takesman.
He comes across as a guy who takes himself too seriously. He lacks ANY playful tone. He has this self-important scowling style of delivery. Even when he is admitting he was wrong on something he finds a way to congratulate himself in a round about way. He also doesn't communicate his love of any of the sports he watches ever. He loves to win arguments far more than he loves to watch sports. Think of the passion of Bill Simmons (he still cares). And we can hear Ethan's passion for understanding what is going on beneath the surface of sports.
He uses numbers and statistics like a college freshman who thinks he has just obtained the statistical prowess of Nate Silver. And this is annoying because he beats people over the head with it like a snarky 17 year old on Reddit.
He comes across as contrarian for the sake of a contrarian. He loves to present himself as if he's a purist who believes 100% of what he says and yet he's clearly calculated in how he markets himself, pushing buttons that irritate people repeatedly for viewership.
And all that would be fine if he was honest about it but he comes across as a calculated phoney. Kind of like LeBron, which is probably why he doesn't hold that schtick against him.
Nick Wright is in the sports personality game and he doesn't come across as someone we'd want to hang with. To be a great sports personality, you either have to have analytical + communication chops (like many at The Ringer) or a really cool personality (Inside the NBA), and Nick excels at neither.
Woa! You literally just lit Nick Wright on fire 🔥 🔥 🔥.
In fairness, I think Nick Wright is very intelligent and thoughtful. The hate he generates is good for ratings.
I like how he really deconstructs things and presents a case for you to agree or disagree with. He’s an intellectual , even if he comes off as prickly.
I’m not even a Nick Wright “Stan” but still your harsh take on Nick Wright is exactly why he’s so successful
Great summary. There's a guy in my market (Pittsburgh), Andrew Filliponi, who operates in more or less this fashion. One day he mentioned he was out of town due to being at Wright's wedding and I thought oh of course they're friends.
I agree that I would not want to hang out with him.
Put me down for the “No” column for the Nick Wright guest pool. I’ve never been a fan of the Takes Guy genre of TV, but Wright’s version is particularly uninteresting and uninsightful.
A lawyer manipulating a jury is done in service of protecting the accused from overreach of the state. A coach manipulating players is done in service of eliciting a performance out of his team.
A Takes Guy manipulating his opposition and his audience is in service to himself. An audience learns nothing when a Takes Guy repeatedly appeals to something other than the subject at hand. It’s that annoying sports guy from the dorm room broadcast on cable.
No thanks.
Well said.
When they were talking about Steven a Smith getting blowback for being too much of a homer on his commentary to a national audience, I was hoping they would reflect back on the first 10 minutes of San Francisco 49ers talk
Good discussion, Nate is just so reasonable, really appreciate how he tries to remain above the BS on social media.
I’m in the segment of listeners that actually appreciates Nick Wright more with his appearances on the pods, I think he has a greater sense of self awareness around his trollishness and rhetorical tricks than people give him credit for. When he actually interacts with fans (like he did when he entered a Twitter Space of Warrior fans to defend Steve Kerr), I never got the sense he condescended to them, he was surprisingly measured and listened to their arguments.
But sure, if you hate Lebron or love Josh Allen, I imagine Nick is unbearable, but I appreciate Nick on more of a meta level (how he makes his arguments and reacts to counter arguments) rather than getting caught up in who’s winning The Debate (which bores me).
People take the Nick Wright and Stephen A Smith's of the world way too seriously. I know they take themselves seriously, but it doesn't mean you have to. Stephen A Smith is a comedian and I say that with all due respect (in my Stephen A Smith voice). They are there to help the sports masses move their shitty day along. If you think you are above them, just do what I do, and don't watch. There's no reason to waste your energy talking shit about people you allegedly don't watch.
I love watching Inside the NBA. I watch it because they make me laugh, not for the sports takes. As a recent HOS guest said, in talking about JJ Redick, don't come over to my checker's party, and complain that we aren't playing chess. When you tune into the debate shows, you know what you're getting into to.
And gone are the days where you get to complain that nobody gets into the X's and O's. There are plenty of podcast and YouTube channels that break down games in detail. There's no reason to watch the debate shows if you aren't into it. Unless you like to watch to shows while thinking to yourself, "I'm so much better than the people who watch this."
People don't like Nick or Steven A because they come across as fucking annoying idiots. Some of your market overlaps with people who enjoy such things for "entertainment value" or "takesmanship", but a lot of the "Thinking Basketball" "Nate Silver" type people specifically fled to those things and fled to places like this to get away from that mindless garbage.
I think a good litmus test would be "has a particular listener ever enjoyed listening to sports radio". I suspect a good half of your audience has never liked or been interested in it, and is even actively disdainful/hostile to it. You seem to have an appreciation of such things, but I would be careful of dabbling in that world too much as it is VERY large with a lot of competition, and it is not something you do particularly well.
Stay in your lane. Approaching it from the business angle is a bit interesting, but the personalities themselves are frankly loathsome. Selling mindless slop. Why not interview some Bachelor contestants too while you are at it?
I liked sports talk radio before the internet. That's all there was. Also - they talked about the games. There was actually discussion about the baseball/hockey/basketball game the night before. I'm here for that.
I enjoyed Radio Ethan. RIP
Interesting point on how one format seems to be dominating ESPN. The very clever economic analyst Dan Davies makes a similar point about this happening all over the business and political world—it might be one of the key problems of our modern world…
> The problem with both these operations is that they were operating in a niche that was small and regarded largely positively while it was a niche, but which became a threat when it was industrialised...
https://backofmind.substack.com/p/on-the-make
Well and there is the adjoining problem of the internet and this new era of everything being more measurable sort of encouraging a more “min/max” short term kind of thinking. Back when it was harder to know what was working, broader longer term approaches are more attractive. Once you have really good data it becomes hard to leave the free money on the ground. Especially if the costs from over focusing won’t arrive for several quarters.
Nate is the best follow on Twitter by far. Love his insights.
This is an unpopular take I know, but the “oh god, what will we do without Inside the NBA” discourse has gotten a little overboard. I like the show and it’d be sad if the show disappeared or was diminished in a new form, but everyone is acting like we will have to fly our flags at half mast
Agree with Daryl, and also NO ONE did the Magic and Bird suck compared to Jordan thing in the 90s. A whole generation was raised on Manning and Brady being great without this being an indictment of Favre or Marino. There wasn't a grifter with a pimp haircut ripping Walter Payton or Barry Sanders in favor of Marshall Faulk. People hated Bonds and loved Griffey but the Costas generation tolerated nothing short of worship of Mantle Aaron and Mays. It's not just that Nick Wright sucks, he's bad for the discourse. He's a parasite. The Draft Kings of people.
Nate Jones couldn't get a word in with Wos, this is a very good listen just the two of you
I don’t like Nick b/c I don’t respect people who make their entire brand based around hating or dickiding LeBron. It’s shameful
You are not over interpreting, we are not going to get "dudes being dudes" anymore with social media in the room. The medium is the message.
…Nick Wright is the guy’s who doesn’t know how to put together good arguments idea of a guy who puts together good arguments.
If you ever have Cohn on again match him with Wright—what a wonderful feeling missing that episode would be.
Your point about espn turning its coverage of the Knicks entirely to Stephen a Smith away from the actual games reminded me of some of the weaker parts of Pardon My Take nowadays. Rather than come up with funny takes on the games, they’ll often turn the result immediately into a roast of whichever member of their podcast is a fan of that team, which feels a bit lazy.
The most interesting wnba story is that the Indiana professional women’s basketball team is 0-5 and it’s totally unclear whether Caitlin Clark will be an above average pro
Ethan—the idea that there are more than 2-3 current NBA players that could transition to the NFL is absolutely insane. And the idea that a whole bunch of them would do it if it weren’t for the fact that they gain more fame and money in the NBA is maybe even more insane.
Draymond Green is an alpha in the NBA. He’s just some dude in an average NFL lockerroom. It is a completely different level of toughness and physicality required to play in the NFL. 99% of these NBA dudes aren’t built like that. They just aren’t.
Is the idea that there are 20-30 guys who could switch to football right now, or that, if they had focused on football from age 16 or so, that 30 guys would be in the NFL? Agree that very few could instantly make the transition, however if we're saying focused on football from a young age, it's probably more than 30 NBA guys who would be in the NFL if that's the sport they focused on.