Tonight starts the finals between two teams we should hate: the anti-team Heat and the stolen Sonics. I will root for the latter as I really enjoy how the Thunder play, even if I dislike how they got to OKC.
But the big prediction is this: people in the media will develop really strong opinions and over-react to every single twitch along the way. As the games progress, you will see commentators alternatively blasting Lebron as an awful teammate and as a tremendous player. You will see people condemning the Thunder if they lose and switching stances when they win.
I have not followed basketball that much in my life, but I have taken to listening to sports podcasts (in addition to other ones I like). I was behind in my listening, so I kept hearing out-dated opinions, like the Spurs are inevitable, like the Celtics had no chance and then the Heat had no chance. By listening just a few days late, I was able to amuse myself with being out of synch with the wildly swinging pendulums.
My basic question is this: does the proliferation of media require over-reactions to every single event? Any series that goes more than four games is going to have ups and downs. Many matches of good teams will either go six or seven games. But perhaps we always need to react to the latest event. Everything new is bigger/better/louder than that which is old. For instance, is this the golden age of the sitcom? Parks and Rec & Community would suggest sure, but that would mean forgetting the era of Taxi/WKRP/MASH/Newhart/Cheers/Soap/Barney Miller/Happy Days/etc. There is a recency bias, but the b-ball coverage takes it to an absurd degree where the most recent game is all that matters.
So, here is my prediction: heaps of over-reactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment