Stu is pretty annoying. Among other things, I find Stu the contrarian to be him at his worst. The constant urge to correct/discredit things said by the play by play guy is just weird. I wasnt the biggest Joel Myers fan, but i kinda felt bad for him. Billy doest get it as bad as Joel did, but Stu still comes off as this stubborn.... long in the tooth relic from the past.
Other than playing NBA Courtside on Nintendo 64 as a kid, i havent heard much of his work with Chick Hearn, but i doubt Chick would've put up with it.
Stu's too old to change his ways at this point. Its time to put him out to pasture. I much prefer the radio team with Ireland and Thompson. I'd like to see them promoted to television.
He was a good fit for Chick because Chick didn't have as much dead air for Stu to fill. Chick was simply the best to ever do it, and he wouldn't wait for Stu to complete his boring nonsense, he'd just start talking over Stu, and Stu understood that was his cue to shut it.
What we are witnessing right now is Stu run amok. He's bought into his own hype as a Chick-era hanger-on and now the arrogance that Chick kept in check is on full display. He thinks he's above whoever they seat next to him. It only took me 2, maybe 3 seasons tops after Chick's passing for me to grow sick of Stu. He's just stealing paychecks at this point. Grumpy old fart needs to go away.
Stu is awful and always has been, but so are almost all commentators around the league. At least his voice isn't as flat out annoying as Walt Frazier's. I don't know how Knick fans can stand listening to his weird inflections throughout a whole season. I don't mind Stu, hardly even notice him anymore to be honest. It'll be kind of sad when he leaves just because of the connection to Chick.
Didn't realize there was this level of animosity towards Lantz. Never crossed my mind in all honesty.
I am reading all these comments about all his annoyances and not seeing an issue. I don't watch the games to listen to him. I don't think his commentary takes away from the game as some of you do. It just background noise at worst. Every once in a while he contributes a background story of insight that is entertaining IMO.
Not the best commentator but far from the most annoying. He may not be up to the standards of the National telecasts. Although I'm sure threads about some of them could also have pages of negative comments.
I catch a lot of random games throughout the season on League Pass. Some of the local feeds have horrible commentary. Before criticizing Lantz too much you may want to compare him to his peers among the team announcers. Some of the styles are so annoying within minutes I am switching to the opponents feed to escape them.
My problem with Stu is he doesn't seem to be well prepared for the broadcasts.
He doesn't seem to be a basketball junkie type who knows all the rosters, the latest rumors, etc.
He is more of a big picture kind of broadcaster, certainly there are worse color guys.
Once the team is better, it will likely be time to lose Stu and Billy Mac and bring in some real talent. For now, it doesn't matter honestly. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:06 am Post subject:
Bol wrote:
Stu is awful and always has been, but so are almost all commentators around the league. At least his voice isn't as flat out annoying as Walt Frazier's. I don't know how Knick fans can stand listening to his weird inflections throughout a whole season. I don't mind Stu, hardly even notice him anymore to be honest. It'll be kind of sad when he leaves just because of the connection to Chick.
While Frazier is not my cup of tea, I can understand why a lot of people think he's cool and funny, which gets to Rajin's earlier point: be entertaining or be informative. If you can get a guy who does both (I've heard some people say that's Frazier) that's like striking gold, but at least check one of the boxes. I'm really perplexed how anyone can find Stu fun.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:10 am Post subject:
LakerLanny wrote:
My problem with Stu is he doesn't seem to be well prepared for the broadcasts.
He doesn't seem to be a basketball junkie type who knows all the rosters, the latest rumors, etc.
He is more of a big picture kind of broadcaster, certainly there are worse color guys.
Once the team is better, it will likely be time to lose Stu and Billy Mac and bring in some real talent. For now, it doesn't matter honestly.
He makes this insane drive from San Diego for each home game, right? I used to have to do it every day to just Temecula and it's brutal. Maybe that's why he's so cranky, although I can't say I've noticed a big difference on the road games.
Joined: 17 Jun 2003 Posts: 6287 Location: Central Coast
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:34 am Post subject:
He is just that crazy retired guy in the barbershop, who has nothing better to do than sit around commenting about the old school days. Either you like that kind flavor or you hate it. Personally, I think it is much more irritating with the Lakers in a downward spiral. Maybe they should mute his microphone until we are a 50 win team again.... _________________ LAKERS 2019-2020: NBA World Champions!
Stu has some antiquated philosophies, mainly not incorporating insights of how the game is played now in his commentary (other than the occasional spot on how guys run to the 3-put line on the break). But overall he's pretty good. The real issue with the TV commentary is that they have a pitchman calling the game (Billy) instead of someone talented in bringing depth to things happening on the court. If you think on what Bill says, you probably can more easily recall his bit on Jaaaack-in-the-box a lot more than anything he's saying during the games. Chick of course was a master of both but asking for that is too much.
Billy is agreeable and isn't bad. Plus the team being so poor also makes for a less enjoyable experience. But he is pretty much there to sell stuff. _________________ Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
Stu's awesome. I am surprised he didn't retire with Kobe though. My gut says he'll retire in the next few years (probably whenever his next contract expires) and will be replaced by Thompson. Not sure what that'll do for the radio and/or Billy Mac.
I honestly just wish we had a better play-by-play man to sit with Stu. Reason I think Stu's been more repetitive of late (at least in the Joel and Billy Mac days) is he gets more time to talk.
Joined: 26 Sep 2010 Posts: 4455 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:29 pm Post subject:
I keep seeing people somehow justifying Stu by saying many other teams have worse commentating teams. While that may be true, that does not make it okay to keep Stu who is ...lets say..the best of the worst?
I get the argument to keep him for now, because there is no reason to get him out, but once this team takes off, Lakers really need to talk him about gracefully stepping away.
Edit: (Lakers should just fire Billy Mac at that point, and bring in some real talent)
You spent a lot of time ranting about something that isn't going to change. Stu very likely has this job for as long as he wants it. He may not be the best color commentator around, but the fact that he's been around for 30 years, dating back to the Showtime Days, he's part of the Lakers experience and narrative.
I'll gladly listen to Billy Mac and Stu over Ralph Lawler and Mike Smith any day, any time.
Ah you beat me to it. Anyone who hates Stu probably hasn't heard Mike Smith. He's basically just a fan that gets to be in the booth and cheer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
