I understand that there is a lot of irony, and not-so-borderline hypocrisy, in what I am about to say. There is your disclaimer. Here goes - I didn't like Reggie Miller going on 'The Dan Patrick Show' and saying that he and a team of analysts could beat the Memphis Grizzlies, but I love Charles Barkley calling him "the worst analyst on television" for saying the Grizzlies will play better at home.
I know the narrative will be that Charles Barkley is also a pretty crappy analyst, but the difference is that no one looks to Charles Barkley to analyze things. Coincidentally, people look to Charles Barkley for hyperbolic statements just like this one. I don't pay attention to Sir Charles for enlightenment on how the game is being played. No one does. Hell, if anyone did they wouldn't let him anywhere near a microphone during March Madness. I look to Charles Barkley for laughs. I look to him to shove fake churros down his throat while he makes fun of the portly women of San Antonio. You want to be a viable sports commentator? Be funny or be informative. Charles Barkley is the former, and Reggie Miller tries - and valiantly fails - to be the latter. That's the difference. Charles Barkley isn't a better analyst than Reggie Miller because he knows the game of basketball better. He's a better personality because he actually entertains people while (occasionally) talking about basketball. Reggie Miller saying that he and the rest of the league's senior citizens could beat an active NBA team was neither funny or insightful. Reggie Miller saying that the Memphis Grizzlies will play better at home is neither funny or insightful. Is the Round Mound of Rebound right in saying Reggie is the "worst" at his profession? No. Is he wrong in implying that he's better at fulfilling the requirements of his job? Ditto.