Yes, but that's the way things have always been. You don't really believe that every NBA commentator/analyst watches every team's every game, right? Yet they still have to say something, so they go on the little they did see. And we can criticize them all we want but we are just as guilty of doing the same thing (of course, we are not getting paid the money that they are being paid to express their opinions..). Last season everyone here was busy trashing Curry, Jennings and Rubio. I guarantee you that 90% of those people have not seen these players play more than 3-4 games the entire season. And most of the criticism those guys got on here didn't even have to do with the way they played against the Kings (which was the only times those "critics" saw them). It was more generic criticism intended to downplay their abilities while hyping up Tyreke's. That's what fans do most of the time, and while we like to think that people who get paid to express their opinion should do more research than that, the reality is that when someone like Barkley has a choice whether to watch a Boston game or a Kings game, he will always choose Boston. Not only because they are much more enjoyable to watch (and boy, are they...), but also because aside from the constantly shrinking Sacramento fan-base, nobody who follows this league really gives a crap about the Kings, and for him to wasted his time to become more educated about arguably the worst team in the league is just bad for ratings.