Both sides make valid points. Honestly just because you can play the game doesn't mean you know it better than someone who can't.
There are analysts out there who know the game in and out and are goofs on the court. Just like there are great players who are probably dumb as rocks when it comes to analyzing the game from a distance. That and people make mistakes. Jordan thinking Kwame would be great comes to mind.
I give anyone on tv with the exception of skip bayless the benefit of the doubt of knowing more than me. The difference is, you have to draw your conclusions from multiple sources and make your own decisions based on what you find, just like anything else.
A good example is myself with boxing. I claim to be quite knowledgeable, and have trained for years, but I can't apply all my knowledge in the ring, or I would probably be great. I know some pro fighters who I will probably never beat sparring, or will I ever match them physically or successfully, but just talking to them it's clear they will never see the sport the way I do, break it down like I can, strategize like I do, and make observations. What they can do is execute.
But most announcers and analysts are biased, it's hard not to be. Also, like skip, some are paid just to say something to get a rise out of people and incite hits. You can't forget about that.