Have You Heard About the Joe Morgans?
On the same day that the Mets hired Paul DePodesta to complete their Front Office Nerd Triforce, ESPN announced that Joe Morgan will not return to Sunday Night Baseball for the 2011 season. Ironically, it was the sabermetrically inclined who considered this a sign from above, while traditionalists would prefer to think of it as simply a coincidence.
Morgan was the white whale of the stat-minded even before the emergence of the site asking for his termination. He was one of the earliest, most prominent critics of Moneyball. He earned the ire of Billy Beane devotees not simply due to those opinions, but also by revealing that he had barely read the book, if at all, and implying that he didn't need to to read the book in order to blast it. He was, in other words, the perfect embodiment of the Dumb Jock archetype that every basement-dwelling blogger with a slide rule imagines he can topple with the power of math and logic.
I wonder, though, if this victory (if you can call it that) really means anything. Was Morgan really all that awful as a color commentator? To use a Morganism, my gut feeling is yes, though I think his reputation came to overshadow the reality. More than anything, his canning highlights just how terrible baseball announcing at the national level is these days.
If I may praise Morgan and not bury him for one moment, he didn't always drive me nuts. Personally, I found his insights into the nuts and bolts of hitting and fielding--at the very least--not terrible, and occasionally insightful. As a more than deserving member of the Hall of Fame (some of the numbers he put up in the 1970s were simply insane, especially for a second baseman), he obviously knew a thing or two about playing the game.
Unfortunately, he knew little about the individual players he was paid to critique. Much like the network he worked for, his interest seemed to wane for any team that wasn't the Red Sox or the Yankees. And while The Big Red Machine was undoubtedly one of the best teams of all time, his incessant mentions of them (and the fact that he played for them) were grating, to say the least. And then there were the tales he told from his playing days that were easily debunked by the flimsiest googling efforts.
Morgan's failings were even more pronounced in his online chats on ESPN.com, which became the most frequent targets for skewering on FireJoeMorgan.com. Those chats revealed him to be woefully unprepared to discuss 90 percent of major league rosters and not always good with words (though to be fair, I'm sure his remarks were transcribed by someone else). He was notorious for saying he hadn't seen certain players play too much, despite the fact that he worked only one game a week and presumably had tons of time in which to catch up on all the action across the league.
I don't believe he was always like this. I've seen a few "vintage" Morgan games over the past two years, as I worked on The 1999 Project and In the Year 2000. Morgan did color commentary for several Mets playoff games those years, for both ESPN (with Jon Miller) and NBC (with Bob Costas). While I can't say I heard anything special out of him, he did what a color commentator should do: interject a few salient points and get out of the way. He also seemed to have a much more firm grasp of all of the contemporary players than he did in more recent years. Although during the 1999 play-in game against the Reds, which he called for ESPN, he seemed to favor Cincinnati more than just a little bit; unprofessional, but at least understandable.
If you have the Essential Games of Shea Stadium DVD set, you can hear him during game five of the 1999 NLCS (aka The Grand Slam Single Game). He's not bad. He's not great, but he's also nowhere near as insufferable as he became on Sunday Night Baseball over the years. But of course, this was prior to the Moneyball-induced uproar.
Morgan's deterioration as a broadcaster is probably due to an equal amount of burnout and a defensive posture adopted when he began to receive so much criticism. I agree with Craig Calcaterra's assessment that Morgan was a contrarian. The more people slammed him for being number-phobic, the more he relished the role.
Over time, he became what people saw him as: an ossified, intractable paleo-conservative (in the baseball sense). It was almost as if he was trolling the collective baseball blogosphere, saying things just to get a rise out of the Ken Tremendouses of the world. Morgan was hounded because to do so became an ideological crusade in sabermetric circles, and he seemed glad to play the part of their villain.
While I can't say I'm all that sad to see Morgan out of the broadcast booth, he wouldn't be my first choice for a pink slip. If it were up to me, that dishonor would go to Joe Buck, whose continued employment baffles and infuriates me far more than anything Morgan ever did. Buck does not say anything or express any opinions that I disagree with, mostly because I don't believe he has any opinions or feelings or human emotions. He is an excruciatingly awful baseball announcer who can't summon the least amount of insight or enthusiasm for anything, and his "knowledge" of the current baseball landscape makes Morgan seem like Bill James.
In fact, Morgan wouldn't even be the first guy I'd pick to leave ESPN. In recent years, I've found Rick Sutcliffe far more intolerable. His color commentary makes heavy use of phrases like guts and grit and heart, to an extent that Morgan wouldn't even dream of. He is the perfect ESPN broadcaster because he is obsessed with stories behind the game and has precious little to say about the game itself. And the way he intones his words in a slow, measured monotone suggests he thinks he is dropping the heaviest of sciences right on your head with each syllable, even though it is usually no more profound than, "Derek Jeter knows how to play the game". Listening to him makes my skin crawl.
The scary thing is, scan the landscape of national baseball announcers, and you have a hard time pinpointing ones who are demonstrably better than Morgan. His now-ex-partner Jon Miller qualifies in my book (dumb comments about VORP in The Tenth Inning notwithstanding). If you consider Ron Darling a national announcer through his gigs with TBS, then I'd say he qualifies, and John Smoltz was okay during the playoffs this year.
That's the level baseball broadcasting is at right now--someone like Smoltz, who is simply not horrible, can be considered the cream of the crop. I don't know if baseball's declining ratings (particularly in the postseason) can be helped in any way by improvements in the announcing crews, but the fact that they're almost universally wretched can't help, either.
Think about this: When Joe Morgan began doing Sunday Night Baseball in 1990, the network baseball play-by-play guys included Al Michaels for ABC and Bob Costas and Vin Scully for NBC. Scully's reputation is unimpeachable, and Michaels and Costas--for whatever else you want to say about them--were excellent baseball announcers. By the time Morgan was finally kicked to the curb, he had actually become the median of baseball commentators. Maybe he won after all.
191 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The funny thing is
as you mention, he was a wonderful player and had insights into the nuts and bolts of hitting and fielding at times. And his skills were so wonderfully in line with sabermetric thinking. He walked a ton, even with the ‘stros. Had power for a middle infielder (and a short guy), especially blossoming with the Reds. He didn’t strike out much. He stole a ton of bases, but with a high percentage. He seems to have been an adequate glove for some of his career, with a streak of pretty good yers which may have led to an inflated belief in his fielding (also due to his hitting, of course).
Also, he comes off as a decent guy in Ball Four (describing the differences between a curveball and a motherfucking curveball, or complaining why his white teammates always point out good looking black women to him on the street, not good looking white women).
Unfortunately the guy isa rotten announcer and has a serious chip on his shoulder about advanced stats that confirm what a wonderful player he was. Plus he had that little chicken thing with his left elbow.
I like the part in that SF Weekly article
where, when told that Bill James ranked him as the greatest 2nd Baseman of all-time, Morgan responded (paraphrasing here) “that’s ridiculous, Rogers Hornsby hit .400 with 42 homers, I hit .325 with 27 homers”
At least he’s consistent…
2009 Did Not Happen
Hitting .400 with 42 homers
is damn good, though. I’m guessing his WAR was pretty high, without looking.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
well yea
but that’s not the point. Personally, I’d rate Hornsby a little higher than Morgan, but Morgan is someone who is probably much more greatly appreciated as a player today than he was even when he was playing. He walked a lot, hit for power, and played great defense. Except for his two MVP years, his average wasn’t all that high, which is part of the reason he was probably a little underrated (as much as HOF’ers can be underrated).
It’s just funny to me that even when “sabermetrics” are trying to make him look good, he refuses to take the compliment.
2009 Did Not Happen
7 seasons over 10 WAR
to 3 for Morgan, with a higher peak (12.4). Unfortunately, his 42 homer season was combined with one of his “worst” fielding seasons per whatever is being used for the fielding.
Impossible to compare eras, anyway.
Hornsby on turf? Really? And who knows what pitchers were throwing back then. Suffice it to say, both players were incredible.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
I think WAR is merely comparing to the average for the years they played anyway. Both marvelous players. I hear Rogers was a real sunavabitch. maybe because he was always having to correct people and say “RogerZ, with an S at the end.” Made him quick to anger.
In that era
I think you had some seriously hardscrabble people playing the game, because you had some seriously hardscrabble people, period — the poverty that they or their parents may have come from probably would astonish most of us.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
Dizzy Dean
was from hardscrabble beginnings, but a joyous guy, at least just from his public persona.
He explained once that he used to throw rocks left-handed at squirrels because if he used his right hand he’d squish them up so bad they weren’t worth eating.
From an earlier era of Monday, not Sunday, Night Baseball, when Dizz would regale with his version of “The Wabash Cannonball.”
Well, that's worth keeping in mind
just because you suffered doesn’t mean you’re going to be an asshole. But these people were tough, either way. A lot of it is the film/cameras, but when you look at pictures of the old players and they all look 40 years older than they were, I think living in a society absolutely choking with tobacco smoke and being out in the sun for as long as it was up every day, with biting wind in the winter, etc., will tend to age the face. Heck — we’re pre-penicillin, here.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
No doubt
I was just thinking about how hardscrabble that is, eatin’ squished up squirrel.
I forget which player it was that talked about fact it was either baseball or the mines, that his brothers didn’t even have time to play they were in the coalmine all day, and he was allowed out just a little bit of time a week even at 7 or 8 years old.
Stan Covaleski
OK, he was 12, not 7. I recall it wrong.
From “The Glory of Their Times: The Story of Baseball Fom the Men Who Played It.” An absolute must read for everyone on this site.
He made 5 cents an hour, 72 hours a week.
Another thing we forget, historically...
Is that being a baseball player back then was usually not a full-time profession. Of course some guys could make their full living from playing ball (Babe Ruth) but most were paid peanuts and had other jobs in the offseason to make ends meet. Somebody on the 55 Dodgers worked at a men’s clothing store in the offseason (Pee Wee Reese?) and even some members of the 86 Mets had offseason jobs. Let’s not forget that utility infielder Jerry Manuel worked at a Ford plant in the offseason. I think this fostered a more working-class attitude among major leaguers, which is not to say that they were more or less likely to be assholes, just more likely to be average Joes who happened to be really good at a game. Even lackluster players today can make enough in a few years to live really well for a really long time. In the past this wasn’t the case.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Today's major league minimum is something like $400,000/year
so there is no need for a second job. Players now make enough so that the offseason is a time for physical conditioning – sort of reinvesting into their career. This makes the players better, but it also means that their lives are more insular.
If you only make that
for a couple of years, and are spending like a 22 year old with $400k in your pocket, you will need another job eventually, though.
yeah I don't know the numbers in MLB
but I know in the NBA, where the vet min is like 700,000. most players go broke within 2 years of retiring.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
I love the fact that if you were putting together an all-time best players team
your middle infield would quite possibly be “Rogers Hornsby” and “Honus Wagner.”
Add in fact that you could also feature Yogi Berra, Cy Young, and either Ty Cobb or Mickey Mantle up the middle without getting too much complaint, and that’s not only an unreal team, but a great combination of names.
2009 Did Not Happen
Satchel Paige
or Sandy Koufax could pitch for the name team. Nicknames are even tougher, but “Three Finger” Mordecai Brown could, in theory, pitch for both.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
Of course, moron me
I forgot that “Satchel” was his nickname, too. So, we’ll just have one really flippin good team.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
if you were going by careers, sure
if you were going by peak performance, Mantle was better than both of them. Mantle’s best 4-consecutive seasons were worth 44.7 WAR, Mays’ were worth 42.0 WAR, and Cobb’s were worth 43.3 WAR.
If healthy his whole career, he’d be talked about with Ruth, Williams, and Bonds as the best offensive player ever, and he was probably a better fielder than any of them.
2009 Did Not Happen
Looking at FanGraphs
May’s best is 43.7, Mantles is 4.5 and Cobb’s is 42.7.
If we’re talking about “ifs,” then if Ruth didn’t start out as a pitcher, his offensive numbers would be even greater. If Ted Williams didn’t spend three years fighting in WWII, and most of another season fighting in Korea, his numbers would also be better. If Barry Bonds didn’t touch PEDs, then he would still be a great player, but perhaps no longer in the conversation.
Best fielder of everyone mentioned here? Mays.
My second paragraph was meant to be separate from the first
just a personal interjection about how awesome I think Mantle was.
That said, any way you slice it, Mays vs. Mantle vs. Cobb is close if you’re going by peak performance. For one season, you’d almost definitely take Mantle’s 1956, which is one of the best seasons in baseball history. I just don’t think people would really complain if you drafted Mantle ahead of Cobb or Mays in some hypothetical “greatest players ever” draft, especially if (as per the original convo) you were going for some kind of awesomely named team up the middle.
2009 Did Not Happen
Here's one thing I always found interesting in this hypothetical
If you were putting the best team together, Bonds is in left, but if you’re constructing the best lineup, wouldn’t Ricky have to be your lead off hitter?
Not sure
But this is a problem with trying to create “context-free” comparisons. I would imagine that with a solid lineup 1-9, you won’t be coming up with the bases empty as much as the typical leadoff hitter, and, thus, you can tilt the balance toward slugging over OBP. But on a “real” team which has to make tradeoffs somewhere and has weaker hitters near the bottom, you maybe want a guy to get on for the boppers.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
Bonds>Cobb
Interestingly enough, he’s also one of the few players you can say was more of an asshole than Bonds.
Take away the PEDs and Cobb>Bonds
But we can agree that Cobb is the all time leading asshole in baseball, and perhaps all of the wide, wide world of sports.
this actually isn't true at all
even in the early 90s Bonds was as good
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Bonds had two careers really one where he was a great all around player
And one where he was the greatest slugger ever. If you take his career numbers and disperse them evenly, he’s pretty much the perfect 5 tool players, doing everything excellently.
but i mean even if you only look at offense
his early 90s seasons were on par with cobbs offensive numbers.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
I used to get them confused all the time when I was a kid...
For anyone who loves the history of the game and the sprinkling of bizarre nicknames baseball has brought about (and hates the A-Rod, K-Rod, T-Mac etc. modern trend of really unimaginative, stupid nicknames), you should check out the Anthem of Nicknames by William “Sugar” Wallace. It is here:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_anth.shtml
Also, for Baseball Almanac’s general repository of baseball poems, of which there are many, the link is:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poems.shtml
I just took a brief look at a few, and while some were better than others, many were worth my time.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
but thanks for retrieving the stats
I was curious. I figure some of those early players must have astonishing composite numbers to go along with the “traditional” stuff. Also, how one can possibly even begin to try to empirically evaluate their fielding is beyond me if we’re relying on UZR and its relations.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
"consistency" was never the problem, yeah
“Hobgoblin of little minds” should be Fired Joe Morgan’s nickname.
As long as it didn't turn out like the Dennis Miller MNF experiment
which turned out a bit like this.

by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
I have not read "Moneyball"
but criticizing the “Moneyball approach” doesn’t not require one to have read Moneyball to the extent that people understand it as a shorthand for an emphasis on “advanced” statistical metrics over eyeball evaluation, traditional baseball strategic norms, and belief in such concepts as “grit”, “leadership,” “clutch players,” etc. Forcing people to sit down and read a specific book before you’ll engage them is an argumentative shortcut. At best, it’s wanting someone else to do the arguing for you. If you’re taking umbrage with specific points/arguments/reported facts from the book itself, then it helps to have read it. But I’m pretty sure Morgan understands what he’s arguing against. In his experience, there are guys who “get the job done,” and other such concepts. Unfortunately, one of those guys was Gary Matthews, Jr.
Well, onsidering one of his criticisms of the book is
saying that Billy Beane shouldn’t have written it, it might be for the best that he takes a look at it.
"The lesson behind Moneyball is that if you are clever in your use of resources, you can gain power beyond your station. It is not, never has been, and never will be, that 'computer models' should take over the world." - Graham
by Thomas Wachtel on Nov 9, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Damn it
*considering
"The lesson behind Moneyball is that if you are clever in your use of resources, you can gain power beyond your station. It is not, never has been, and never will be, that 'computer models' should take over the world." - Graham
by Thomas Wachtel on Nov 9, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yeeeeah, that one's a little silly
considering he need only look at the spine on a shelf.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
I have no idea what you're talking about
Can you point to some example of a person who uses “Moneyball approach” to mean what you say it’s a shorthand for — valuing stats over scouting — who does have some idea what they’re talking about? I’ve never seen any such person.
seriously, this makes no sense
It’s like you think “Moneyball” is a metonym for the entire FJM-derived, caricatured-saber-geek worldview. Thinking that is only possible for people who, first, have never read the book, and second, have little idea what advanced-stat-using fans think about baseball.
Hormonal?
Seriously — chill. There was nothing hostile in what I wrote. You whipped out the “saber-geek” term as an excuse to throw barbs, or because you’re overly sensitive about it. When Morgan critiques ‘Moneyball," instead of picking nits with his understanding of the entire flipping gestalt as you happen define it, try addressing the substance, on his terms. Really, when people criticize the “Moneyball” approach, what they’re criticizing is what I would call the stat-centric prevailing Amazin Avenue view. We don’t have to define it precisely in all its particulars. It leaves some room for “lore” and gut wisdom, but not at the expense of production.
Similarly, we think of certain newspapers as “right-wing” or “left-wing” without trying to drill down to the ideological groundings of every viewpoint. If that doesn’t jibe completely with what’s in the book, who cares? You know what Morgan is talking about in specific instances, and when he says the “Moneyball approach,” generally. You’re not going to win any arguments by browbeating everyone into your particular lexicon and conceptual framework before you’ll even engage them. But it seems liek you don’t want to engage. You just want to look down.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, there's definitely some endocrine-generated hostility in your posts
Seriously.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, here we go again with the hectoring
It’s all there for anyone to see. “This makes no sense.” “doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” “absurd”, etc. Is that acceptable? Well, you want it to be, you’d better grow a thicker skin. I’m not going to let you turn this into an etiquette debate, because you blew that one. What you did was called “baiting.” I’m a bit ticked that I took the bait, but it is what it is. So, here’s my answer. Most people? Probably not. You? Most definitely.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
The bottom line is, if a person uses "Moneyball" as shorthand
for advocates of stats over scouts, then they are creating an inaccurate shorthand. That’s why so many people say, at least read the book if you’re going to use that terminology. Stats over scouts is not what the book is about.
I know you’re saying that people use it as shorthand, and we know it, so why bother correcting them, but that’s a fallacious argument. Here’s a geek analogy: If people started using “Star Trek” as a shorthand term for discussing The Force, you wouldn’t engage them in a debate about how stupid midichlorians are, you’d tell them that they should probably watch the movie before trying to speak on the matter.
by SoCal Metfan on Nov 9, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I see your point
Midichlorians are idiotic, emblematic of everything that was wrong with. . ..
OK — fine.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
I think this is right...
Though I have no idea what a midichorian is. The point in my mind about reading Moneyball is that many arguments, such as the one over on Metsmerized the other day, use Moneyball as a proxy for stat-development and advancement. Reasonable minds may disagree about whether this use is correct, and I have heard good arguments on either side. The problem is that arguing about a book with someone who has never read it is at bottom an impossible task and usually a waste of time. Their beliefs are second-hand at best, and with repetition comes error and ambiguity that often makes meaningful argument impossible. I read Moneyball a long time ago and still missed the Phil Milo reference that someone made the other day. I have no problem with people who have not read Moneyball, though I’d recommend they head to the library and get a copy as IMO it’s a good, quick read, but I think it’s fairly annoying when someone who has not read the book reads about it on Wikipedia and think that this is sufficient to discuss it.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
So they're like Force mitochondria?
Do they run through the maternal line? Can you tell where the genetic tree split because of their mutation rate? Because I’d really like to know how long ago the WhateverTheHellYodaIs-Wookie divergence took place.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
I'm not sure
I’m taking a Jedi Biology class next semester as I’m changing my major to fictional pre-med, so I’ll let you know.
fictional pre-med?
so you’re studying bro science?
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
No, it's more a mythical pre-med
I’m learning how to be a doctor for various fictional beings such as Jedi, Sith, Elves, Dwarves, Ogres, Orcs, Uruk-hai, Wookies etc.
andalites?
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Can you cure Chip Haleitosis in an Ogre?
Sorry Ogre, twas too easy.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 9, 2010 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
I do not suffer from Chip Haleitosis
I love every minute of it.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
I'll call b.s. on pretty much this whole comment
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
I had a long response but lost it cause I'm using a friend's crappy computer
Maybe I’ll re-write it later. To sum, I’m not a fan of people talking out of their asses, even it’s supposed minutiae such as not even knowing who wrote the damn book. Your comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the text, confirming to me the importance of having to read the book to usefully discuss it. Also, I laughed at this:
If you’re taking umbrage with specific points/arguments/reported facts from the book itself, then it helps to have read it.
Replace “helps” with “is absolutely necessary” and I’ll nod in agreement.
And if it sounds like I’m some sort of dogmatic defender of all things Moneyball, I’m not. In fact, given the construction of the Mets front office, I’m planning a look at the book, where it was “right” and where seems to be “wrong”.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
I went back and looked at that draft
I was thinking jeremy brown was an awful pick, etc. But it’s hard to knock them much for the results vis a vis other early round guys taken. I’m sure there’s some guy taken in round 18 who ended up being a worthy Loogy or something and you can say, look, why they’d take Joe Blanton or Teahen, but it was actually at superficial glance an ok draft.
That was supposed to be a bit sarcastic
The “it helps.” I think my point is that he really isn’t addressing “Moneyball” per se. He’s just using it as shorthand. It may be a really stupid shorthand (see SoCal, above), but we pretty much know what he’s talking and that he shits on Beane and thinks he wrote the book is silly, but not at the heart of the problem SABR people have with Morgan. It may be symbolic, but I think the substantive issues have to do with which stats you care about and whether clubhouse matters, certain players are “winners”, clutch, etc., how best to evaluate defense, etc.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
I guess it's just a difference in discussion preference
I prefer things to be defined before talking about them, especially when there’s a difference of opinion. Joe Morgan riffs on “Moneyball” meaning one thing, I have my own take, and you have your own interpretation as well. Talking about the “Moneyball concept” becomes near-worthless, and none of us know exactly what that concept is.
If Morgan wanted to not be an assclown, he could talk about the specific points in the book he disagrees with, which would require actually reading the book. For instance, if he said something like “I disagree that teams should avoid drafting high school pitchers because of X, Y and Z” there could be productive discussion. Outright dismissal of the book and it’s supposed agenda accomplishes nothing except annoy people.
Somewhat related — I’ll get emails or talk to people IRL that say stuff like “Amazin Avenue sucks! You’re stat obsessed and human element and blah blah blah”. I’ll usually respond asking them to provide examples of stuff they disagree with so it can be discussed. 9 times out of 10 they provide nothing. To me, this is a worthless exchange — blanket criticism without providing examples.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
I'm dying at the fact there are people who approach you IRL
to say that. Like in tears.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Happens every day
On the street, on subways, even people knocking on my door. Even the homeless are angry.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
It's a tough crutch to bear
but you bear it well.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
But -- and I'm being serious
“Provide examples” is asking someone to go and accrue data to support something that, in the grand scheme, to be completely honest, they don’t really care enough about to commit the time and effort. We can agree that AA generally derides the notion that “gritty” players help a team by their grit and passion, can we not? Are they wrong? Is this not a SABR-slanted site? It ain’t Metsmerized.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
eh you don
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
friggin a the apostrephe key is the devil
anyway you don’t really need data to provide examples, you can usually use logical irl examples. Like, just for the college vs high school example, the fact that high schoolers will have less mileage on their arms and less bad habits, or at least less time spent using those bad habits and that college coaches are generally much much more concerned with winning than developing so in a lot of instances the rawer high school pitcher will be much easier to mold and to teach proper mechanics. Where as you’ll have to spend a lot of time unteaching bad habits that have been developed from college players.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Well, I'm guessing you'd be met with a
“give me examples of college pitchers who couldn’t unlearn bad mechanics”, and then you could or you couldn’t, and you might think “eh, who cares?”
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
if you think eh who cares
why broach the subject in the first place?
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Well, maybe you have a friendly, cursory discussion of it.
And then you disengage when it becomes too involved. Happens all the time.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
They apparently care enough to tell me that I (or the site, or whatever) suck
So I don’t find it unreasonable to request that they explain why I suck. If you think I suck but can’t be bothered to explain why you think that, then shut your mouth and GFY.
And this is a facts-slanted site. That’s what I tell people. I don’t deride anything with substance that can help me understand the game better. Andy Martino relaying anecdotes about the Mets’ and Phillies’ collective “meanness” and telling me the Mets stink because they’re a bunch of wussies isn’t substance.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, that's something
It’s not “substance” because of your premises. Do we need them all to take some Myers-Briggs test before we can figure out that they have different attitudes? And why not ask if that matters? (Not that ridiculous — Danny Ainge used “brain-typing.” NFL does all kinds of psych-evaluations.)
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
Apples and oranges
Giving psych tests to draft picks isn’t the same as some hack journalist listing a few plays which support his pre-conceived hypothesis and passing it off as insight. I find the former useful; the latter, not so much.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
On the other hand...Here's something else that annoys me....
I was talking baseball with a Phillies fan friend a few months back after he had said that someone (Howard, Ibanez? I can’t remember) was very unclutch. He’s a smart guy and an avid baseball fan so I reminded him that “clutch” was at best an arguable term, and at worst meaningless. He responded, “yeah, I read Moneyball too” as if this was the Alpha and Omega of baseball thought. I think this typifies what the book represents: many who have read it incorrectly think it is some sort of stats Bible and many who have read it think that advancement ended with Billy Beane in Oakland. In any event, it was a hard conversation to continue after the dismissal of Moneyball because we weren’t thinking on the same page.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Grission is as a counterpoint to those who think that only talent-less scrappy players have it, thus making them more valuable than talented players (who couldn't possible have "it").
When in fact, our talented core players, besides being good at baseball, also have grit and passion. Reyes busting his ass to turn a double into a triple, Dubs throwing himself at the ground to try to block a sharp grounder or Beltran making hard plays look easy.
See also the “Blame the Superstar Syndrome” or “Trayd the Core”
Straw man
No fan of “gritty players” thinks Eckstein was more valuable to the Padres than Adrian Gonzalez. But they do think that he may be able to contribute to winning more than his calculated contribution from the data and assumptions attached to it. There are plenty of stars who are thought of as “gritty” — Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, Jeter, NO-MAH!!! (back in the day), etc.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:09 PM EST up reply actions
Except none of those are Mets players.
While many people were claiming the Phillies were better than the Mets solely because “they wanted more” or something like that.
Nobody said that was "solely" it
But something happened in 2007 that went beyond a mere statistical fluke. It was a submission by the Mets. When fans say players win because they “want it more”, they’re not talking about wish fulfillment.
And which Mets are “gritty”? Probably none of them. one of the hallmarks is “baseball IQ,” which is to say that the guy doesn’t make a lot of mistakes. Beltran may qualify in that regard, but he doesn’t have the aggressiveness that people also associate with “grit.” Reyes may have the aggressive style, but he is also often a bonehead.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
I think this is kind of the issue people take with the idea of grit
Beltran may qualify in that regard, but he doesn’t have the aggressiveness that people also associate with "grit." Reyes may have the aggressive style, but he is also often a bonehead.
if you come up with counter examples, like Reyes and Beltran, you’re met with absurd replies. How is Reyes any more boneheaded than a player like Juan Pierre. Or how is Beltran less aggressive than someone like Pujols?
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
or how is Utley aggressive?
or even eckstein, what is aggressive about him?
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
yes really
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
David Wright jumped into the stands to catch the ball
Not Jeter “i can slide but fuck it let me take 3 extra steps and dive” dive, but actually dove into the stands. But Utley plays dirty so that’s more gritty?
by Evan_S on Nov 9, 2010 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Dubs caught a pop fly in shallow LF with his bare hand
but Rollins runs his mouth so he’s gritty?
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
He may not be "more" boneheaded than Juan Pierre
but he makes (or at least used to make) mistakes.
It’s really about your Jeters or your Utleys who seem (yes, “seem”) to always be in the right place at the right time, never make a mistake. It becomes exasperating when people ask you to provide an accounting of where Jeter was supposed to be on X-play over 150 games, yadda, yadda, yadda. That’s when one is tempted to say “just watch a fucking game.”
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
probably because people watch games and
don’t see this absurd notion of always being in the right place.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
by Gina on Nov 9, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
and I think the fact that once the Phillies
lost in the NLCS people were calling for Utley’s head bears this out. Was anyone calling Reyes boneheaded in 06? or Wright unclutch? or Beltran unaggressive? it wasn’t until they were losing. Same with Utley, he’s a clutch gritty monster until they get eliminated, and then according to the same people, he’s suddenly unclutch and doesn’t have enough heart.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Given that "grit" is an imported term with little established meaning...
Let me tell you what I think “grit” meant, and still think it means to a degree. First, it means sand or small particles, but that doesn’t apply. Second, I think it means a player who works hard to be the best he can, and while he may be blessed with less talent than someone else, he has an attitude that maximizes what he has and might bump him from a B- to a B+ player. I think the idea of hustle is part of it. Is this some sort of unchanging trait? I don’t think so. And it clearly has been misused on a player-to-player and ethnicity-to-ethnicity basis way too much, but to use it as a proxy for someone who works hard doesn’t seem like such a crime to me.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Your final paragraph is ridiculous
And what’s more, I’m pretty sure you know it. I’m done.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
Yes
I’m describing why there might be the perception that they aren’t gritty. i’m not making personal judgments about either player. I have my own gut feelings, but they don’t necessarily jibe with these.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Alright, I misunderstood
It appeared to be your own perception.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 9, 2010 6:28 PM EST up reply actions
Well
there’s definitely a difference between how Shane Victorino plays and how Beltran plays (approach, I mean — not the fact that Beltran is much, much better.) I don’t know if “aggressiveness” is the right word. “Edge”? (not serious.)
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Beltran plays hard knees with no cartilage, and Victorino complains in the outfield when he thinks the umpire made a bad call. That’s your difference.
Beltran keeps respects his fellow players.
Victorino gives them nut-taps.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
In 2 years
When the phillies are not that good, and Victorino is a crap player, people will say he is a whiny baby. Players on winning teams are always labeled winners, and players on losing teams are labeled losers despite the fact that its a team game. Wright has been getting the unclutch/loser lable for the last couple of years when if Wainwright’s curveball stays high, he probably would be getting the Jeter treatment right now.
Plenty of people said and keep saying this crap.
This is what characterizes the Phillies of this era, and what separates them from the Mets:
Swagger. Arrogance. Condescension toward opponents.
Andy Martino
When he first got the job,
I thought he was gonna be informative & insightful. I was wrong.
What's that about?
Are there any good Mets beat writers?
Martino and Lennon (@DPLennon: Flushing just became your Disneyland, geek-boy @Ledger_NYMets) are laughable.
I used to kinda like Rubin...
Not so sure anymore, and I’m not so sure he qualifies as a beat writer. But whatever.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
I like McCullough on Twitter
but I’ll admit that I haven’t read much of his actual writing.
"The lesson behind Moneyball is that if you are clever in your use of resources, you can gain power beyond your station. It is not, never has been, and never will be, that 'computer models' should take over the world." - Graham
by Thomas Wachtel on Nov 10, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Also what happened in 2007
was the Phillies were a better team. The mets had a hot may and then played .500 ball every other month of the season, including September. The phillies were the one who went on an insane run.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Right
and they were better because they put up better numbers. And they put up better numbers because they had more Talent. And they had more Talent because of their genes.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
or they had more talent
because they didn’t have the likes or marlon anderson, damon easley, shawn green, etc playin significant roles?
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
how so
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
September, 2007
did you say “we’re going to lose because we have these bad players playing hey roles”? Maybe you did. I thought we were going to lose because after the Mets were swept in Philly, one player (if that) said he was lookign forward to avenging the sweep. Everyone else said “just another game, blah blah blah.” And I thought, “oh shit.” And guess what happened?
I know, I know — “my lucky hat,” etc.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure I understand the post hoc argument...
Are you saying that they weren’t more or less talented because it was only apparent in retrospect? If that’s the case, it seems silly to me. Of course things are more apparent in retrospect, and the Phillies run from 2007-2010 pretty much proves Jimmy Rollins’ predictions right in at least one regard: the Phillies had more talent, and were a better team.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
"Blame the superstar syndrome"
usually stems from an understanding/perception that a team can only afford to carry so many marquee players, and those marquee players are judged compared to other, similarly valued players. The assumption may be incorrect, but if David Wright is performing like Luis Castillo, being more upset with Wright than Castillo isn’t entirely illogical.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
No, even in 2007-08 when Dubs had a superstar performance, people were still blaming him for the team failure.
“He is not clutch! He didn’t hit well in September! He chocked!”
If he actually did hit well in September
then that’s bullshit. You can’t expect him to actually hit .900 and put the team on his back. I agree — that’s silliness.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
Since we're trying to be accurate
this is NOT a SABR-slanted site. It’s a sabermetric-slanted site. SABR is the Society of American Baseball Research, and while the term sabermetrics came from SABR, the fact is that SABR deals with lots of areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with advanced stats.
What's the score, boys?
What did Bugs Bunny do?
What's with the Carrot League baseball today?
Since we're trying to be accurate (and I don't want to speak for the site owners)
this is a fact based site. Sabermetrics are accepted as evidence/facts to support one’s argument, but other facts are accepted as well. Scouting reports, for example.
well if we're really trying to be accurate
this site is mainly just an excuse to post MS Paintz and go off topic in gamethreads.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
by Gina on Nov 9, 2010 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And to make double entendres
on the name R.A. Dickey.
What's the score, boys?
What did Bugs Bunny do?
What's with the Carrot League baseball today?
I have...
High-quality, durable work attire at reasonable prices.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Rec'd
For truthiness.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Say whaa?
Late to this thread, but this post… uh… is there an anti rec button?
Criticizing the “Moneyball approach” does require you to have read the book. Criticizing the SABR approach does not.
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
by Dandy Salderson on Nov 9, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Wow....
This is 100% correct, and said in about 20 words. Well done.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
good point
That’s a good point. I don’t have to read ‘The International Jew’ to know I disagree with the premise of the book. On the other hand if I was a public figure and made a point of voicing my disagreement with the book’s premise it would certainly help if I had read it.
"I'm pretty sure Morgan understand what he's arguing against"
Here’s where I totally lose you. Not only does Morgan not understand what constitutes “Moneyball” or saber-metrics, he does not wish to. He’s like someone who thinks evolution = “monkeys gave birth to men,” and is so disgusted by that idea that he’ll shit all over Darwin. If you want to be a creationist fine, but don’t pretend you’re qualified to say that Darwin was a terrible scientist (or Beane is an idiot.)
You say that saber folks are contemptuous of “clutch” and “grit” and whatever, but the funny thing is that there are about a million saber studies trying to figure out if these things might indeed exist. Do certain players really bear down in the postseason/stretch? Is clutch hitting a skill? etc etc etc. We do that because we’d like to know something about what we’re arguing against, instead of dismissing it on face.
by Pack Bringley on Nov 9, 2010 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
"We do that because we’d like to know something about what we’re arguing against, instead of dismissing it on face."
But until then, you’ll make fun of it incessantly.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:37 PM EST up reply actions
huh?
I’d wager to bet that 90% of us believed in a skill of clutch hitting until we read convincing studies to the contrary.
by Pack Bringley on Nov 9, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
I know I once did...
But that was when my team was good.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Because all studies concluded that clutch is not a repeatable skill and that postseason experience doesn't make a significant difference.
And we make fun because there is this blind belief that those like Jeter are inevitably clutch.
by Michkin on Nov 9, 2010 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
QED!!!!
The problem is how you truly measure “clutch” AND get enough of a sample size to tell if what you’re doing makes sense. Even Bill James backed off of the “there’s no such thing as clutch” nostrum at one point.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
You're clutching at straws, dude
A great deal of research on the subject shows that nothing REMOTELY RESEMBLING how a tv analyst conceives of as a “clutch” skill exists. If you have evidence to the contrary, or see flaws in what a “clutch” situation really is or whatever, please fanpost about it. Show your evidence, and stop spouting empty latin at people. Otherwise I’ll accept this extremely well reasoned and comprehensive article in The Book that I’m looking at just now.
by Pack Bringley on Nov 9, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
and if you want to read about some of this stuff
Here: http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/doesnt-book-study-pretty-much-settle.html
I think you’ll find it pleasantly open-minded.
by Pack Bringley on Nov 9, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
one last thing
if you haven’t yet read “The Book” or these studies (and I’m not sure either way), then…….. I guess it gets back to your initial Joe Morgan point and we’ll disagree to disagree, or something.
by Pack Bringley on Nov 9, 2010 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
Clutching at straws?
No, I’m not going to read a 900 page book merely to be qualified to argue this point with a random groupthink mouthpiece (although “The Book” is taunting me from my (cough) Kindle.) It’s fairly simple. What are you trying to define as “clutch” on the micro and macro level? One problem: figuring out clutch situations. By definition, it’s ex ante. You can’t look back to the second inning and say, well that homer won us the game, ergo, that was clutch. But a second inning AB in a pennant race is different than a bottom 9 AB for a team that was eliminated a month ago, too. It’s something that’s closer to the hated “know it when you see it.”
Second, I thoroughly agree that signing players who are thought of as “clutch” in the expectation that they will consistently outperform others in a defined set of game situations may not make sense precisely because it’s a question of psychology and can probably improve and deteriorate for different players. It’s one thing to say “I’ll never take David Wright over Derek Jeter because David Wright isn’t ‘clutch.’” It’s another to say that “David Wright seems to be pressing these days because he’s swinging at bad pitches and not driving in any runs with two outs.” And maybe, with an experienced eye, you take a look at that and say, well, on balance, I might have to go with Longoria, or Zimmerman, or someone similar, on the margins.
And, re: Buck
Agreed, agreed, a thousand times agreed. He shouldn’t just be fired. He should be set adrift on an ice floe.
I agree with part of this
If Morgan just talked about the nuts and bolts about hitting, he’d be find. But, in the end, he was an idiot
Formerly firejerrynow
I was with you the whole post...
…until you said Jon Miller was better. I don’t know if it’s just me but I can’t stand listening to Miller. The way he over-enunciates (sp?) every Spanish players name comes off as just plain pretentious. “Yeah, that is how it is pronounced in the blah blah region of whatever country this guy is from…I know that because I am a far more well-rounded and cultured individual than you.” Everyone I’ve ever heard simply says Beltran whether its pronounced with Beltr-an or Beltr-on, but Miller has to essentially shout the last part of it. “Here comes Carlos BelTRON”. Drives me up a friggin wall.
But
that is how it’s pronounced.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
by Ogre39666 on Nov 10, 2010 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
no it's not
I’m sorry, people in Latin American countries don’t drawl their words out the way he did. He OVERemphasized the pronunciation, and it was pretentious and annoying.
2009 Did Not Happen
Exactly!!!!!!!!!
It’s one thing to put the accent on the correct syllable. It’s another thing to say every Latin player’s name like you’re “Zorro” swinging from a chandelier. That’s not being sensitive or respectful. It’s being bombastic and patronizing.
I've heard that he wants it pronounced Bel-tron.
Not Bel-tran.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
But that's not the same as
Bel-TRAHN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the way Miller says it.
Damn apostrophe button!
Maybe I’m "miss-remembering " then.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
And my memory may be guilty of embellishing
because it was so grating. It reminded me of an old SNL skit where Jimmy Smits (really) was the host (really.) (Probably during the “LA Law” days.) The premise was that he was a newscaster annoyed by all of the other newscasters using exaggerated, faux-Spanish accents when speaking virtually every word with a Spanish origin. Bob Costas made a cameo and said something about whether the “Brrron-cos!” would beat “San Di-hey-goh!” Was kinda funny. Went on for like two hours.
I was way wrong about Jeff Franceour . . . but at least I wasn't paid for it.
I see the granddaddy of moronic announcers was finally let go.
How many more are there; 95 percent of the announcing crews on TV? I am quite sure they will be replaced by some truly awful pair that will make us pine for the days of Miller and Morgan. I can imagine some crew like Rob Dibble and Kevin Millar announcing Sunday Night Baseball.
Helluva player, that Joe Morgan
Ironically, a great sabr player, especially.
First class jackass as well. Sunday Night Baseball finally safe.
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
this
nothing on ESPN is ever safe
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Step 1 to fixing ESPN
getting rid of Berman. Take Joe Morgan’s suck, multiply that by Joe Buck’s suck, square it twice, and multiply that by Pi, and you have a lowball estimate of how bad Berman sucks.
step 1
get rid of everyone who currently makes hiring/retaining/program decisions.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
Baby steps
First, get rid of the magazine. I didn’t ask for it, and yet shirtless athletes show up every frigging month in my mailbox.
by tmu on Nov 9, 2010 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
The Mag is actually much better than the channel(s) IMO.
it actually concentrates on sports and not reporting about sports and other media-created stories.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
I enjoy the Mag
it’s not great sportswriting like SI tries to be (and occasionally succeeds at), but it does a much better job delving into the world of the professional athlete. It’s, IMO, the proper use of ESPN’s insider status, they really seem to convey what it’s like to be an athlete in a lot of respects, much better than their TV station does.
2009 Did Not Happen
In my humble. . .
The Mag is nothing but pictures and charts, and most of the pictures are shirtless. Lots of “who’s the hottest actress?” and “hot dogs with mustard or relish?” questions and then oiled up photos of Dwight Howard. Yech. Total shit.
So they have a "body" issue that dedicates a 10 pages to pictures amongst the rest of the mag.
You can skip over those 10 pages if they make you uncomfortable.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
It's not just the "body" issue
it’s every issue. The “body” issue is redundant. I’ve never found the articles all that informative. It’s a kind of writing I don’t like.
.
I’ve never found the articles all that informative. It’s a kind of writing I don’t like.
That’s different and a fair critique. Complaining about shirtless picture however… well, have you seen Mens Fitness or GQ?
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
HAVE I?!?!?!?
I mean, um, yes. But those are fashion/fitness magazines, and the latter (GQ) tries to be provocative, etc. For me, sports are not about Dwight Howard’s delts (which are impressive, yes, and make me feel inadequate as a human being.) It’s like getting an issue of “Smithsonian” and a feature article on an archaeologist has her shirtless in that “holding my breasts” pose. Just doesn’t fit.
I was way wrong about Jeff Franceour . . . but at least I wasn't paid for it.
it also has awesome pictures and charts
which was the only use I ever had for it.
mediocrity thy name is Wilpon- jdon (and Billy King-Paul G B)
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
I didn't read the post, and I really don't think I need to in order to critique (get it?)
but, following the game thread on Twinkie Town made me realize that anyone who’s not your hometown announcers suck. Those guys skewered Ron, and I mean brutally skewered him. Now, I will admit that he wasn’t that great, but he wasn’t as bad as the Twinkie Town folks claimed.
That brings me to another conclusion: part of the reason national teams suck is because they are nobody’s home team announcers (well almost Yankees and Sox). Therefore we don’t feel any affinity to them and cannot overlook some of their flaws. GKR have plenty of flaws, but they’re one of us, so we give them a pass.
This is not to say that the national teams don’t suck – they do. It is meant to say that perhaps, just perhaps, they all suck. Some suck more than others sure, but how much suckage they exhibit really depends on whether they’re our guys sucking or the other guys sucking.
Now, I’ll get back to reading the post.
I've long felt that the way to go for national broadcasts
is to combine the two team’s play-by-play crews. Like, if the Mets were playing the Yankees, have Gary Cohen call the first few innings with David Cone and Al Leither and Michael Kay call the last few with Keith and Ron, or vice versa. That way the announcers actually know something about the teams they’re talking about, you get to hear something a little different than if it was just a regular game, and you don’t have to deal with pompous pre-written storylines.
2009 Did Not Happen
NBC used to do that
for the WS. Lindsey Nelson called the middle innings of the 69 & 73 WS games at Shea.
What's the score, boys?
What did Bugs Bunny do?
What's with the Carrot League baseball today?
I will not miss Joe Morgan
But I might miss his home run call. Imagine: a long fly ball to right-center, fielder going back, at the wall, looking up, and, say it with mg:
“See, that’s what I was talking about before.”

by 






























