Baseball Experience vs. Intellect
by soco on Sep 1, 2008 10:36 PM EDT
Email
PrintA recent discussion between foulpole, Jim, et al. made me think for a second. In baseball there seems to be a difference between the knowledge you hold playing the game and watching it.
The start of the debate was that the average modern baseball viewer would know more about Joe Morgan, for example that wins aren't a good measure for pitcher's success. Knowing that a win doesn't measure much doesn't make someone pitch better, yet it is at the basis of modern baseball thought.
With the growth and popularization of baseball statistics, there are many things that have become outdated, and some have been replaced with new ways to watch and think about the game. The game, from an observer's point of view, has changed.
Playing the game has changed as well, but perhaps not as signficantly. Three outs an inning, of which there are nine, and runs are still scored by crossing the plate after touching the previous three sequentially. Players have more advantages to prepare and survive, and in many ways are more skilled, but the way the game isn't that different than twenty or thirty years ago. Of course, the farther you go back, the less familiar the tactics become, but the rules haven't changed signficantly for quite some time.
Which then makes me wonder (with all respect to foulpole, who planted the seed), although Joe Morgan couldn't teach the average baseball fan much about the game when it comes to watching it, what could he teach us about playing it. And more importantly, is this information even relevant to the average fan?
And I wonder, is baseball different from other sports in viewing?
Obviously baseball is slower paced, and much of a game to chat and discuss not only the game at hand, but there is a strong tradition of discussing the past while you take in the present. Basketball is so high paced that you don't have much time, except perhaps during a timeout or at a Pistons' game, to talk about the game.
With this culture of discussion, there seems to be an entirely different set of necessary knowledge sign posts. To play baseball you need to know the rules and have the physical processes down, but you don't need to know a single thing about the numbers behind it. Conversely, fans hoarde, trade, and spin numbers in debates and intellectual fencing matches.
So I will posit foulpole's original question, with a slight spin:
What does a baseball player, perhaps especially a Hall of Fame player, have to teach a fan about baseball, and is it something they need to enjoy watching the game?
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Articulate players
can teach us a lot about baseball, especially the nuances. Rod Allen and Bob Brenly (two of my favorites) are both excellent at picking up details that I, a non-player, would miss: Mark Grace choking up on the bat for a single on a 3-2 pitch, Randy Johnson going an entire game without shaking off a single call from Damien Miller, or Curt Schilling setting up a batter for strike 3 on an eye-level fastball. The thing that sets Rod and Bob apart from lackluster analysts like Joe Morgan, is genuine interest in the game. They spot these things because they watch the game closely and then they relate what they see to their own experiences. It makes for very entertaining and informative broadcasts.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
Here's the difference (at least for me)
On my own, I think I can tell whether a player is good or bad. A good analyst (usually a player analyst) can tell me why a player is good or bad.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
And that's why I like Gracie and Sutton
when they aren’t being goofballs. They will say something like, “You young players, look at what’s happening here…” and then explain something —whether a fundamental like Tony Clark not knowing where David Eckstein was today and missing the ball; or something more sophisticated. It’s good to learn things from the announcers. I probably wouldn’t have made the connection that TC and The Scrapper hadn’t played together, and that TC was fielding based on what Orlando Hudson would have done.
It's like living with a six-year old.
by 4 Corners Fan on Sep 2, 2008 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Which reminds me
without Bob Brenly I would never have known that Tony Gwynn was such a great choke artist (I mean that in the best possible way). Who knew that a batter choking up on the bat with two strikes on him could be so scary? You just knew he was gonna get a hit!
And now it’s time for me to stop responding to my own posts.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
“Basketball is so high paced that you don’t have much time, except perhaps during a timeout or at a Pistons’ game, to talk about the game.”
Nice.
I think the Pistons and Spurs
are still playing a game that they started last season.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
Even though I’m very open to new statistics and ways of thinking about the game, I somewhat like Joe Morgan. A great player/announcer who knows the insights of the game can point out the things that an average fan could miss, like when Mark Grace pointed out that new teammates Tony Clark and David Eckstien probably didn’t have the greatest communication on a groundball that became a hit. I would have never thought about it that way, but only someone who has been in the game would have seen it.
However, the only time that Joe Morgan runs into trouble is when he starts ranting about how much he dislikes Moneyball or modern performance analysis, but other than that, I’d say he’s better than Gracie.
.....
You’re seriously using Mark Grace as the gold standard among announcers?
Manny Ramirez and the Dodgers: Filling the dubious shoes left open by Barry Bonds and the Giants.
For us, (or at least me)
Gracie (and all previous DBacks announcers) are the gold standard because I have not had much exposure to other teams’ analysts. The national analysts do not spend nearly enough time with a team to notice the intricacies of the players like the team broadcasters do.
I do like Joe Morgan, though, if for no other reason than his voice is terrific.
No reason you can't have both
I think baseball is a complex game, and it’s rare to find someone who is able to understand and expound all the facets of it. Somebody like Joe Morgan can bring a lot with his experience of the game – if I wanted to know about the footwork involved in turning a double-play, for example, he’d be the go-to guy. However, to draw a parallel, just because someone is a great NASCAR driver doesn’t mean they know how the engine works.
The study of baseball is an ever-evolving field: while there is a lot of work to be done, we have a much better understanding of the factors that influence the outcome, compared to 20 years ago. And, I imagine, 20 years down the line, we’ll know even more – though I doubt (and indeed, hope) that our knowledge will always be imperfect, because of the human factor. I certainly will cheerfully admit that I have a lot to learn, and that the day I stop learning about the game will be the day I die.
However, there are certain dinosaurs who remain stuck in a bygone era, and refuse to admit or accept that the landscape of the game is changing and that we now know there are better ways to evaluate players than W-L records and RBI totals. They are becoming increasingly out-of-touch with and irrelevant to the modern game, where stats-aware GMs are becoming steadily more prevalent and influencing the way contestsare played. Obviously, some aspects will remain unchanged, but floundering commentators who are confused and threatened by the way baseball is played in the 21st century sound like the Flat Earth mob.
It can be difficult to have your long-held beliefs challenged, and the natural reaction is to bury your head in the sand and hum loudly. But you’re never to old to learn – I even heard Joe Garagiola Sr. discussing some of the new-fangled math earlier in the season – as long as you have an open mind. Commentators owe it to themselves and their viewers, to be as well-informed about all aspects of the game as possible. If they aren’t, then people will eventually realize, no matter how loud the trumpeting, that the Emperor has not clothes, and will simply go elsewhere for the information.
I composed my spiel
below before you posted this, so apologies if mine comes across as somewhat harsh. I still disagree with your third paragraph, but overall really like what you expressed here :-)
A couple thoughts,
Do you think announcers should talk more about the playing experience (such as the footwork involved in turning a double play) or do you think it’s better viewing to largely avoid it? Is it something you’re interested in, or would it not add to the viewing experience?
What's for dinner, mum? Heinz Baked Beans.
If the announcer is a player-analyst
then that’s exactly what he should be talking about. I doubt anyone has a better understanding of the playing experience than someone who’s played the game. The good player-analysts add a lot to their broadcasts by elaborating on the nuts and bolts details of a game.
I already mentioned a few of my favorite “Things I learned by Listening to Rod Allen and Bob Brenly” but I’ve thought of dozens more since this fanpost went up yesterday. Like Rod Allen watching a second baseman creep in behind a runner in anticipation of a pick-off move to second. Or the batter who spots it and calls for a timeout. Bob Brenly showing us a replay of Steve Finley intentionally overrunning a fly ball, so he can be running back towards the infield when he catches it. Or Brenly Showing us another replay of Damien Miller standing with his arms at his sides, until just before a throw home arrives, so he can trick a batter into thinking that he doesn’t need to slide. Most of the things I love about baseball come from the tiny lessons I learned from good player-analysts.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
On the other hand
I have very little patience for anecdotes, especially when they don’t relate to the action on the field. Occasionally an amusing story about a player on the field (but not actually involving today’s game) is OK, but it should be a very fine and informative story. Filling dead air, or boosting one’s ego with a story about The Good Old Days (I call this one the “Bill Walton”) with vain or vapid storys from your playing days is a common sin of the mediocre player-analyst.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
Morgan’s not a very good, or popular, national level announcer because, frankly, he’s not a very good communicator. He seldom forms arguments with a writer’s clarity, and often takes the better part of an inning to wrap himself up in a point. And that defensive, misunderstood, know it all air becomes tiresome over time. I think most of us would agree with that.
Where I probably disagree with many of you and tend to side with foulpole and maybe lucasmaz, is I also think Morgan has an unusually keen understanding of the game, including how to value performance. Again, he rarely articulates it well, but rather than pigeonhole him as "stupid"or a dinosaur, I see him more as a champion of truths, sometimes sloppily presented.
To foulpole’s point, Jim’s GDT assertion that he could “certainly teach [Morgan] a great deal about how statistics actually work and which ones have impact on the outcome of a game” seems rather lofty to me, not because Morgan’s “been around the game” but because a) I dont think he’s nearly as ignorant as Jim seems to think, and b) some of Jim’s confidence with the new stats is misplaced, imo. Morgan doesnt categorically reject new baseball thinking. Surely, one of history’s greatest OBP guys appreciates the value of OBP over batting average. Or the basic validity of James’ defensive spectrum, whether he uses the term or not. His rejection of new baseball thinking is highly selective.
For example, this whole thing about measuring pitchers by wins and losses. This is a perfectly defensible position. Thanks to sabermetrics, it’s certainly not the only defensible position, but if I hear one more misinformed online spreadsheet jockey (not Jim) tell me that wins “dont matter” or wins “dont mean anything”, I think I shall have to purchase a firearm. And Morgan, in that prickly way of his, is defending baseball from this, and other oblivious bastardizations of Bill James’ original source material. I trust Morgan intuitively appreciates the ebb and flow of ballplayer and managerial adjustments, the difference between primary and secondary statistics, the difference between winning a real game and winning a virtual game composed of extrapolated innings, the difference between projected performance and an actual season’s worth of game winning RBIs.
One point about James, who I’ve been reading since before he landed a commercial publisher, is that some of his earlier stuff has that strident, know it all quality about it too. I dont blame James one iota for that – he was about to singlehandedly change baseball forever and it was all illuminating – and incredibly entertaining. But as he’s gotten older, worked inside the game, learned more and reflected, he appears more at peace with the limitations of his work. It’s not a night and day difference, just a matter of degree. Nowadays, the greatest original baseball thinker of the past half century, perhaps ever, often instructs colleagues how little we know about this complex game. (Jim, thank you for acknowledging that). So, in a bizarre, counterintuitive sense, I think James and Morgan are now closer than some believe, arriving at an unlikely understanding from opposite directions, driven by a profound respect for the game they both live for.
Something some of you no doubt know but others may not: While Morgan was a two time MVP, it wasnt until after Bill James argued forcefully that Joe was perhaps history’s greatest 2nd baseman, that Morgan’s career was viewed nearly as highly as it generally is today. When Morgan played, Bench and Rose were far more popular Reds, as were other contemporaries. Joe was a career .271 hitter with 268 home runs. Years later, when James first argued Morgan over Hornsby, I cant overemphasize how much this was seen as sacrilege at the time. My point is that Joe’s increasingly accepted status as one of the “all time greats” owes a great deal to Bill James. Which is funny, because Joe’s now perceived as a renegade James-hater by many – and I doubt that’s really true. James is a much crisper thinker and communicator than Morgan, with a more scientific orientation, but they’re both natural skeptics and incredibly knowledgeable about the game. And they both make mistakes. Morgan makes his on TV every week.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2008 4:12 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
And there's the irony...
“It wasnt until after Bill James argued forcefully that Joe was perhaps history’s greatest 2nd baseman, that Morgan’s career was viewed nearly as highly as it generally is today.”
Given it’s the new baseball math which led Morgan to be as highly-regarded as he is today, you’d think he might have a bit more time for it. Apparently not so, which I guess is refreshing in a pig-headed kind of way, like Marlon Brandon refusing his Oscar.
But when I see or hear Morgan come up with comments like, “Statistics are overrated. What you do to help your team win is what it’s all about. These stats like OPS, it doesn’t tell you what you do for the team. To my opinion, to help the team, you drive in runs or score runs. That helps the team. That’s how you should be judged.” [from an August 2007 chat on ESPN], then yes, I genuinely do think I could teach Morgan a great deal about statistics, their use and abuse, and what they mean. However, I don’t think anyone will ever get the chance, given this expressed opinion of Morgan’s: “I don’t think statistics are what The Game is about, and so I’m never gonna agree with it, and I don’t care.”
I’ve no problem with people making mistakes and obviously, national TV is a remarkably unforgiving venue for such things. But it’s one thing to make mistakes and another to make them, then bloviate endlessly when someone brings the errors to your attention. I can cope with someone being totally ignorant of a topic, as long as they are willing to learn. But when you proudly trumpet your ignorance as if it were some kind of a badge of honor, and refuse to listen to any counter-arguments, then yes, my respect for whatever you can bring to my understanding of the game will inevitably be greatly diminished.
I can't disagree
that someone can find enjoyment from the game sans the statistics. Of course, it can add a certain amount of depth to the game, but I think him saying baseball isn’t about statistics is more a faux pas simply because he’s a national announcer.
What's for dinner, mum? Heinz Baked Beans.
Oh Captain Morgan! My Captain!
Given it’s the new baseball math which led Morgan to be as highly-regarded as he is today, you’d think he might have a bit more time for it.
I agree.
He doesnt counter the new math with a scientific approach of his own, and his dismissive demeanor often comes across poorly – BUT – I still think there’s an intutive wisdom to much of what he believes. Kind of like when Gracie rails against “Quality Starts” or Win Expectancy. They dont make very good counter arguments on air, and can come across as defensive rubes – but I really dont think they are. Grace may not know that QStarts arent park adjusted, for example, but he’s likely seen enough pitchers over his career who had good stats but who also pitched just well enough to lose, to instinctively understand there’s an arbitrary element to QS, divorcing the measure from the game as played. Same with Win Expectancy. It’s homogenized data that is almost universally misapplied to the specific case. But Grace and Morgan dont explain that. They just know it’s bull, and that if you’re leading 4-3 in the ninth, your WE is a helluva lot higher with Mariano Rivera on the mound than it is with Jon Rauch.
When Morgan says “statistics” are overrated and not what the game’s about, I suspect Bill James might even agree with that, in the sense they’re often misunderstood and misapplied. Much depends on how one defines “statistics”, and it’s clear to me Morgan doesnt mean all statistics. He incorporates stats all the time. I hardly share his adherence to runs scored and batted in, but his old fashioned rubric is not all that far from James’ Runs Created. At any rate, he’s certainly not crowing that guys with the highest BAs are the most valuable players. I interpret his not ready for prime time bloviation as a rejection of certain aspects of the statistical revolution, questioning whether the application of some of the new measures enhance or muddle our genuine understanding of the game.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2008 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Lies, damned lies and statistics?
[ When Morgan says "statistics" are overrated and not what the game’s about, I suspect Bill James might even agree with that, in the sense they’re often misunderstood and misapplied. ]
While entirely true, that’s not the feeling I get from Morgan’s ill-informed ranting. This is not someone aware of the limitations of the statistical method, these are the thrashings of a caveman, scared of something he doesn’t understand, a Luddite intent on smashing looms because he thinks they pose a threat – in Morgan’s case, by eroding his position as the fount of all baseball wisdom. There is a case to be made against the misuse of statistics, but Joe Morgan isn’t it – it’s like getting David Duke to be the face of the anti-immigration movement.
[ He incorporates stats all the time. I hardly share his adherence to runs scored and batted in, but his old fashioned rubric is not all that far from James’ Runs Created. ]
Except that Runs Created doesn’t even use runs scored or batted in as any part of the formula. About the only thing they have in common is the word ‘runs’, so I really doubt that’s what Morgan is invoking here. Again, don’t forget, this is the guy who said, "OBP, if it is not tied to run production, is not a big deal. Run production is how you should judge a player. No: any statistical pearl which comes out of Morgan’s mouth is despite, rather than because of, his ‘intuitive wisdom.’ Even a blind squirrel…
In part, my dislike of Morgan is because Arizona fans are all too aware of what an obsession with wins and losses as a measurement of pitching ability will get you. As a hint, it’s fat, useless and is earning $8m from us while sipping a margarita by the pool.
Little Joe and Me
This is not someone aware of the limitations of the statistical method…
Morgan’s lack of statistical book knowledge may be inexcusable for a well paid baseball announcer, but it hardly means he’s not aware of the method’s limitations – on some level. That’s the whole argument really. In terms of measuring current performance, anyone who says, “OBP, if it is not tied to run production, is not a big deal” understands this very well. As you may know, James recently made several long overdue tweaks to his seminal RC formula, including a “clutch hitting” (essentially BArisp) component. Why? To closer approximate actual production. To come closer to where Little Joe Luddite’s fleshy rear is already smugly perched.
Part of the problem, I think, is that sabermetric amateurs have been so obsessed with predictive tools, of judging what a player will do or what he would do in a neutralized context, that some folks are losing sight of what a player is actually doing right in front of their noses – whether it’s Brandon Webb’s 19 victories or Mark Reynolds RISP-driven RBIs or the 2007 Dbacks’ 90 wins. Remember last year’s argument regarding a team’s “expected” wins and actual wins? You’d say expected wins are useless when actual wins are staring us in the face, and I’d say “wait til next year” (or later in the same season) when actual wins will eventually regress towards Bill James’ mean. We’re both right, but essentially talking about two different things: present and future.
In part, my dislike of Morgan is because Arizona fans are all too aware of what an obsession with wins and losses as a measurement of pitching ability will get you.
Little Joe and Me (the title of my upcoming book) both view Wins as an important but insufficient means by which to measure starters. It’s hard for me to imagine any FO thinking otherwise. An “obsession” with wins and losses didnt do in the Diamondbacks. Every amateur, incl me, predicted Russ wouldnt replicate his 99-56 mark accumulated over the preceding six seasons. What did in the Dbacks wasnt that Russ Ortiz had good run support or a high WHIP in Atlanta and we all failed to see it. What did in the Dbacks was that Ortiz’ fundamental (or underlying) performance degraded so severely that few if any (and certainly no outsiders) could have reasonably or empirically foreseen it.
by Diamondhacks on Sep 3, 2008 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think 99% of why statistics are disliked in some baseball circles is because they are misused. For example:
“Remember last year’s argument regarding a team’s "expected" wins and actual wins? You’d say expected wins are useless when actual wins are staring us in the face, and I’d say "wait til next year" (or later in the same season) when actual wins will eventually regress towards Bill James’ mean. We’re both right, but essentially talking about two different things: present and future.”
Pythagorean wins are not a prediction, but a model. Bill James designed them to look at runs scored and runs allowed and try to predict how many wins that team would have. It doesn’t mean that a team is only as good as it’s Pythagorean record. The regression to the mean wasn’t likely to occur to Arizona for two reasons. One, we had a “B” bullpen that would let games get out of hand, and two, our “A” bullpen was excellent, allowing us to preserve one-run leads or get back into games.
Thanks for your input
Pythagorean wins are not a prediction, but a model. Bill James designed them to look at runs scored and runs allowed and try to predict how many wins that team would have
I know it doesnt mean the team is only as good as it’s Pythag record, but I’m kinda confused by your use of the word “predict” above. I guess I’d call it a predictive model. Something like that?
The two tiered bullpen may’ve contributed to the big 2007 pythag gap somewhat. IIRC, James says as much for teams that might be predisposed to “beat” his system a little. But a couple caveats. First, every team has an A and B bullpen, at least in theory. Maybe the Dbacks applied this theory better than other teams (ie they used some underlying knowledge about predicitng individual situational performance better than some other coaching staffs), or maybe they just got lucky. But I know they’re the only team that understands the concept of ‘leverage’ or anything like that. There are teams that understand leverage fine and still have negative pythag gaps.
Second, many teams with monster pythag plusses dont reflect similar A&B bullpen characteristics. For example, the 2005 Dbacks also played 11 games over “expected”, and their bullpen only had three guys pitch well – but two of them (Worrell and Medders) combined for more appearances in losses than wins. Valverde was very effective as closer, but Lyon closed with an ERA over six. 2005 was just a big mishmash of good and bad bullpen leverage.
I like the bullpen theory to expain part of the gap, but explaining away entire pythag gaps with anything besides random variation sort of invalidates the theory, doesnt it? I see the really big gaps as enormously complex problems that remain essentially unsolved, or “random”.
Oh, and if your point was that I’m capable of misusing or misunderstanding stats, I absolutely agree. I try not to do it intentionally, but am certainly capable of making mistakes :- )
should be
But I know they’re not the only team that understands the concept of ‘leverage’ or anything like that
Who's Sorkin?
Aaron Sorkin? I googled ‘Sorkin Little Joe’ but didnt see anything.
I was thinking more this George Bush lookalike
by Diamondhacks on Sep 3, 2008 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Yep, that's him. L,DL,&S
was the title of one of the best episodes of West Wing.
I didn’t have anything helpful to add, I just love when I see Sorkin everywhere. :)
Marlon who?
I understand your fascination , both consciously and unconsciously , with the word “Brandon”.
"Ain't got a hope in Hell - that's my belief." - Bon Scott
by victor frankenstein on Sep 6, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree completely
that Morgan isn’t a good announcer because he isn’t a good communicator. He doesn’t paint a story well, and seems to have difficulty thinking of the fly. That doesn’t mean he’s dumb, just that his current line of work might not be the best suit for him. I wonder how he would do on something like “Baseball Tonight” especially if they had a faux diamond to show how plays are built and practiced. That would be something I’d watch.
What's for dinner, mum? Heinz Baked Beans.
If he put in the preparation
this would be a great segment for baseball tonight. It would solve two of my biggest frustrations with Morgan: his apparent lack of preparation, and his disinterest in the game on the field. With time to think about his presentation and the freedom to choose subjects that hold his interest, Morgan could teach some great lessons on baseball.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
Does anyone
have any thoughts on this that aren’t about Joe Morgan?
I mean, I don’t care if people want to talk about him, but I was hoping his communication deficiancies wouldn’t be the focus.
What are some good player broadcasters? Are they good because they understand modern baseball thought, or because they share playing experience, or a combination of both? Do you prefer to hear from pitchers or fielders/hitters?
What's for dinner, mum? Heinz Baked Beans.
It seems
that in coaching and broadcasting Catchers are the most prominent position. I think it goes with the catcher not only having to worry about his own position but also the pitcher and the position of the defense (on some teams). This makes catchers by default more perceptive individuals on the whole than perhaps other players. Not to say that other players are not perceptive, just that catchers (Garagiola, Brenley, Girardi, etc) are more so.
Also,
catchers have to know and understand their pitchers well, and make decisions on when they’re gassed, what they’re doing wrong, etc. This is why the VAST majority of managers (BoMel too) were catchers in their playing days. I think Chris Snyder is a smart enough player that he could coach or manage someday, too.
Manny Ramirez and the Dodgers: Filling the dubious shoes left open by Barry Bonds and the Giants.
To actually answer your question
I like Grace, Candiotti, and Garagiola but I have a hard time bearing Matt Williams.
Williams still feels very awkward
to me. He’s another player who has a lot of knowledge but doesn’t have the tools to express it. I felt the same way about Mark Grace when he started out, but as he’s gotten more comfortable I’ve really started to enjoy him.
I’m not sure if Williams will ever find the same level of comfort though. Announcing’s not his full-time gig, and he isn’t likely to work as hard on something that almost seems like a hobby. Grace looks like he’s thrown himself into his new job and is working hard to get better.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
Agreed
Williams’ commentary at times seems forced, like he feels that he has to say something every time. I think he might also have a thinking-on-his-feet problem like Morgan.
Part of the awkwardness also comes from not getting to mesh with the play-by-play man (either candy or sutton) on a consistent basis.
I've noticed this with Grace too
he never quite meshed with Thom Brennaman. He seems to have a much better rapport with Sutton, and it’s improved his commentary immensely.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
Rod Allen and Bob Brenly
are my favorites, and Grace is growing on me too. I’ve also enjoyed Orel Herscheiser, Tony Gwynn and Buck Showalter when they popped up on national broadcasts. I think if Gwynn ever became a full-time announcer, he would be my hands-down favorite. He analyzes like he’s coaching a game and he wants the audience to become better baseball players. I love it.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
Yeah, something like that
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
I kinda like Rick Sutcliffe
To be quite honest,stats leave me cold.I know they are valuable and important but I can enjoy the “here and now” of the game as well.Stats can mean nothing during a game when someone against the odds ,hits a homerun or a 5th pitcher throws a wonderful game.
You guys miss the wonder that is Jonny Gould and Josh Chetwin.Josh is knowledgeble having played at Olympic level as a catcher and Jonny is a crazy amature, obsessed with his fantasy baseball team.They squabble like an old ,married couple.
We will meet in Red 3 at the hour of scampering.
Are they
a British announcing crew?
Manny Ramirez and the Dodgers: Filling the dubious shoes left open by Barry Bonds and the Giants.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
