Uh.
Printable View
Uh.
To me, this is a great point. Everything else is semantincs, but the bottom line is that there really is a lack of talented analysis covering baeball vs. other sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think part of the problem is that so many people play or have played baseball that there's an assumption of a general understanding, so many of the programming people feel that it's unnecessary to get into much analytical detail. Personally, I think the exact opposite is true. Since so many of us have a good general grasp of the game, I think that requires more analysis of what's actually occuring at the professional level.
In my opinion the problem is that the "analyst" that makes this sort of comment is almost alway the colour commentator - and they are almost exclusively former players (at least on the games that I watch). While there is the occasional player that actually becomes a decent broadcaster my feeling is that most of them aren't very good at it. They might have something decent to say but they don't think of it before the next pitch.
The problem might be that it is players that "know how to play the game" that get hired as analysts - unfortunately that doesn't mean that they are at all intelligent.
It exists outside the booth though, on the desks of SportsCenter and Baseball Tonight, where the guys aren't meant to be color commentators, but analysts.
I don't watch either show (don't get ESPN in Canada) so I really don't know - do the analysts tend to be former players?
And former failed GM's.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
ESPN,
formerly an initialism for Entertainment and Sports Programming Network
Owned by The Walt Disney Company
As far as what goes on in the booth, it all depends on what floats your boat. Personally I love the old school guys like Harry Caray, Jack Buck, Vin Scully, etc. because most of them cut their teeth on radio and they had to develop a way to bring the game to life for their listeners, but most of them are either gone now or retired. Vinny is one of the few left, and even though he's lost a step or two over the years he's still a joy to listen too. (Doesn't hurt that he works for the Dodgers either.) I'm amazed that he still does games entirely on his own, with no "analyst".
Harry Caray often times didn't give two ***** about what was actually going on in the game at a particular point in time, but he was still entertaining. Steve Stone was a great foil for Harry.
See though, that's the thing. Even simply describing the play in great detail is better than What we usually get from TV color commentators. The other alternative of course is to get:Quote:
because most of them cut their teeth on radio
in great big doses, which Harry Carry was certainly good for.Quote:
he was still entertaining
:)
I found Caray to be annoying as h.e.l.l. Scully....excellent.
I think a lot of the issues in sports coverage can be traced to who is doing the coverage. What exactly is Mike Ditka going to teach about football? Aside from the fact he can barely speak coherently...what...how to ridiculously blow an entire draft for a running back? How to continually choose terrible quarterbacks to lead the team?
Or Mike Milbury in hockey, who goes down as one of the worst GM's in ANY sport over the past 20 or so years?
Or Steve Phillips in baseball?
Why are we constantly being fed a steady stream of these people? What sort of analysis can one expect from people who were fired due to rank incompetence?
Steve Phillips thinks that the Yankees should trade Phil Hughes to the Reds for Jared Burton.
Yep.
Well, to each their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
*shrug*
I agree with what your saying here, but it's not as though ESPN or any other news outlet can go out and pay a front line GM or Coach a competitive salary. Besides, I don't see why any successful sports manager would rather be a broadcaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
What they need to do is develop their own talent in house. Someone who was a GM or coach (even if they failed) does have a certain level of instant credibility, but there are many intelligent people who could give credible analysis who simply have not had the opportunity to be major league coaches or GM's. There's only so many of those jobs available, you know?
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
ESPN actually has a fair amount of in-house guys that would be inifinitely better than fat slobs like John Kruk and horrible failed GMs like Steve Phillips...I remember back in mid-2006 (I think), the question posed to the analysts was "Best left-handed pitcher in the game"...and Steve Phillips chose Cliff Lee. Now, he eerily is the best pitcher in the game this year, but back in mid-2006, really? Johan Santana, anybody?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
As for the ESPN in-house options...Rob Neyer, especially...Jayson Stark would be better, Jerry Crasnick...They're smartly employing Keith Law as their main draft analyst, but he'd be very good in regular analysis too. He wrote blogs for each offseason transaction over the winter, and hearing him voice his thoughts on SportsCenter during the winter, or BasebalL Tonight for in-season transactions, would be very pleasant compared to the "analysis" John Kruk gives.
I watch Baseball Tonight because, while I know I can get the information online, I also like to see the highlights. The internet couldn't have allowed me to enjoy that Manny Ramirez catch to high five to double play like I did by seeing it on Baseball Tonight, but it's really annoying. If I hear Eric Young say "Souvenir City" one more time, I think I might just smash my television...(Honestly, though, Eric Young isn't a bad analyst for BT, but his voice and repeated use of "Souvenir City" does get annoying).
My thing is...why do we HAVE to have ex players and managers? Sure, some of them are very good at analysis, or commentary in the booth. But the majority of them are reprehensibly bad...listening to Emmitt Smith talk football is embarrassing. Listening to Mike Ditka try to talk ENGLISH is embarrassing. If they work out, great. If not, replace them with some of your 'talking heads', many of whom are much more qualified for the job, not least of all because they've been training for it for years.