Men Who Can Play The Game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

No, aptitude is how easily a skill comes to someone. Or maybe I have the wrong word. But that's my concept of the idea. They just are able to better put their skills into baseball. Michael Jordan, one of the greatest athletes of possibly the most athletic sport, couldn't translate it into baseball performance - even though he undoubtedly had 'all the tools'

---

Except he couldn't hit a baseball, which is a tool. It doesn't mean he didn't know how to play the game, or that he wasn't playing up to his athletic tools, which is my point. Athletic tools can only take you so far in baseball, because it requires a lot more than just athletics.

Some players aren't very athletic, but have good hitting abilities. They see the ball well, they have good strike zone judgment, etc. They aren't playing above their abilities/skill level. They're playing to their skills.

Some players are extremely fast, limber, and athletic, but have no concept of the strike zone and can't put the bat on the ball. They're also playing to their skills - they lack the skill of hitting a baseball well.

I know you know this, but this is what I'm talking about. Dustin Pedroia may be small, skinny, not very fast, not very athletic, but he isn't succeeding because he "knows how to play the game" or because "he's a baseball player." He's also not playing above his head. He's succeeding because he has excellent hand-eye coordination and can place the bat on the ball with great frequency, which has nothing do with athletics.

Quote:

---

It isn't that they play better than their physical skills. They are refering to the fact they may outperfrorm others who are more physically gifted, and maybe even more intelligent. It's the 'x' factor that the physical tools and IQ tests don't explain.

---

Right, but there are reasons why they outperform the more physically gifted/maybe more intelligent players, and it's usually because hitting a baseball is extremely hard and all the athletic and even mental gifts in the world can't help you hit a baseball if you lack bat control and hand-eye coordination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Michael Jordan lacked intelligence, hand-eye coordination and, and what else!? :confused:

---

Please show me where I said he lacked intelligence or hand-eye coordination. The only thing I said he lacked was the ability to hit a baseball.

Quote:

---

Who ever said they were playing 'above their ability'? No one. They are performing more up to their physical ability than the non true ballplayers.

---

No. I'm sure that Michael Jordan performed up to his physical ability. Hitting a baseball requires way more than just simple, overall, physical ability, which is why he failed.

Uh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Baseball has a real lack of analysts that analyze, in the mainstream media at least.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

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.

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.

Quote:

---

because most of them cut their teeth on radio

---

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:

---

he was still entertaining

---

in great big doses, which Harry Carry was certainly good for.
:)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

I found Caray to be annoying as h.e.l.l. Scully....excellent.

---

Well, to each their own.
*shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

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?

---

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.
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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Steve Phillips thinks that the Yankees should trade Phil Hughes to the Reds for Jared Burton.

Yep.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

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.
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?

---

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?

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.

I agree, but the sense that I have is that it's a credibility issue for the networks. There is a sense of credibility (for most people) in hearing from some ex- player, coach, or GM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

I guess the thing HGM doesn't realize is - he is the minority. Sure, there probably will be a sabr baseball show in the near future or even a channel. But right now, we LIKE the people who 'break down' the games.

---

I'm not asking for a sabermetric show. I'm just asking for a show that actually does break down the games. A show that actually does give solid information about the what's and why's of the games, instead of just showing the highlights and yelling cliches.

Also, how do you know I'm in the minority? I don't think anyone could say that one way or the other.

You're in the minority. Baseball attempts to appeal to the mainstream fan, for the most part. Casual fans (even many rabid fans) dont care about WHIP, DICE, WARP, etc. Not only do they not care, or know, about these stats, they never will. It just isn't going to happen.

For decades, athletes and ex-athletes talk about the "secret" part of baseball... the things that you can't measure with stats. They use this logic to explain why player A is really better than player B. Player A is better because he is a "clutch" hitter. Or he has "experience". Or he keeps the clubhouse "loose". These things cannot be measured by numbers.

On another thread a poster claims that its the "intangibles" that make one player have greater value than the stats show. He cites the "fact" that he gives his teammates "confidence". This makes them better, evidently.

Casual fans will never embrace the sabermetrics of baseball, IMO. Another poster, I think it was AllOutWar, made a comment to the effect of....."Just what we need, another stat in baseball". Many, many people, even avid baseball fans, agree with that. Baseball has too many stats already, in the opinions of most baseball fans.

Personally, I like stats. But I tend to agree that every year... maybe every week, someone comes out with a new stat. The better way to evaluate... something. If ESPN, or other networks believed that a show spouting all the latest sabermetric numbers would make money (have an audience), I'm certain that they would gladly do so. The average fan just isnt interested in that.

I do not think I am at all asking for anything like that, Swampdog. In fact, I know I'm not. I'm simply asking for some level of analysis, rather than repeated, meaningless cliches.

I haven't expressed any interesting in turning mainstream analysis into a sabermetric statfest, because I know that isn't happening anytime soon, nor do I think that a nightly highlight reel would be interesting to watch if it was nothing but numbers.

Look at the examples myself and others have used in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gryfn1

Perhaps he could have pointed out that Youkilis excels due to a high level of concetraion, quailty body placement on defence, knowing pitch patters/tendencies in the batters box, great balance .... any one of those would have been far far far far more worthy to mention than the fact he knows how many outs there are in an ininng.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Instead of such insightful analysis like "He's a baseball player that can play", expert analysis is more along the lines of..."Kevin Youkilis has great command of the strike zone. He has good plate coverage and a great eye and ability to discern balls and strikes. He's reaching the age that many players peak with their power abilities, and could be on his way to a power breakout." You know...something that actually gives you information about the player. There is absolutely no player ever that useful information about why he's good can't be given.

---

THOSE are things I think should be on such programs like Baseball Tonight. Simple, yet meaningful, analysis that provides information. I'm not asking that John Kruk recite the VORP of Hanley Ramirez, or tell how many Win Shares Jake Peavy had last season. I'm not talking about in-depth statistical analysis. I'm talking about simple analysis of what a player is doing, what made a game go a certain way, why a player is succeeding, etc. I don't think that's too much to ask, nor do I think that I'm in a minority for wanting to hear decent, simple analysis.

Also, as I said earlier, there is some of that. The example of the analysis of Travis Hafner's swing was an example of solid, simple analysis. I'd just like to see MORE of that and LESS of the meaningless, overused statements of nothing.

I have read every word in this thread. I understand everything you're saying. I just don't see things changing anytime soon, thats all. You are in a severe minority in your views, for starters. Even with casual fans, what one thinks is dumb, the next thinks is an incredible insight. Analysts, experts, announcers..... they attempt to appeal to what is "average", and, for the most part, thats what they do.

I don't see things changing anytime soon, either, but not because I think I'm in a minority, but rather because baseball, as a whole, has always been the hardest sport to institute any type of change in.

I don't think wanting to hear some simple analysis puts me in a severe minority. Just look at the other sports, as multiple people have pointed out in this thread. The other major sports feature analysts who actually analyze the games, and not necessarily statistically. They spend whole 5 minute segments on Sportscenter dedicated to analyzing one football game.

Are baseball fans dumber than the fans of other sports? Does the average baseball fan prefers to hear meaningless drivel over simple analysis, while the average fan of the other major sports likes to hear simple analysis over meaningless drivel? I have a hard time believing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

you are in a severe minority in your views, for starters. Even with casual fans, what one thinks is dumb, the next thinks is an incredible insight. Analysts, experts, announcers..... they attempt to appeal to what is "average", and, for the most part, thats what they do.

---

How can anyone think the phrase "he knows how to play" is insightful? Why is asking to much for someone whose sole job it is to provide analysis on baseball to quantify those statemnts with at least one other line!

Watch the Football analysts ESPN they do a very credible job with guys like Ron Jawarski, Tom Jackson, and even Ditka (if you can understand him) give very good reasons for why a guy "knows how to play"

Barry Melrose did EXACTLY that last night saying Osgood "really knows how to play" and then quantified it by saying That Osgood "dosent get rattled by giving up goals and controls rebounds"

It really isn;t asking much for these guys to educated people on what the **** is going on! I mean if you are watching Baseball Tonight ( a show devoted solely to baseball) then chances are you already have a knowledge of whats going on, treating the viewer like they are 4 years old and pretending they can't grasp advance theories like defensive postioning, balance and and pitch selection is pathetic.

They often explain their position when they say that a player "knows how to play" the game. I watch ESPN nearly every day, but I must be missing something, I guess. I also think that a few posters here are making way too much of that. As several have already stated, it simply means that a player is basically a smart player, doesnt make mental errors, etc. Is that difficult to grasp?

Expecting baseball analysts to change suddenly is unrealistic, in my view. I really dont see what the issue is.....this is nothing new, and hardly one of the worlds greatest problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

They often explain their position when they say that a player "knows how to play" the game.

---

I wouldn't say often. I'd say rarely.

Quote:

---

Expecting baseball analysts to change suddenly is unrealistic, in my view. I really dont see what the issue is.....this is nothing new, and hardly one of the worlds greatest problems.

---

Nobody's expecting them to change. We just wish they would at least attempt to. It's not anything new, but that doesn't mean we can't want better from our "experts", nor is it "one of the world's greatest problems", but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it or have opinions on it.

You can have an opinion on anything, certainly. As far as seeing a problem here, though, you are in a small minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

You can have an opinion on anything, certainly. As far as seeing a problem here, though, you are in a small minority.

---

I don't know how we can say that one way or the other. I'd wager that if we asked a large amount of baseball fans if they'd prefer to hear simple, yet effective, analysis about baseball games and players over cliches sprinkled with a tiny bit of analysis, most off them would prefer the simple analysis.

Very possibly. Then you would never get those people to agree on what "simple, yet effective" analysis is. Thats the thing.

I guess what I wonder about .....is why does this seem to bother you so much? If given some time....I could probably think of about a thousand things I have heard in my life that were supposed to pass for wise, insightful, information. Yet, so often this intelligence is erroneous, exaggerated, oversimplified, etc, etc. Often what you hear, or read, from "experts" in all areas of life, is downright false. Its the way of the world.

I suppose that I have been listening to sports drivel from ex-jocks for so many years (twice as many as you have been alive) that it seems normal to me. There are so many things more important than worrying about baseball analysts cliche's and trite observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swampdog

Very possibly. Then you would never get those people to agree on what "simple, yet effective" analysis is. Thats the thing.

---

I think everybody could agree that "he knows how to play" isn't.

Quote:

---

I guess what I wonder about .....is why does this seem to bother you so much? If given some time....I could probably think of about a thousand things I have heard in my life that were supposed to pass for wise, insightful, information. Yet, so often this intelligence is erroneous, exaggerated, oversimplified, etc, etc. Often what you hear, or read, from "experts" in all areas of life, is downright false. Its the way of the world.

---

It is the way of the world, and it pisses me off.

Quote:

---

There are so many things more important than worrying about baseball analysts cliche's and trite observations.

---

Well, yeah, and?

YES! Tonight, there's a very solid group of analysts on Baseball Tonight....Chris Singleton and Tim Kurkjian...and some guy that I don't know his name of but know I don't hate. Singleton's a very solid guy, and I wish they used him more often. Kurkjian has some annoying quirks, but overall, he listens to reason and gives little interesting tidbits of facts.

HoustonGM (dont take this personal it's not an attack on you at all) you need to find a job and get a girlfriend. then you'll realize that we dont have the time to listen to what you are asking for in a show. when i get home from working all day and didnt get a chance to see the game all i want is the highlights and a quick little story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabruinss

HoustonGM (dont take this personal it's not an attack on you at all) you need to find a job and get a girlfriend.

---

Have a job... girlfriend, it never works when you try to find one.

Quote:

---

then you'll realize that we dont have the time to listen to what you are asking for in a show.

---

I think there's a real lack of understanding for what I'm asking for here....

Quote:

---

when i get home from working all day and didnt get a chance to see the game all i want is the highlights and a quick little story.

---

That's what SportsCenter is for. Baseball Tonight is a show dedicated to baseball. It currently mixes highlights with analysis. All I'm saying is that when they do the analysis, they should actually provide analysis, instead of stuff that doesn't tell the viewer anything.

Anyone who can and is on right now, turn on Baseball Tonight right now. This is the type of show I'd like to see. Chris Singleton is breaking down the Mets mental errors on the basepaths today. IT'S ACTUAL ANALYSIS. Chris Singleton and Tim Kurkjian are providing an excellent show right now, and this is the only type of show I'm asking for. Baseball Tonight needs to do this more often.