Re: Men Who Can Play The Game
I ‘ve been following this thread for some time, and I think that some of you have been unfair to t.v. baseball analysts, in general, and Joe Morgan in particular.
Since the 60’s and 70’s, I had watched little baseball on t.v. until this past week, when I forsook computer gameplay (except for BM), to take in some of the games on the tube.
I remembered, with pleasure, those commentators and colour-men of yore, particularly Tony Kubek; Joe Garagiola; Dave Van Horne; et al, who had instructed me, as a viewer, on the basics of the game, and regaled me with inside dope on the players, along with baseball anecdotes and lore.
After reading many of the negative posts in this thread about today’s t.v. broadcasters, I entered my week of viewing with a mind-set against these talking heads…expecting all kinds of blandness and banality.
I was pleasantly surprised…I found that most of them were as instructive and entertaining as ever, and while I can readily watch a hockey or soccer game with the sound off, I found that if I watched a single baseball play, sans commentary, I felt that I had missed something…that’s how important I deemed the interpretation/analysis of the guys behind the mike.
The capper came yesterday, when I tuned in to the Yankees-Mets game, and heard that the much-maligned Joe Morgan was the colour –man…after all the abuse in this, and other threads, laid upon the guy, I expected his work in the press-box, to be a succession of clichés and oxymorons stuff like “He gave 110 per cent, but shoulda hustled some more”
So I was amazed at the insight that Joe Morgan displayed, along with his awareness of what would interest the viewer. Certainly I caught him saying things like “That guy can play left field” and “he knows how to pitch” but Morgan immediately explained what he meant by that,(mebbe he'd read some of your posts!
), referring to the fielder’s agility and accuracy, and the pitcher’s acumen and technique…I was particularly fascinated by his description of how one pitcher operates from different parts of the mound.
And, naturally, he had much to say about infielding and other playing techniques to watch for, which I found very helpful to my future baseball viewing – my appetite for which, hitherto diminished by much playing of computer ball, has been re-stimulated. His partner, Jon Miller, was no slouch, either, being fluent in his description of the actual game, and giving me the impression that he was on top of the technicalities, as was Joe.
That particular game was full of incident and interest, and I thought that both men explained the ins and outs very well.
Even before I watched this game, I deplored the sneer that one poster made about “failed baseball managers” being hired for broadcasts. It seems to me that no matter how abjectly a guy “failed” at managing a bunch of prima donnas like ball-players, it wasn’t for want of knowledge about the game - else why would anyone hire him to manage a team in the first place? …or employ him in a press-box, thereafter?
Indeed, the ex-managers “failure” might have been that he was too nice a guy…mebbe he didn’t bawl out his slackers, enough?…perhaps he forbore to video the other team’s signs? Could be, he frowned upon breaking of curfews; consuming of illegal substances; pointing of fingers at team-mates; interference by arrogant owners?
Whatever, I now respect t.v. play-by-play men and analysts…I assume that they know far more about baseball than I do…and I look forward to learning more about the game from them in the future.
"Whate'er should be our Zodiac's star
We all are born to make or mar.
To each is gi'en a bag of tools
Some mentors, and a set of rules:
And each must carve, ere life has flown,
A stumbling block, or a stepping-stone"
(Author unknown)
Generation 35.
"Spikes" The cleats on baseball boots
"Spikes" On which newspaper editors impale copy for future reference, or ultimate destruction.
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Reply With Quote
