Who cares really? We have Pedro dancing in the studio.At one point last night he said about the older guy with that huge mustache "he's been at Astros games for as long as I can remember." Guy is a straight up Astros fan.
Who cares really? We have Pedro dancing in the studio.At one point last night he said about the older guy with that huge mustache "he's been at Astros games for as long as I can remember." Guy is a straight up Astros fan.
The studio is filled with ex-players who all have allegiances to their former teams and there's not expectation of neutrality. A national broadcast with a homer talking to the audience for 3.5 - 5 hours per game is much different. He's terrible enough at his job, so being a homer is the cherry on the shit sundae. We care because it's annoying af and detracts from the presentation of the game.Who cares really? We have Pedro dancing in the studio.
I didn't make it past 6 inning of TV in any of the games. The announcers just annoyed me and made the program worse. I dont need them to add to the telecast. I actually think Buck does that a tiny bit, as his genuine respect and appreciation for the history of the game and its moments seems to come through. (YMMV, of course). Anderson and Darling were worse than "not adding value." Maybe it was lack of preparation or familiarity (with the teams or each other). Maybe there's a skill in doing a national game as opposed to local that these guys lack.We care because it's annoying af and detracts from the presentation of the game.
I haven't found any video of this -- anyone got it?Who cares really? We have Pedro dancing in the studio.
Moving him to the 1 hole made the pitchers less afraid to pitch to him because Springer was a monster and was getting on at a high clip ahead of him. They cut that off at the knees.Just read that Bregman finished the series 0 for his last 10 with a HBP. GJGE.
That's pretty great.A friend of mine sent me this; from a facebook page called Kings of Boston Sports.
the Astros actually had two 5-game losing streaks in the 2nd half, including sweeps by the Rangers and Mariners.... at Minute Maid Park.The Red Sox are still the only team this season that hasn't lost four games in a row. The Astros on the other hand...
I can't complain about anything anymore. I recall 1988, at a nice hotel in Amalfi with my wife, sticking my arm out the window for 3 hours at 2:30 AM listening to Armed Forces Radio on a shitty transistor as the A's beat the Red Sox.I fully admit I'm biased by the fact I live in a time zone 5 hours ahead of ET (Game 3 starting at 10pm was heaven though I did shut it off at 2am after JBJ's granny) but as for the argument about what's fair for the fans going to the game, I would think that missing the 1st 2 innings if you can't make it from work in time would be preferable to trying to get out of the city and drive 2 hours to your suburban home beginning at 12:45am...
This article is terrible in so many ways. First, the ball didn’t “land in the stands”, it caromed back onto the field from Mookie’s glove.Sam Miller at ESPN.com says that the Astors were "unlucky":
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25024557/the-unlucky-legacy-2018-houston-astros
Hinch moved Bregman because Boston pitchers were nearly intentionally walking him every time. He never adjusted when Boston pitchers starting to throw him strikes.Moving him to the 1 hole made the pitchers less afraid to pitch to him because Springer was a monster and was getting on at a high clip ahead of him. They cut that off at the knees.
True, but unless Devers was specifically trying to hit a ball into the Crawford Boxes, you can't just call that skill. (Maybe not "luck" either, in that it was a deliberate design decision by someone in the Astros organization, but still.)This article is terrible in so many ways. First, the ball didn’t “land in the stands”, it caromed back onto the field from Mookie’s glove.
Baseball isn’t a game of coin flips. 10D catching the ball with bases loaded is a result of his defensive skill. It’s not simply “unlucky”.
After deflategate, I have refused to go to the ESPN website. Sounds like their journalistic integrity hasn't gone up in the years I've been away.This article is terrible in so many ways. First, the ball didn’t “land in the stands”, it caromed back onto the field from Mookie’s glove.
Baseball isn’t a game of coin flips. 10D catching the ball with bases loaded is a result of his defensive skill. It’s not simply “unlucky”.
I had to go read the UPI on the Mod 28 Teletype. Uphill both ways.I can't complain about anything anymore. I recall 1988, at a nice hotel in Amalfi with my wife, sticking my arm out the window for 3 hours at 2:30 AM listening to Armed Forces Radio on a shitty transistor as the A's beat the Red Sox.
No one told me there'd be internet.
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. Devers, based on the way he spreads the ball, has never hit anything to a specific spot in his life. Is he devoid of skill? Of course not. JBJ didn't just skillfully wait until those specific 3 at-bats, either. That's just baseball.True, but unless Devers was specifically trying to hit a ball into the Crawford Boxes, you can't just call that skill. (Maybe not "luck" either, in that it was a deliberate design decision by someone in the Astros organization, but still.)
Both Game 4 and Game 5 felt like 50-50 kind of games -- a ball a few feet to the left or right or short or long and either could have ended up with a different result.
In addition to incorrectly presenting the idea that Mookie reached into the stands as fact, Miller’s complaint over West’s “confidence” in his judgment and complete disregard for the called strike on the second pitch of the PA to JD before the HR are bothersome to me. Umpires, lest he forget, have to make a judgment that is clear and absolute. Even Enrico Palazzo had to decide. Joe West’s shortcomings notwithstanding, the guy had to make a call. It’s not as though Miller directly criticizes the call; he’s criticizing his perception of West’s attitude toward his decision.Sam Miller at ESPN.com says that the Astors were "unlucky":
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25024557/the-unlucky-legacy-2018-houston-astros
I got as far as him stating that JDs homer was the game and series winner. I briefly questioned how much I had to drink during the game last night, double checked the box score to affirm my recollection was correct that he hit a solo shot and they won 4-1, then closed the trash article. It’s not even a lack of journalistic integrity, as someone noted, it’s just talent at this point. Their writers suck.I was about to say he's not wrong in principle, but with a blatant falsehood in the second sentence (the ball didn't land in the stands, goofus, it landed on the field), I'm not sure anything else is worth saying.
Sam is one of the best baseball writers on the planet. He's probably the best. It's not even close.After deflategate, I have refused to go to the ESPN website. Sounds like their journalistic integrity hasn't gone up in the years I've been away.
Small sample size works in his favor, then, because based on that article, my response would be, based on factors I noted previously, that the baseball-reading world is in trouble.Sam is one of the best baseball writers on the planet. He's probably the best. It's not even close.
I think a lot of writers are still hung up on the idea that whenever a run is scored that gives its team a lead they never relinquish, that's the "game-winner," even though the inanity of this concept is glaringly obvious to anyone who has ever watched more than a few games of baseball and has functioning brain cells.I got as far as him stating that JDs homer was the game and series winner.
Based on what criteria? The guy can’t get simple details correct.Sam is one of the best baseball writers on the planet. He's probably the best. It's not even close.
Literally what are those details here? The word "stands" does not appear and we are nitpicking over whether the go-ahead-and-never-lost lead change constitutes the winning hit.Based on what criteria? The guy can’t get simple details correct.
I’ll gladly take Jonah Keri or Keith Law (as much as I know he’s hated in these parts). I’m not super familiar with Sam but he’s not instilling a lot of confidence in me with that piece.
Oh i don’t doubt that but isn’t it more usual that games in the playoffs take 4 even 5 hours so if they’re starting games at 8 even 8:30 then all the heady late drama is way past bedtimePretty sure that the networks have a lot of influence, if not outright control, on the start times. They likely want maximum eyeballs from 8:00 to 11:00 p.m. eastern time and care a lot less about how many fans are left if a game runs late. This is likely codified in the contracts with MLB. In other words, it's all about the money, as always.
Felt like?True, but unless Devers was specifically trying to hit a ball into the Crawford Boxes, you can't just call that skill. (Maybe not "luck" either, in that it was a deliberate design decision by someone in the Astros organization, but still.)
Both Game 4 and Game 5 felt like 50-50 kind of games -- a ball a few feet to the left or right or short or long and either could have ended up with a different result.
Do you guys seriously think the PBP guy was rooting for the other team? You're tense about the game and he's annoying you, he isn't "rooting for the other team." Its one thing to do this in a game thread but come on, this is embarrassing.The studio is filled with ex-players who all have allegiances to their former teams and there's not expectation of neutrality. A national broadcast with a homer talking to the audience for 3.5 - 5 hours per game is much different. He's terrible enough at his job, so being a homer is the cherry on the shit sundae. We care because it's annoying af and detracts from the presentation of the game.
This was my problem with the article - it's theme was pretty poorly supported. If you have "bad luck" in, say, three key instances but "good luck" in 5 key instances, it's not too convincing to ignore the good and say the outcome was because of "bad luck." Needed a little more actual thought and analysis.Wouldn’t you have to compare the Red Sox “luck” to determine how it played out in the series? I can think of a number of occasions where it should have been a hit for the Sox (or like the HR for the stros was in the same place as Devers)
Not the greatest thing I've ever read, but he's right. Baseball is awash in luck, and when two teams are so evenly matched, it will play a part. I thought Houston was coming up unlucky in little things too, clearly.Sam is one of the best baseball writers on the planet. He's probably the best. It's not even close.
I didn't think he was very good but I agree, the whole rooting for the other team thing is dumb and embarrassing. He wasn't a Sox homer so the perception here is that he was an Astros homer.Do you guys seriously think the PBP guy was rooting for the other team? You're tense about the game and he's annoying you, he isn't "rooting for the other team." Its one thing to do this in a game thread but come on, this is embarrassing.
Tuning them out is both possible and not difficult, trust me.
Maybe we need to distinguish between the different kinds of "luck." Hitting a ball hard but at someone or close enough to someone that it gets caught, could be considered "unlucky," but that happens all the time. Most of the time, actually. It's part of the game. But having a ball hit the wall and then travel on top of the padding so that you can't grab it and hold a runner at third, well, that's pretty quirky, and unusual enough that most would consider it "bad luck." I don't put Devers' HR in that sort of unusual category, any more than the MFYs put Dent's HR in the "luck" category. That's how the ball park is built, and again, part of the game.Not the greatest thing I've ever read, but he's right. Baseball is awash in luck, and when two teams are so evenly matched, it will play a part. I thought Houston was coming up unlucky in little things too, clearly.
Oh they're pretty bad. They're all bad. They've always been bad, and always will be. More so when we're amped and nervous. I guess I just stopped caring, but actually believing they're rooting for the other team the next morning, come on.I didn't think he was very good but I agree, the whole rooting for the other team thing is dumb and embarrassing. He wasn't a Sox homer so the perception here is that he was an Astros homer.
Kimbrel eating it is wildly exciting. It's a national broadcast. I get what you're saying but what would one expect them to do?As Kimbrel implodes before our eyes, and the announcers get more and more excited about the comeback, I get more and more annoyed.
This isn't accurate. My nose and lips still don't feel right.A friend of mine sent me this; from a facebook page called Kings of Boston Sports.
Networks (and advertisers) enjoy having people in the Pacific time zone not be at work when the first pitch of.a nationally televised game is thrown.But maybe the networks get most by having eyes on screen at first pitch I guess ?
This. National announcers will always root for the better story, at both a micro and macro level. So, in last night's game, I don't think it's wrong to suggest that TBS was "rooting" for the Astros to win, which would have extended the series and brought increased drama, tension and, presumably, viewers to TBS.I'm typically aware of my own hyper sensitivities. I can't be an objective listener to a playoff broadcast when the Sox are playing. I certainly found the TBS announcers annoying.
Was Anderson "rooting" for the Astros? No, not overtly. But it is often the case that announcers create a narrative propping up the trailing team to keep people interested in the broadcast (pregame and during the game). As Kimbrel implodes before our eyes, and the announcers get more and more excited about the comeback, I get more and more annoyed.