I watched the Angels v. Yankees game at a friend's house last night. Now, unless it's an English soccer match with their announcers purring things like "Ooohh, that's an insousciant ball down the touchline by Bowyer", I turn the sound off and play CD's for all sporting events. My friend doesn't and last night I was reminded again why I do it.

While Tim McCarver seems have kicked his addiction to speed, Joe Buck was just awful. What was that crap about focusing on someone in the stands and doing a fake bio for them? A tribute to Ernie Harwell was it? Uh, who outside of the 5 Tigers fans watching would know this? And there was the obsession with Giambi's torn pants. It was either a) a slyly homoerotic take on the inherent sexiness of sports or more pro-Yankees "Ooohhh, see what blue collar types they are!!!" kind of Least Coast media bias. No points for guessing which I think it was.....

And fine, the Angels are a bunch of national no-names that only hardcore baseball fans have heard of. But the tone of "Wow! Who ARE these guys?" is pathetic. Apart from getting facts and perceptions totally wrong, it was the idea that the lead announcer on the network's top announcing team would be acting like he was the first someone who has discovered a hot new band or book or movie or whatever that grated.

Yeah, I'm easily pissed off by announcers, which is why I'm glad to be at home tonight, sound off, Bowie's new CD blasting.

I am another one that does not get Fox's fascination with Joe Buck. Here in STL, many people naturally gravitate towards Buck thanks to his father's 50 years of calling the Cards. However, there are also lots of us who feel his father's accomplishments got him his opportunity to call for a national network. Not a very good announcer, seems to come out of nowhere with some stuff, and generally kind of difficult to like.

In terms of the torn pants thing.... I think I posted this information previously. When Todd Zeile was traded from the Cards a few years back, there was much talk around town that Joe Buck was the reason why. Apparently, (even though both were married) there was considerable talk about Zeile and Buck sharing a room regularly on the road. This was deemed by the family oriented Cards ownership as inappropriate. It was get rid of a star player or a Buck. You see who went. Of course, this information is pretty much impossible to substantiate, so it is just information.

I have always liked Tim McCarver, who is another Cardinal.

Worst part about the DS coverage: all Yankees prime time! Yes, games 1-3 all start at 8:17pm EST Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday. At least Friday's game is on ABC Family. So who came up with this schedule, MLB or Fox?

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBulldog:
Worst part about the DS coverage: all Yankees prime time! Yes, games 1-3 all start at 8:17pm EST Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday. At least Friday's game is on ABC Family. So who came up with this schedule, MLB or Fox?

---

Both. New York will always get priority in being the prime time game. It's the # 1 television market and as such calls the shots.

So, for last nights Angels v. Yankees game, I was back home and the sound was off. I listened to Jesus Christ Superstar (the original album, not the soundtrack to the movie) and Tull's Thick as a Brick and some Motown. Bliss, pure bliss.

I did listen to the commentary for last night's Yankee's Angels game and it sank to a new low. There was at least a 45 minute discussion of camels. I kid you not, CAMELS! The two of them are blithering idiots. The graphics guy never seemed to be able to figure out what the count was, and McCarver and Buck never helped us out. Then they would say idiotic things like "The Angels got all their hits in the first three and last three innings" without mentioning that it was because Orlando Hernandez was pitching incredibly in the 4th, 5th & 6th. Was the coverage this bad last year, I don't remember being this frustrated with it.

Oh and can someone teach FOX to shoot a wideshot of the field on occasion?

Oh, RSFIDC reminded me of one of an endless supply of pet peeves: The Pore Cam. Memo to FOX and ESPN and all other broadcasters: If I can see the pores in a guys skin, the camera is zoomed in too much. I don't need to see if a guy needs lemon astringent, thank you.

Since the Angels v. Yankees gets the #1 announcing team, would it be too much ask for the director to be the #1 person too? I get so tired of the cutaway shots to the managers--who are just sitting/standing there, stone-faced. Wow! That's so exciting! Mike Scioscia looks like he's been cryonically frozen! Sheesh. The camera work in the Angels v. Yankee series has been poor.

Camels? Lawdy. They sound like they're in love with the sound of their own voices. And they're working two more series? Yikes. Sound off, definitely. Apart from being able to throw in words like "insouciant" in a natural way, one of the things I love most about the English footie announcers like Rob Palmer or Martin Tyler is that they know the value of silence. There's not this constant babble of chatter and so when they do speak up to make a point ("Well, Manchester United just can't seem to break the 4-4-2 of the Gunners") it has more impact. But of course, the American sports broadcasters assume we're a) total idiots that need to be told the smallest detail that we can plainly see for ourselves (while neglecting to tell/post the score and balls/strike count) and that we tune in the games to hear the announcers.

...and do we HAVE to listen to Buck boy singing? what a couple of frat-boy rejects...are they actually WATCHING the game???

Yes, I was pulling my hair out during that endless, inane, excruciating camel talk. At least the mentioned Giambi's pants only once or twice.

But what really annoys me about FOX's coverage is their habit of interrupting tense moments on the field with studio recaps of the day's games. Hello!!! Anybody who cares already knows what happened in Oakland and Atlanta. Please keep the cameras on the field when it's based loaded with one out.

I wish I could hear the game on the radio while watching it with the sound off, but the TV image is delayed a beat. I don't know if I can take McCarver the entire postseason; my head is spinning already.

I know it. ESPN does that too. Your favorite batter is up, then they go to split screen showing some other game, then full screen of the other game for the rest of their inning. Then, when they finally go back to your game, there has been a homerun, 2 strikeouts and a walk. I just go ballistic !!!

A friend pointed out that Friday's Angels v. Yankees game will be broadcast here in Los Angeles on Fox (Channel 11) in addition to ABC Family: [quote]Here's some good news for those who don't have cable television and can't get ABC Family: Game 3 of the Angel-Yankee series Friday at 5 p.m. at Edison Field will be televised by both ABC Family and Los Angeles' Channel 11.

Even though Channel 11 is a Fox station, it will carry ABC Family's game coverage, which is produced by Disney-owned ESPN.

It may seem strange to see ESPN's Jon Miller and Joe Morgan on a Fox station, but then the whole television setup for the first round of the playoffs is strange--and more than a little confusing

---

Ain't that the truth.

So, lucky you if you listen to the game--no Buck & McCarver, the human finger nails on the chalkboard. It doesn't matter to me who the announcers are--sound will be off--but at least we'll get ESPN's coverage which is way better than Fox's.

Anywhere else around the country have the Fox/ESPN situation going on?

I agree with you all. High voltage doltage. Whenever I'm watching a game on Fox, my tv only makes major sucking noises.

My only suggestion to you would be to point your dishes toward Montréal, pick up the game on RDS, and watch the game en français. You'll feel much more insouciant, mes amis.

I have to agree. Tonight's Braves-Giants game was one of the most bland booth performances I can recall. Is it that hard to find interesting talking heads?

In synch with all of you. This is the worst team of announcers ever. Sometimes I had to hit the Mute tonight.

Au Tiger, BillSF, who were the announcers for the games you were watching?

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Memo to FOX and ESPN and all other broadcasters: If I can see the pores in a guys skin, the camera is zoomed in too much.

---

Speaking of pores, what is the deal with Kevin Kennedy? Who at FOX does he have naked pictures of, that he keeps getting work? Yeesh.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Au Tiger, BillSF, who were the announcers for the games you were watching?

---

Sorry, I didn't pay any attention to their names. I just wanted them out of earshot!

From today's Los Angeles Times: [quote]Joe Buck was hoping to announce two games in two sports in San Francisco on Sunday--the 49ers and St. Louis Rams followed by the Giants and Braves. But because baseball tentatively schedule Game 4 of the Giants-Braves series for 1 p.m., Buck will work only the football game. He'll also take Saturday off to prepare for the Rams and 49ers. His replacement on baseball both days will be Thom Brennaman. But after Sunday, Buck will be off football for two weeks to work baseball full time through the World Series.

---

We'll file this item under: Good News/Bad News.

BillSF, have they firmed up the 1:00 start time for Game 4? Here's the schedule listed in the Times today [NOTE: All times are PST, adjust accordingly]:

Saturday
A's v. Twins, ABC Family, 10:00 am
Braves v. Giants, FX, 1:00 pm
Yanks v. Angels, Fox, 1:15 pm
D'backs v. Cards, ABC Family, 4:30 pm

Sunday
D'backs v. Cards, ABC Family, 10:00 am
Twins v. A's, ABC Family or ESPN2 (TBD), 1:00 pm
Braves v. San Francisco, TBA, TBA
Angels v. Yanks, Fox, 4:30 pm

NOTE (again): Fox contractually has to air the games on their regular (non-cable) stations in New York and Los Angeles; the rest of the country might not be bound by that, so check your local listings.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

I guess no one else listened to the explanation of the Fox affiliates broadcasting games (because McCarver and Buck explained it). The local Fox affiliates in each of the cities with a participating team, is broadcasting the ABC Family coverage of that city's team. I guess this makes sense... since I'm in Dallas, we're not participating so I can't verify the above. Screwy, but at least they sort of explained it.

*** Unfortunately listening, and not muting ***

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
From today's Los Angeles Times: We'll file this item under: Good News/Bad News.

BillSF, have they firmed up the 1:00 start time for Game 4? Here's the schedule listed in the Times today [NOTE: All times are PST, adjust accordingly]:

Saturday
A's v. Twins, ABC Family, 10:00 am
Braves v. Giants, FX, 1:00 pm
Yanks v. Angels, Fox, 1:15 pm
D'backs v. Cards, ABC Family, 4:30 pm

Sunday
D'backs v. Cards, ABC Family, 10:00 am
Twins v. A's, ABC Family or ESPN2 (TBD), 1:00 pm
Braves v. San Francisco, TBA, TBA
Angels v. Yanks, Fox, 4:30 pm

---

On the MLB site it says the Twins-A's (if necessary) on Sunday is at 4pm ET/1pm PT. If the Angels-Yanks series ends Saturday, Sunday's Braves-Giants game will be at 7:30pm ET/4:30pm PT on Fox. Otherwise, it's on at the same time as the Twins-A's on either ABC Family or ESPN2 (if both of these games occur at the same time one will be on ABCF and one on The Duece).

The game tomorrow on FX? My cable system here in Baltimore carries FX. My cable system back home in Philadelphia doesn't. Good thing I'm here this weekend.

Tonights CD listening while watching the great Angels comeback win: Tull's Thick as a Brick (again), the new Future Sound of London CD The Isness and Elton's Tumbleweed Connection. Bliss!

Lawd, could those schedules be any more confusing? I didn't think so. Us fanatics will find the games, but how does MLB expect the casual ones to? Idiots.

Speaking of bliss, what a joy to see the ESPN feed during the Angels game. They don't overload the screen with graphics, the direction is mostly crisp and unobtrusive and they actually seem to "get" the rhythm and feel of baseball. FOX seems obsessed with being "edgy" and having "attitude" and as a result, they are mostly neither.

Jon Miller and Joe Morgan proved once again tonight why they are the best broadcasting team around (at least on a national network)....I'll still give a slight nod to Vin Scully (whose as good as ever even after 50+ years in the booth -- thank God for DirecTV's Extra Innings package -- listening to Scully alone justifies the cost) and Bob Costas as baseball play-by-play men over Miller but that's truly "splitting hairs" IMHO....after those three, no one else is in the same league.

Jon Miller knows when to interject the right amount of humor, statistics/history, and genuine enthusiasm into the broadcast -- he sets up Morgan perfectly to add his expertise as one of best color commentators and consistently demonstrates why he is a true professional broadcaster who isn't afraid to tell the truth on the air (which is why that idiot Peter Angelos fired him in Baltimore because Miller wasn't enough of a "shill" or "homer" for the O's and told the audience when the team sucked on the field).

I like Jon Miller's voice.

Could someone explain why the games on ABC Family Channel aren't on one of the ESPN channels, instead? They are both owned by Disney and having a sports broadcast on ESPN would, it seems to me, make more sense than airing it on ABC Family.

~Adam

The Mouse--who'll hopefully not be the Angels owners much longer--wants to promote the shows on Fox Family and are using the playoffs as the platform to do it. Since males 18-49 are the most desired demographic but also the hardest to reach, sports is the ticket. Or so they're thinking.

I'll bet the FOX sports execs are all getting hammered in the favorite bar tonight with the elimination of the Yankees. Their biggest nightmare: Twins v. Cards.

CD listening today: It was modern classical time: Luigi Nono: Selected orchestral works and Morten Laurendson: Choral works. Nice.

[quote]Originally posted by Adam:
Could someone explain why the games on ABC Family Channel aren't on one of the ESPN channels, instead? They are both owned by Disney and having a sports broadcast on ESPN would, it seems to me, make more sense than airing it on ABC Family.

---

That is truly a mystery, other than the fact that ESPN is showing a lot of college football. (I don't see any effort to promote the channel to a young male demographic as being remotely successful, considering the type of programming they have.) But at least some of the games on Tuesday through Friday (and tomorrow afternoon) could have easily been on ESPN or ESPN2.

I'm rather surprised that the forum wasn't flooded with postings echoing Tony Gwynn's clueless whining about Jerry Crawford's ruling on base awards in the A's-Twins game earlier Saturday afternoon.

Runners on first and second for the Twins when the ball is hit to short. The shortstop throws the ball to third for the force there, but the ball rolls past the third baseman and goes into the dugout.

You make the call. We can and should continue this in the "Ask the Ump" thread, but I can tell you this much: Jerry Crawford was 100% right on this ruling. There wasn't even any reason to argue it. Gwynn's and Sutcliffe's explanation of it, and their subsequent complaints about it, were filled with total ignorance of the rule.

Anyone want to chime in with your guess? BTW, did anyone even see this incident? It sure got talked about for a while.

I should be thankful I work these games and don't watch them like you folks do. I'd go through too many TV sets during the course of the season.

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I didn't see the play itself or the comments of the broadcasters, but I saw George's gripe on the other thread. My guess is that if the runner on first was awarded two bases, the two bases are second and third. If he were really fast and was past second base and headed towards third, would he have then been awarded third and home? Or is it based on where he was when the play started (first base)?

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
Or is it based on where he was when the play started (first base)?

---

You're as close as anyone's going to come, Joe.

When an infielder's first play results in the ball being thrown out of play, the ball is dead and all runners advance two bases from the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch. EXCEPTION: If the batter-runner and all other runners had reached their advance bases before the throw was RELEASED, then the award shall be two bases from the bases they occupied at the time of the THROW. The same ruling shall also apply when an infielder's second (or greater) play results in the throw going out of play, or when an OUTfielder throws the ball out of play.

A throw to retire a runner is a play. The shortstop's first play was the throw to third to retire R2 from second. The ball went out of play. Therefore, R2 is awarded home, and R1 from first is awarded third, regardless of where he or anyone else is when the ball goes into dead ball territory.

Base awards are always judged by when either the throw was released or when the time of the pitch occurred. We ask ourselves: Where were the runners when the ball was released? Where were the runners at the time of the pitch?

Rule 7.05 is clear about this. Sutcliffe and Gwynn are not.

Crawford got it right, from start to finish. There was no need for him to ask for help, because he knew that at the time of the pitch, the Twins runners were on first and second, so they're automatically awarded home and third, respectively.

In a nutshell: Base awards on overthrows are always 2-base awards, either from "time of pitch" or "time of throw."

BTW, did you notice what happened a little later, when a wild pitch ricocheted off the catcher? The Twins runner was on first. He went to second, was halfway to third when the ball caromed off the A's catcher, and was at third when the ball entered the dugout; yet Crawford properly ruled he was only to be awarded second base, so the runner was sent back to second.

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:


That is truly a mystery, other than the fact that ESPN is showing a lot of college football.

---

I think the explanation is that ESPN is contractually obligated to show pre-set things (like college football). ABC Family is in more homes than the ESPNs (but watched by fewer people) so ABC/Disney gets a temporary ratings boost and their name recognition goes up. Besides, anytime they're showng baseball instead of the 700 Club is a plus.

One thing I like about Fox is the info bar across the top of the screen. It's well laid out, shows all the data all the time.

OK, nobody has bitched about the Fox coverage for a few days, so I will.

We. get. it. JD Drew got thrown out at the plate. Whoever is responsible, please calmly back away from the replay machine and no one will get hurt.

Thank you.

In last night's Giants/St. Louis game, one of the jerks had like a three minute thing where he was comparing the game to Rodgers & Hammersteins "Carousel" (or was that Loerner & Lowe?). But anyway, he was comparing the fact that the Giants were going round and round the bases just like the carousel............

Get rid of these guys! They just love to hear themselves talk!

I would have been gouging out my ears with an icepick if I'd heard them going off on Carousel. I mean, how gay is that? Who the hell do they think they are, Jason Alexander and Eric McCormick, straight boys in to musicals? Sheesh.

It was a pleasure to continue my Elton John CD retrospective last night.

Is is just my imagination, or has McCarver colored his hair? It's been looking browner than usual.

Just when you think you've heard everything... Broadway musicals being discussed during a baseball game.....lol.

But then... they place the camera on Jeff Kent and we all know the camera loves Jeff Kent..
then, comes the comment from Joe Buck...

I wish I had Jeff Kent's body...

I'm thinking...dang, how gay is that!



Come out!...Dang, Buck and Mccarver are practically singing Garland with all their jock worship talk. NOt that I mind....

You go guys....



P.S....Yep... I believe Tim has over done it on that Ms Clariol #42.....jockstrap brown...

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: satxbuddy1 ]

Tonight's CD listening: Thais by Massenet, the excellent new recording with Fleming & Hampson and the remastered Court & Spark by Joni. Great record.

Nothing too bad on the coverage tonight but I can see Fox is going to force "stars" of their "hit shows" to take seats from real fans so that the camera can pan to them a few times per game. f**king hell, the networks are SO desperate to get promos in anywhere they can that they do this. The worst was Calista Flockhart at one of the Yankees' WS. The idiots tonight looked as if they wouldn't know what a strike was unless it was SAG walking out over commercial residuals.

If Fox didn't have The Simpsons, King of the Hill and Malcolm in the Middle, I'd not watch their crap network in protest.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

They even used that insipid "Fan Cam" as a promo. While showing the boring shots of the fans, the Simpsons theme music played in the background.

Even if you hadn't read about it, have we all noticed the insidious "virtual" Fox Series Promo Space to the left of home from the centerfield shot -- which is very obviously a BLANK green wall in replays and tighter shots? Evil evil evil.

Yeah, I noticed that. What a visual distraction! Of course, when I watch Aussie Rules on Fox Sports World, they have big sponsor logos virtually tatooed on the field; I don't think baseball is far behind. It won't be long before they virtually imprint advertising on players; I saw an article about it and once the technology is ready, it'll happen. Advertisers are SO desperate to cut through the media clutter that they'll resort to anything.

Well I'll swanee... I've noticed how obtrusive it looks, but just assumed that it was one of those window-shade scrolling advertisement apparatus that have been common behind home plate for so long. I'll take a more careful look tonight.

The Baseball Primer site is doing fairly detailed "reviews" of each game's Fox coverage... plenty of McCarver-bashing! But my favorite rip wonders if MasterCard shouter Ray Liotta "has secretly been taking gigs as PA announcer at local tractor pulls."

Thanks for the link, BillW. My favorite: [quote]Why does McCarver have to be so darn sure of himself every time he opens his mouth? When David Eckstein moved up in the batter's box to slap at the ball, McCarver insisted Eckstein was standing in fair territory, when the replay from overhead clearly showed him in the box. Instead of retracting his statement, McCarver went on to say a "case could be made" that Eckstein could've been called out. Yes, Tim, and a case also can be made that Denmark's military is all that stands between the European Union and an invasion of thawing Arctic monkey-men

---

Buwahaha! Since I've only been paying half-attention to the World Series coverage, something David in his reviews and the readers pointed out now bugs me. It's the way they don't show the right replays. They'll miss the one that shows the play but show 3 different reactions from the dugout or they'll only show a head shot or a shot from a bad angle.

The only reason Fox got baseball was to use the playoffs and WS as a platform to promote their fall shows. An article in today's Los Angeles Times pointed out that the strategy has been an abysmal failure so far. The WS ratings are awful--on pace to be the lowest ever--so not that many people are seeing the gazillion promos per game. Additionally, due the WS, they've had to delay some of the season premieres until next week, a good month later than the other networks. And worst of all for Fox, due to the low ratings Fox is not hitting the audience level targets they promised advertisers, so they're most likely going to have to refund money to them.

I would imagine that that baseball is going to be in for a big shock when it comes time to renew the TV contract. I can't imagine them suckering anyone in to a similar deal to the one that Fox has. It wouldn't be a shock to me to see what happened to the NBA (all games on ESPN).

Does anyone know when the TV deals (Fox and ESPN) expire? I can't find the info on the Net. Thanks.

The Fox deal expires in 2006. Don't know about ESPN.

This article says this was the lowest-rated Series ever. It set a record low for every game. It was down 24 percent from last year, and in the last 11 years the rating has dropped.....50 percent!

Low ratings should be a wakeup call for Selig

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
Selig is terrible, pure and simple. He's deceitful, untrustworthy, and power-hungry. He betrays "friends" at the drop of a hat and is one of the most selfish, egotistical people in the history of the game. He is also completely unaware of reality and the world of baseball as it is viewed from the fans' perspective.

I apologize if I cannot elaborate more; you'll just have to trust me in my comments.

---

You've never given me any reason to doubt your judgements, Ump.

I am thankful for your scholarly and level-headed presence here at Outsports.

You must stay true to yourself, if only to stay clear enough to manage your life and career on a daily basis. It's not like you directed your inquiry at your superiors.

Keep up the good work.