What Makes A Great Sportscaster/Analyst?
by baseballgirl on Nov 8, 2007 9:29 AM PST
in News
56 comments
Thank you to everyone who shared your ideas in yesterday's post, including the late night visit by Susan Slusser.
Our spoken media is obviously vastly different from what we expect in our print media, but I would venture to say that it more profoundly affects our experience of the game. While print media gives us the ‘tangibles’ of the sport--the game previews, wrap-ups, lineups, and often anecdotal information about the clubhouse and various players, the broadcast team brings the game to us; whether we are in an office cubicle, driving down the freeway, at a sports bar with friends, or simply watching the game in the privacy of our own homes. Many magical moments are created by the tone, inflection, and big calls of the game, and the experience can certainly be heightened (or the opposite) by the voices narrating the event.
As many have pointed out, it’s hard to judge our own announcing team by the most recent year, considering it’s a monumental task to conjure up passion for a team that is playing so poorly--and worse, so unexcitingly. I know how hard it is for me in a recap, and it would be near-impossible for me to be optimistic during an entire game. I think it has to go one way or the other; either you are passionate and excited about a winning team, or you find the humor in your terrible team. There isn’t a lot in between.
There are many announcing teams that I absolutely love, and a handful that I simply cannot listen to. Let’s just say that when the A’s are playing the White Sox, should the A’s feed suddenly end, I would rather not listen to the game at all. However, on the rare occasion that the A’s play the Dodgers, I will listen to the opposite feed, and consider that three hours of baseball education.
There have been a flurry of posts recently debating the merits of ESPN’s poster boy, Joe Morgan, and in answering the charge of the website named after him being a one trick pony, I’m afraid I have to say the same about Joe.
Joe’s problem is that he sees the game of baseball from a 30,000 foot view. If you want a description of the game of baseball, there is no one better. If you want to know what it is like being a major league ballplayer, there is no one that makes it sound more attractive, or paints a more romantic picture. But for someone whose sole job is to watch the games and offer his opinion, I think Fire Joe Morgan is right on the money. In his weekly chat with the public, Joe informs his listeners that he basically knows a handful of players from the current major league pool, doesn’t watch more than a few teams a year unless it is their turn on Sunday Night Baseball, and refuses to accept that there are better and more accurate ways to measure the talent of baseball players than when he played.
In addition to being completely unwilling to accept that he may not know everything about the game of baseball and its current players, Joe’s admittedly captivating storytelling sometimes amounts to rewriting history as if he was a baseball analyst when he played the game. Joe’s egregious claims range from retelling stories as if he was a part of them, yet not getting the details quite right--or even partially right--to flat-out puzzling statements; such as how he (as a starting second baseman who would most likely be getting ready for his own game and not paying attention to his teammates as if he was a coach) used to spend the hour before the game watching the starting pitcher warm up, and could tell just by his delivery how his night was going to go. Y-e-a-h.
While in the broadcast booth, Joe also has the habit of making patently untrue statement about players, as if he is measuring them on criteria that he alone is privy to, despite presumably having the real numbers right in front of him. Add to that his latent hostility for certain teams, managers, and coaches, and Joe’s number one character trait of never being wrong, and it’s a train wreck of a show.
Of course, that is just my opinion, but if pressed, I could put the weight of many years of supporting anecdotal evidence behind it. (CVG team, I’m looking at you)
Looking back over the post, I would have to say that pretty much my perfect broadcast team would be the opposite of the weaknesses in Joe Morgan. I want someone who can spin the game to me as if it’s a really great story, yet I want to learn too. I want to know about the players; a little bit about who they are, but mostly about what they have accomplished in their baseball careers.
I want to have the announcers get a little bit shaken up when something unusual happens, and I want the magical calls to be ones that I can replay over and over again, each time hearing the joy and the excitement radiating from their voices as they describe their version of the events unfolding. I want to turn on the radio and hear familiar voices; ones that make me feel like I’ve come home when I’m listening to an A’s game. Great voices; maybe void of tired catchphrases and overused clichés. And I want them to know that if they use the words ‘He Gone’, I’m turning them off, perhaps forever.
Maybe I’m asking for too much. But some would claim that their ideal already exists for their city, and their team.
What do you listen for when you deem an announcer/analyst/sportscaster great? And is/was there anyone out there who fit that bill?
0 recs |
56 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Bill King (Surprise, Surprise) Remains...
...the standard by which I evaluate broadcsters.
Having the privilege of hearing him describe all 3 major sports, he remains unparalleled. While baseball didn't distinguish him as much as basketball and football, he was nevertheless notworhty.
Bill King remained objective; passionate but objective. His intellectual honesty was something that allowed me during my formative years the ability to take a broader perspective, really on any subject and look at its merits and faults. That notion was reinforced with EVERY broadcast regardless the sport.
Now, I didn't listen to the broadcast in which the NBA ref threw him out for inciting a riot at the arena, but I was too young at that time. Ken Korach has carried the torch well for Oakland but really no could ever duplicate the contributions King made on the lives of those who had privilege of listen to his call....Holy Toledo!!!
Agreed
Repunctuating bbg's last sentence -- was there anyone out there who fit that? Bill.
by Englishmajor on Nov 8, 2007 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
There are several criteria
Excitement-- a great announcer must be able to convey a sense of the drama of the game, particularly on great plays. The classic example is Andres Cantor's "Goooooooool" call in soccer, but other announcers are great exemplars of it as well-- Gus Johnson and Bill Raftery in college hoops, Keith Jackson in college football, Marv Albert in the NBA, and so on.
Articulation-- announcers have to be able to clearly convey their sense of what's happening, including recognizing the players making the play and what's going on, including what the play/pitch is in football and baseball. Jon Miller is excellent at this. Pat Summerall is now semi-retired, but he was a master at it as well.
Knowledgability-- an announcer should understand the game that's being played thoroughly, including most of the less frequently invoked rules (although mistakes are pardonable if an NFL player puts down a drop-kick or something along those lines). He should have a good understanding of the game's history and "great moments." For all that he's deficient in other areas here, Billy Packer is about the best example of this I can think of-- he's seen all the big games, he remembers all the great moments, and he knows all the plays (which, to be fair, is a lot easier in basketball, where the plays are pretty much the same for every team). I've actually never heard Scully, but by report he's great at this aspect as well.
My personal award for "best announcer in sports today" goes to... drumroll, please...
Mike Emrick. Probably not a household name, especially in these parts. He's the #1 hockey announcer for NBC and Versus.
Emrick is a fantastic commentator. He has an almost boyish enthusiasm for the game-- you come out of an intense sequence practically worn out with excitement. He always knows his material, spots things on the ice that sometimes even the referees don't, and constantly entertains the audience with his near-flawless delivery. Not to mention, the man is an absolute workhorse; last year, he was taking 3-hour flights practically every day to cover BOTH conference championship series.
It's sad that it's unique to hockey that the best commentating team is actually calling the Finals, but such is life. In any event, there's no game I'd rather listen to than a Game 7 with Emrick at the mike. Even if you don't like hockey, tune into the Finals next year and see if he doesn't drag you kicking and screaming into the excitement.
Agreed - I'd ad a few points
Honesty - if a player makes a bad play, I like to hear that it was a bad play. No glossing over the subject. If it's an amazing play, I want to be out of my chair with excitement.
Accuracy in excitement - Don't get me all excited for a home run, just to tell me it's a flyout not even to the warning track. Uggh.
Cadence - Especially important in radio, cadence keeps the flow of a game going. The announcer doesn't have to be talking the entire time, but there's got to be a good flow.
My favorite announcer? Marty Brennaman for the Reds. I soured on him a little this year when it seemed the losing got to him, but he calls it how it is and he has the best cadence I've heard on the radio.
by JJ on Nov 8, 2007 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
It's tougher to be good at radio
I agree that cadence is important, and for radio announcers I'd add that the ability to paint an auditory picture of what's going on and where the action is on the field/court is also vital. I don't listen to sports on the radio very often, so I don't know as much about radio announcing or the best radio announcers.
I'd add humor.
And reinforce articulation with voice modulation. I think Jon Miller is the current standard-bearer, and I hope we go out and get that Hayward-born master for our new yard. I will even go so far as to listen to Giaunts games, just to hear him ply his trade.
I would also enjoy Krukow if he wasn't such an unabashed home-r.
On the flipside, I hate sensationalists who'll say anything for a reaction -- I'm looking at you Damon Bruce, you self-important, under-cooked twit (and to a lesser extent: hy why shyll nyt by nymyd). "Sports don't build character..." is one of the stupidest sayings I have ever heard, and I listen a lot. And he says it so often, and with such gravity, that he's clearly proud of it. I have no idea why that would be so.
by The Dogfather on Nov 8, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
I agree about Mike Emrick
I don't watch as much NHL as I used to (even though I live in Carolina Hurricanes territory) -- but if I'm flipping through channels, pass through Versus and I hear Mike Emrick, I stick around for a while.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Nov 8, 2007 6:00 PM PST up reply actions
That dude on the 437 laterals play.
Holy Grail.
Really, though, in addition to what others have said (impartiality, knowledge of the game and players, etc), I find rhythm to be extremely important. Maybe I just got really used to Bill King's, but I thought he was excellent at this (less so as he got older, but still). His rate of speech, choice of vocabulary, and pitch conveyed accurately what was going on in the game, even without listening to the actual words. I would turn on the radio, and within seconds knew whether the A's were winning or losing, whether it was close, and how riveting or not the game was.
This is precisely where I think a Vince Cotroneo could stand to greatly improve -- even when he describes a play accurately (which I know is not always), there's always a bit of a feeling of vertigo, of not exactly being with the rhythm of the play. And KenKo accomplishes this, for example when he says "fly ball, routine..." though the word choice bugs me a little in that I feel like it's asking for trouble, it perfectly conveys what I would be feeling if I were to watch the game live. "Eh...routine."
I like Jon Miller in general, and I think his boyish incredulity about relatively normal plays is charming though I can totally see how it would bug some people. I think it's a nice quality for drawing in a younger or more casual fan. I listened to the Indians announcers during the ALCS and found them to be pretty good at the rhythm aspect as well.
Drew Remenda
Particularly by comparison to McSorley
who they had last year, and who tended to make me want to stick pencils through my eardrums every time he spoke.
Ray Fosse
Ray Ray is one of my favorite broadcasters in baseball. The man is a classy person and isn't annoying, unlike Kuiper and Krukow on the other side of the bay. You can't stop Fosse, you can only hope to contain him.
by maffew on Nov 8, 2007 12:01 PM PST reply actions
Fosse is awesome
I just wish they'd stop having him interview players -- or allow him to ask some different questions. "How great was/is it to [insert something here]" and "How great did/does it feel to [insert something here]" are not questions I care about.
His commentary during games is great though, and I love that he's still rockin' the 'stache after all these years.
I like Fosse's commentary
because he caught some of the baseball's greats, and can compare them with people currently on the field.
He is generous though. He knows it's a tough game. Like every MLB player, he had been humbled by the competition on occasion, and he doesn't hesitate to say it.
by One won lost won on Nov 8, 2007 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
in addition to bill king,
i really miss greg papa.
he was so knowledgeable about A's history, and could put the game's events in such a good historical perspective (of the oakland franchise).
plus he's got that buttery delivery thats easy on the ears.
TOUCHDOWN, RAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIDERS
Pity he doesn't get to make this call very much anymore.
I wish the A's would send Vince back to Texas and bring back Papa.
I agree
I liked Greg Papa, and as I understood it, it was someone in the front office (past, or present? I'm fuzzy here) who insisted he go. I recall Ray Fosse saying Greg Papa had genuine excitement in the booth, often "grabbing your arm" as the play unfolded. You cannot fake enthusiasm, and it showed in Greg Papa's style.
My favorite recollection of his broadcasting was a game in which the A's lit up Mike Mussina. He kept saying, "Folks, this is Mike Mussina! Not just some average pitcher!" over and over, and it was great relish on a savory play-by-play of extra-base hit after extra-base hit by the A's.
by One won lost won on Nov 8, 2007 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
I'm surprised at how much I miss Papa
He is very intelligent, but most of all sincere in a way that is engaging yet not so homie he loses his objectivity.
Man I miss that guy, even though I often listen to him on Raider games. He was good for this team.
Is there even any question?
Anyone who ever heard Howard Cosell knows how he redefined the vocation. He was articulate, knowledgeable, flowery and obstinate. A complete a-hole by most accounts, but he was the best ever, hands down.
As far as baseball, Vin Scully is pretty darn good. He pretty old now, but back in the day he'd tell some pretty captivating stories to go along with excellent play by play.
Dave Niehaus (Seattle) is great for his ability to make one enjoy listening. He gets all his plays and facts spot on, tells a good story and has that important ability to shut up and let the crowd's noise come through when the time is appropriate. He's my favorite in current MLB.
Dave Fleming, the Giants young rising broadcast star, is also very good.
can't believe
I missed Cosell on my list. Monday Night Football and Ali fights.
and I dig Fosse too.
1984 Olympic boxing
I typically have no interest in professional boxing, but I've always enjoyed the Olympic events. In '84, ABC had Cosell doing the play-by-play for the Olympics, and he was downright tremendous, both in his knowledge of the sport as well as his play-by-play calls. He didn't even refer to any of the boxers as "little monkeys".
Agree about Fleming
It's a pity that some bonehead at KNBR killed his mike during Bonds' 715th home run - I'm sure that cost him a chance to have his voice get into the HoF.
Bill was the best
And I was fortunate enough to hear him call Raider and Warrior games, too...(sigh...miss you Bill)
He and Lon complimented each other very well, along the lines of Madden-Summerall (yes I understand the difference...baseball-football/radio-tv/Bill and Lon both did play-by-play, etc.)
Lon was just funny. At the Hall-of-Fame (for the Ford Frick award), he turned to Eck and said "I see the ugly pills aren't working").
I remember Summerall's call on Marcus Allen's 74-yard run in Super Bowl XVIII, in which Allen went one way, cut back, reversed, and went running past eleven Redskins: "Marcus Allen......touchdown".
No one else could do that and get away with it.
Other voices: Al Michaels ("Miracles" and the '89 earthquake "intro" rank high), Jon Miller, Papa, Vin Scully (he could announce my work day and make it sound tranquil).
knowledge, passion and humor (when called for)
are what I look for in a broadcaster be it the play-by-play or color person. I want someone with inside information that adds to the color and scope of the game itself. I want someone who gets excited about a great play, does not call an average play the best they have ever seen, knows the players by both their game and personality, does their homework regarding issues (positive or negative) between the 2 teams playing and who is willing to call out the home team.
My "love to listen to group" . . . . Bill King - a tremendous voice and wonderful to listen too as we all know; Dave Flemming and Jon Miller are very good together; Ray Fosse I enjoy as well and I like listening to John Madden even if he goes a little over the top occasionally. I loved Howard Cosell even while he grated every nerve ending I had just because he was so different from the vast majority of broadcasters at that time.
On the opposite side, I cannot stand Tim McCarver (will turn off the sound and watch video only if necessary) and the White Sox homers are nauseating.
My earliest memories of baseball on TV...
...was NBC's Game of the Week with Vin Scully in the '80s. Still one of the best in the business, and I'm so grateful -- and awestruck that he's still doing this after all this time -- that I can still hear him on FSN Prime Ticket for Dodger games (via MLB Extra Innings).
And I know I may not have many here who agree, but I've always enjoyed Skip Caray, not only on TBS but when I was growing up in Alabama and hearing him on Braves radio broadcasts.
I also really enjoyed Bill King the few years I got to hear him via MLB Gameday Audio. It didn't take long for me to see why he was so revered in the Bay Area.
They make me laugh and they make me glad I tuned in regardless what the score is. They make baseball fun.
by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Nov 8, 2007 6:12 PM PST reply actions
I grew up listening to Vin Sculley
and I just assumed his style (and Jerry Doggett's) was the same as all other broadcasters of baseball. Was I shocked later on to hear others and their styles!!
Always giving the score (unlike Bill King, who once went through an entire inning without mentioning the score) always presenting an anecdote with each batter, Vin Sculley is undeniably IMHO the gold standard for baseball broadcasters. Sculley, I am certain, is the man after whom Jon Miller and Ken Korach model their styles. They both do a dead on imitation of Vin Sculley, especially Jon Miller, who even adds in the "Farmer John" commercial.
Bill King was often fantastic in his spontaneous phraseology, and his erudition was unmatched. He did start with Raiders football, then Warriors basketball, and I think his real genius came in basketball rather than baseball. But, with the A's, he was "berry berry goood!"
by One won lost won on Nov 8, 2007 7:05 PM PST reply actions
Vin Scully is the gold standard.
I'll endure entire Dodger games just to hear his voice. It's almost as though he's having a conversation with each individual listener. I love the human interest angle he adds to the games. Some little anecdotal story about a nondescript player that suddenly causes you to root for the guy because his mother worked 3 jobs and played catch with him everyday. Another poster commented that there are good stories left to tell. Listening to Scully for a night will convince you that there are indeed good stories left to tell.
It's fascinating to listen to him and realize that when he started his career Jackie Robinson was a rookie who played in Brooklyn. He's a living history book who has probably forgotten more about baseball than most of us will ever know.
Greatest Sportscaster?
What is the first letter in the alphabet?
What is 1+1?
This shouldn't even be a question.
Bill King
End of discussion.
by Mr C on Nov 8, 2007 9:05 PM PST reply actions
Perhaps he might have been
at some point, but the "Greatest" would never do what Bill King did:
...he lost track of a runner during the inning, and didn't know he scored! He kept declaring that the player was at third base, when it would have been impossible (i.e. four men on three bases).
I kept waiting and waiting for him to realize it. He finally "woke up" and made some apology for having missed it.
Bill and Lon were great together, but Bill kept on long after it was apparent that he should have retired. Too many miscues in his later years. Waaaay too many apologies, etc. Plus, he often announced when he had some affliction that affected his voice (cold? flu? bronchitis?) Man, those games were very painful to hear.
by One won lost won on Nov 9, 2007 9:18 AM PST up reply actions
Devil Rays R.I.P.
The worst franchise in MLB history is officially over!
Not really they just changed their name to Rays. No more devil. Kinda stupid if you ask me. They still really really suck.
by Mr C on Nov 8, 2007 9:14 PM PST reply actions
None of the A's current broadcasters...
...(audio and tv). Bill King (RIP) was great, Papa was pretty good himself. The rest, meh.
Fun question
Marv Albert is a great basketball announcer. "Yes, and it counts." He may be even better at hockey radio than at basketball, although I don't know if he gets much ice time any more? His methodical and implausibly coherent calls of crazily complicated hockey brawls involving eighteen or twenty players spread all over the rink in various and sundry mini-brawls were legendary. He would describe one fight, leave it to take us to the other end of the rink to call another blow-by-blow, and then seamlessly return to the original one with an update on what we had missed. Listening to his call, you would swear that you had seen the fight, even though it wasn't televised. How did he do that?
Albert's cadence and style seemed to borrow something from the legenday Les Keiter, most widely known for his flawless heavyweight championship work, especially the Johanssen-Floyd Patterson bouts at Yankee Stadium. "Patterson is down!!" What drama.
I believe that's where Howard Cosell may have come in. Did he write the book or what on journalists creating story lines which seemed to have as much weight as the actual event or game itself, a dubious phenomenom which we are now totally immersed in, i.e. steroids, contracts/free agency, showboating? His playful and staged antagonism with Muhammed Ali was groundbreaking stuff.
Vince Scully is great. But what about his contemporaries and teachers, like Mel Allen and Curt Gowdy? Ernie Harwell? Was anyone more appropriate and understatedly dramatic in calling a football game than the great Ray Scott? And Marty Glcikman was so completely infectious, along with his sidekick and pioneer commentator/color man Al Derogatis, that he could even keep you glued to his improbable weekly high school football telecasts in NYC.
My issue with the Joe Morgan detractors isn't about whether he is a good announcer, which he is not especially. It's merely about confusing that with the fact that his baseball knowledge and feel is unparalled in the media during his career in the booth, even if he is slipping now, and I don't know how you can argue that. And I have to beg to differ with many AN fans who seem to detest the White Sox announcer-who-shall-not-be-named, Ken Harrelson (spelling?, who consistently brings an authentic and extremely perceptive quality to his broadcasts. And, he is a lot of fun. You want to talk about homers? Do you really think that Ray Fosse is not the biggest homer in the history of baseball?
Has there ever been a better interviewer that the A's Marty Lurie? And why do AN fans find so much fault with Vince Cotroneo, who is capable of some very nice calls?
When it all comes down to it, if you want to talk about poetry, no one in the world was better at the spontaneity of calling a walk-off or a game situation than Bill King. No one.
But right now, for pure fun, give me the trio of Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, and Charles Barkely. They are the best.
by froggiethegremlin on Nov 8, 2007 11:35 PM PST reply actions
This post is trbl ; )
BANG!! POW!!! BIFF!!!!
by The Dogfather on Nov 9, 2007 8:27 AM PST up reply actions
Baseballgirl,
would you mind clarifying this, "Joe’s egregious claims range from retelling stories as if he was a part of them, yet not getting the details quite right--or even partially right--to flat-out puzzling statements;"?
As for the 30K foot view point, I guess it depends what kind of analysis you want Morgan to provide. If you want linear weights runs above average and UZR, or a detailed analysis of how much control a pitcher / hitter has over balls in play, he obviously isn't the analyst you want.
If you want an analyst who knows that Pat Burrell
has five career stolen bases, he's not the analyst you want either.
(This is referencing an incident earlier this year in which he expressed shock that the Braves were not holding Burrell on at first base. He was later thrown out at home that inning on a play in which the ball did not leave Jeff Francoeur's hand until Burrell was a third of the way to home plate.)
Yeah, and we all know that Pat Burrell
has 5 career SBs, without checking.
Dude
I didn't know the exact number of Burrell's steals before that game. I did, however, know that he ran at the speed of ketchup when poured from a bottle, which is really what I was getting at here.
This is grade-level stuff. Anybody who's played a season's worth of an MLB baseball game-- such as, for example, the ones that Joe Morgan has done commentary for-- knows this stuff. Is that too much to ask? A season's worth of your own ****ing video game?
Just off the top of my head
I was watching an ESPN game this season with the Mets and Morgan claimed that new Met 2Bmen Luis Castillo had trouble on a foul pop up down the RF line in Shea because he had spent his entire career in the American League. Well... I guess if you don't count his first TEN seasons as a Florida Marlin, then yeah thats correct.
And then there was this little tidbit, where he tells a full on story about how he got a game winning hit to extend a Phillies losing streak during an epic collapse in '64... which never actually happened.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07202007...
Seems really strange to not remember that story correctly when you were actually a part of it?
Yeah, we all remember
stuff that happened to us more than 40 years ago. No one, only Joe Morgan, has mixed up the details on stuff that happened 40 years ago.
I'm sure Ken Tremendous can remember what happened to him 40 years ago. I'm sure that a Fire Ken Tremendous blog wouldn't be necessary to nitpick every little detail of what Ken Tremendous says. I'm sure that a Fire Phil Mushnick blog wouldn't be necessary either.
The Castillo thing was idiotic on Morgan's part, of course, but that wasn't what I was asking for.
I wasn't asking for "proof" of anything. Just what she meant by him retelling stories.
I specifically avoided
anything that was just posted at FJM, because we were talking about Morgan's on air personality as opposed to things like his ESPN chats -- so not sure why all the anti-FJM stuff in your response as I made no reference to FJM at all.
The Castillo thing (as you admitted) was not Joe's finest moment. The other thing was picked up by the national media, which is why I thought it relevant. (I also think it speaks to BBG's comment about retelling stories w/o getting the facts quite right).
I am not expecting Morgan to remember things from 40 years ago. However, if he is going to spend a half inning relating an in-depth story with minute details shouldn't it have at least a tiny basis of truth? In the story he mis-remembers the year he made his MLB debut. He says he got a game winning hit during a very famous Philly losing streak, to add to that losing streak -- he did not do that. He even goes on to give more detail about how the opposing manager flipped over the buffet and complained how they "just got beat by a little leaguer". With that much precise detail in the story, if being told to a nationwide TV audience, shouldn't it have at least a shred of truth, instead of being 100% completely totally false?
This is a big deal (to me) since one of the main things Morgan brings to a broadcast is his stories about the game when he played it. If we have to wonder "did that really happen?" every time he tells a story a big part of his reason for being in the booth is gone. If he cannot even remember things like Luis Castillo spent 10 years with the Marlins or that contrary to his belief he actually played no part in the big Philly collapse then what else has he forgotten?
Yes, he mis-remembers his MLB debut
How do you know it is completely false? He might have mixed up details from various games that happened more than 40 years ago.
It isn't as if Phil Mushnick, the writer of the article you linked, is a paragon of sports journalism.
The anti-FJM stuff in my post is in reference to how Morgan's critics nitpick EVERY little detail of what he says; as if they have never ever made a mistake in their lives.
Do you wonder how Ken Tremendous would look if there was a Retro Sheet, a Baseball Reference that recorded the details of his life and career, and a FKT blog that would nitpick everything he writes based on the Retro Sheet and BB-Ref details?
If his "performance" is the quality
of his writing?
A heck of a lot better than Joe Morgan.
KT is casual and funny. Morgan is a self-centered, pompous prick.
Funny?
After seeing some of the comments, I read an interview with KT on scout.com: http://stlcardinals.scout.com/2/5881...
Funny? I may get a little overdone, but this guy, KT, talks about baseball like it's a Bergman film. Geez, KT, lighten up, you're even stuffier than Joe Morgan. Joe Morgan may have some diamond dimentia, but Bill James was practicing pure alchemy when he said that Craig Biggio was the BEST player in MLB a few years ago. And those win shares and fielding runs, which pretend to be proof of a players role in wins and losses, are totally hypothetical. My primitive understanding of these numbers is that they are not connected in any way to the outcome of any actual, specific games, although they are talked about and marketed like they do. But they may help you understand fantasy baseball, if that's your thing, where no real wins or losses exist either. At least the old-fashioned BA,ERA,RBIs, etc. don't misrepresent themselves as promising anything more than such mundanities as the ritual algorithm by which base hits are divided by at-bats. . .
by froggiethegremlin on Nov 9, 2007 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks for the link!
Great interview.
I suppose that probably wasn't your intent, however. Whatever. Stop trolling with this anti-stats crap. It's irritating and adds nothing to the site.
Hint: When the thread's about sportscasters, and you use it as an excuse to rant about Bill James (who apparently, despite his lack of statistical knowledge and weird notions about Win Shares, represents everybody who uses stats that were invented after 1920)-- you're a troll.
You can do better
by froggiethegremlin on Nov 9, 2007 11:57 PM PST up reply actions
Dude, are you aware that many
teams in MLB have statistical analyst on staff? You are aware that one of the first things the Red Sox FO did on being hired was to hired Bill James, yes?
It also isn't just the "stathead" orgs like the A's or Red Sox. The Angels, much maligned by many in the stathead community, use statistical analyst too. Eddie Bane is just as capable of talking about DIPS as any "stathead".
Half of the teams in MLB buy data from John Dewan's BIS.
Are you saying that all these teams are using stats for inter office roto leagues?
Also, you are doing the same damn thing that Ken Tremendous is guilty of doing with Morgan. Ignoring Bill James' entire body of work and nitpicking one little detail to death.
Since you want to discuss Biggio, go to Baseball Reference and look at Biggio's stats. In his prime, 1994-1998, once you account for the position he played, 2b, he was indeed one of the best players in MLB. In his prime he hit better than Captain Clutch Derek Jeter in Jeter's prime. In his prime, he hit better than Miguel Tejada, who won and MVP, in Tejada's prime.
Your ninth inning example is a poor example. That is an example cherry picked to ignore defense.
Very good points
I was aware of MLB teams hiring stats guys, but this is not exactly a new development. The Dodgers were doing it moer than fifty years ago. I can't remember the guy's name. This is not to say that the science has not vastly improved.
I loved the spirit of what you said about this KT guy, like his regurgitating stuff is pretty un-noteworthy.
Actually, I love Bill James' Historical Abstract. I don't know if that is considered a hardcore stats treatise, but it is easily one of the most fun, meatiest books in the history of baseball. The sheer preposterousness of reflecting over the choice between Roy White and Tom Tresh in their battle for spots number 77 and 78 in left field tickled me for days. I really believe that James has a sense of humor about all this, or how could he actually come up with a scheme for the greatest 100 players at each position. And all his special all-star teams (best-dressed All-Star team of teh 1930s or whatever) and all that kind of stuff I just loved.
Anyway, you are way over my head. I would like to know what you think about my assertion there is somewhat of an illusion out there in the stats community that the "new" numbers connect a plyers performance with the actual success or failure of his team in wins and losses, in the same sense as a pitcher's W-L record does. That's what I meant about the new stats helping to succeed at fantasy baseball picks but not so much in winning a close game at Comnerica Field.
I don't know if I have made my question clear, but give a try if you will.
by froggiethegremlin on Nov 10, 2007 12:38 AM PST up reply actions
rfloh, a couple of more things
Also, my guts and my experience and my money would have Derek jeter up there no matter what any stats said. Maybe it's just that the science isn't yet as developed as it may one day be, if you will, thus the stats haven't yet identified some of the dimensions which will explain things better. Like a measure that identifies a player who gets better with everything on the line. Is there such a measure? Don't laugh, but where does a Marco Scutaro, with his seemingly implausible nine (?) walk-off hits, sac flies, walks, what ever, fit into this scheme?
by froggiethegremlin on Nov 10, 2007 12:46 AM PST up reply actions
In your ninth inning scenario
the guy I would pick would be Papi Ortiz. Do you see the problem? He's a fantastic hitter, he's also a DH. His defense is beyond horrible; he can't play a position.
Craig Biggio is a 2nd baseman. In his prime, he was also a great baserunner.
Ortiz in his prime is a better HITTER than Biggio in in his prime. Is he a better PLAYER?
You need to look at what Biggio did in aggregate: hitting very well, playing a very demanding defensive position, 2b, great baseruning.
Clutchiness: I actually believe that clutchiness exist. But let's look at Marco. He's clutch. He's also not a good hitter overall, though ok for his position. He's also not a good defender. Not a good baserunner.
Now take Miguel Tejada. Some A's fans would say he is unclutch, for the touching the base thing. He's also a very good hitter, even without accounting for position. He's still an about average defender.
Clutchiness, is only one skill. There are other skills that are (more) important: plate discipline, hitting for power, range, arm strength, contact hitting, baserunning etc.
As for Captain Clutch, people only seem to remember the times when he was "clutch". Not the times when he "choked".
Heh, someone wanting to learn from me
Thats hilarious.
I'll try to answer your question.
Ever heard of, or read stuff by, Pete Palmer? His book The Hidden Game of Baseball is something of a cult "bible" among statheads.
He developed a method, Batting Runs, based on linear weights, of estimating the number of runs a player contributes on offense.
For example, this was his linear weights formula:
Batting Runs = (.46*1B)+(.80*2B)+(1.02*3B)+(1.40*HR)+
(.33*(BB+HBP)) +(.30*SB)+(-.60*CS)+(-.25*(AB-H))-(.50*OOB)
He didn't pull this formula out his ass. What he did was to run data from actual MLB games beginning 1901, played by real players, through simulations on a computer. Using stuff like this, you can more accurately estimate just how valuable a player was offensively, instead of just looking at batting average or RBI.
This is not to say BA or RBI are useless. RBI, for example, is an easily available, and easily calculated stat. 100 RBI is actually a decent indicator of a player having a decent season.
You mentioned game situation in your post above. Using linear weights, statheads have devised run expectancy matrixes, that is the probability of runs scoring in specific situations. Again, this is based on actual MLB games, not stuff pulled out of asses.
For example, Tim McCarver recently said some stuff about HRs and walks and multirun innings. Using a run expectancy matrix, you can check what McCarver said. Actually, what McCarver said wasn't all that stupid. While a homerun is better, it isn't much better than a walk for multi-run innings.
From a recent article in the LA Times
The Angels, for example, have remained scouting-based while putting increased significance under older-school Stoneman on the contributions of 29-year-old computer analyst Tory Hernandez, whom they promoted last week from player performance analyst to manager of baseball operations.
"If our scouts are irreplaceable, Tory has been invaluable," Stoneman said. "Nothing will ever replace the human mind, but I don't know how we would operate without the computer."
Also, you might find this article, which explored the idiotic "stats vs scouts" issue interesting.
Just read the Baseball Prospectus' Stats vs Scouts
This was a very user-friendly look at this issue for someone who doesn't have an in-depth knowledge of the new stuff. I don't think the mentioned VORPs or fielding runs once in the whole article.
Allan Schwarz' questions were great. I was holding my breath when he asked (paraphrased), "Can you draft someone without SEEING them?"
My question for both "sides," and for you: I have a rough idea of the use of the models and deriving various measures of effectiveness based on past performance by comparing a players information to the model (is that right?), BUT, has anyone ever gone through a career or a season and tabulated a player's actual contributions to actual wins and losses and to pennant races? This is very different than what is done, I think, where it doesn't matter if the stats were acquired in the sixth inning of a blowout or the seventh game of our hypothetical world series, i.e., ARod, Eric Chavez, Marco Scutaro . . .
by froggiethegremlin on Nov 10, 2007 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
Bill James tried to do this
Also, WPA, which you can get from fangraphs tries to assign value based on when a HR is hit, for example. It has it's dectractors and issues though.
The "funny" thing about Tremendous
is that he is guilty of the same damn thing the Morgan critics accuse Morgan of being guilty of: being a lazy, pompous prick. A lazy, pompous prick who simply repeats mantras.
Why even bother reading him when there are real statistical analysts like Bill James, MGL, etc? If you want to read about Voros Mccracken's work, why not go to the source and read Voros' stuff and discuss that stuff with him, instead of reading KT's misinterpretation of it?
From the linked post from below,
Maybe KT should read more, and do some research, which he accuses Morgan of failing to do, and look at the fact that many top pitchers have been "lucky" throughout their careers and have been "luckier" at preventing balls in play. Maybe KT should visit Baseball Prospectus and look at the delta runs and delta hits of pitchers such as Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Clemens, Kevin Brown, Pedro, Randy Johnson, Koufax, Zito. Maybe KT should look at the spreadsheet of career DIPS numbers that Tango posted a while back.
Also, maybe KT should not misinterpret Mccracken's research.
Voros, in a discussion recently on BBTF "My point is simply that in many cases those differences clearly have something to do with luck, and so it's important to understand the factors that go into achieving lower HBIP rates so that we can better differentiate who simply got lucky and who really was doing it with skill."
KT "The notion that a pitcher has essentially no control over the ball in cases where there isn’t a strikeout or a base on balls - that’s when I tried to look beyond ERA to measure pitchers."
Notice the distinction between what Voros says and what KT claims.
"I mean, take ‘Moneyball’ - one of the reasons the site isn’t called ‘Fire Tim McCarver’ or something is because Morgan was so idiotic about the book. Morgan essentially says, ‘I don’t need to read the book, I’ve played the game, I’ve been around the game for 40 years, I love the game, I know the game’."
So, basically, it's a childish vendetta.
See, anyone can nitpick KT's off the cuff comments to death too.
Why read him?
Because he's funny.
Voros McCracken? Not particularly funny. Nate Silver? Not particularly funny.
I don't go to FJM for the latest in cutting-edge baseball analysis. Anyone who does is, not to put too fine a point on it, an idiot. Criticizing KT on those grounds is like criticizing Dave Barry In Cyberspace for its portrayal of the software program Quicken. It is, to an unbelievable degree, missing the point.
I thought you were gone for the season
I don't know why I wandered by, really, just to see if the place was alive.
Not only that, I missed you and Susan Slusser! Shit.
I'll read them late, it's not the same, what a rip.
Gus Johnson
is my favorite announcer. as paul thomas stated above, he delivers calls with such excitement. he has had some of the best college basketball calls in recent memory. the best is when him and clyde frazier announce the Knicks' games.
by bigmacattack on Nov 11, 2007 11:50 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
