Concurrence

I guess I better learn to move quickly here as Jersey Matt effectively stole a couple of my main posting points for today: the game last night and the ineptitude of Joe Morgan therein. Thus I will merely acknowledge them and move on.

Wait, I can’t. Last year I would have been happy taking a “what he said” mentality about this, but I have to intervene here. Jon Miller, ordinarily reliable as both an entertaining voice and as a saving grace to Joe Morgan’s blathering, is this season losing his mind enough that it’s noticeable. Last night he reported that the Yankees won the 2004 World Series. Not to be outdone by his boothmate’s insight to PED usage (see story), Miller told us about a player giving “a self-confidence talk to…himself” (paraphrasing due to lack of notes, but barely). He referred to Jose Molina as “Posada”…and as “Varitek”! Excusable offenses for an old guy, sure, but not when it becomes distracting. I will have to take down a full report next time of all the flubs by this dynamic duo. A running diary, perhaps.

A topic to touch upon at a later time is the McCarver-esque fawning over absolutely every player. This is a plague among announcers in all sports but I’ll harp on baseball since it’s in season. Every good player is just spectacular, every play extraordinary either for its flashiness or for its fundamental soundness. I understand that these players have exceptional skill. In this argument I’m usually on the side that’s fighting for the players; to be a below average player in the majors, there is a very good chance (there are exceptions) that that player is still very very good compared to a normal person (i.e. me, or 98% of all guys playing pro ball in any minor league, which is a lot of guys.) That being said, there is no need to go over the top with this.

I find it interesting that it is becoming more and more common for the networks to share with us a player’s slugging percentage when I’m pretty sure most viewers have no idea what that is. I dare say they should explain, but then you’d have them explaining it every game, and it will turn into a John Madden-like “I really think this team is just trying to score more runs that the other team” explanations. Not sure who is to blame for this dilemma…I’ll blame the networks.

That reminds me of another good quote from last night, and I’m not even sure who said it. I think it was Miller. Again, I didn’t write it down at the time, but I repeated it out loud when I heard it, which makes me pretty sure now of my memory’s accuracy: “The Red Sox have won two World Series since the Yankees have won one. That’s a streak the Yankees would like to stop.” That is nearly word for word, I promise you.

Quickly, although this deserves more attention later, let me agree again with JM. My baseball heart truly goes out to fans of any teams who are not the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Phillies, and to some extent Braves and Cubs (because of TBS and WGN). The overexposure of and oversaturation with these teams must be sickening to the rest of the league’s fans.

Reminded randomly again of an announcer musing from last night. This one, though, was intentionally funny and much appreciated. By Jon Miller, after the (I think) 4^th inning: “After 49...hundred…pitches, the inning is finally over!”

More later on yesterday’s Caps game and the internal debate it inspired.

Sunday Night Baseball

Currently watching the Red Sox meltdown in the 8th inning.  And if Francona brings Papelbon in for 6 outs I'll drive up to Boston myself and crush him....Francona goes to the mound and here comes....Javier Lopez...this could get ugly quickly.

Listening to Jon Miller and Joe Morgan is always a bittersweet experience.  There is hardly anyone better in the game than Miller when it comes to letting the game do most of the talking while providing context and description that only adds to the experience.  

"Double play! Beautiful! Dustin Pedrioia took it the only way it could've been done." 

Damon hits into a 4-4-3 double play. (Author breathing easily.)  That was classic Miller -- no frills, proper excitement.  This is a guy who realizes that the game is being broadcast on TV and that his audience is able to see what is happening.  Another great talent that Miller has is the set-up.  Too often a lost art, Miller's color commentary consistently places his partner in the position to offer cogent and timely observations...which brings me to "the other guy."

Quickly, however, Joe Morgan jumps into the action.  Certainly Morgan has been doing this a long time and has impeccable playing (read: HOF) credentials, yet I think his analysis lacks evenness and depth.  Too often, Morgan describes something that the audience can plainly see, thereby covering over more intelligent analysis that he also provides just a few seconds later.  

Earlier in the 8th, Miller and Morgan cut away to an in-game conversation with Peter Gammons (who is not only a HOFer but also will go straight to heaven if God is even slightly just) for a discussion about PEDs.  (Isn't it sad that PEDs are just as commonly discussed as RBIs and ERAs?)  But I digress: the conversation between the three is wrapped up and Morgan says (and I'm paraphrasing): PEDs weren't part of the game, there were players who made it part of the game because they were using them.  But there were plenty of players who didn't use them and make them part of the game.

Unfortunately I wasn't quick enough on the keyboard to type his comments down verbatim, but I came away thinking: whhhhat?  This is Emmy quality reporting?  Not as bad as Charlie Steiner, but we don't need Joe Morgan speaking as if he gets paid by the word, thank you very much.

You're not going to find another Big Papi or Manny in the next few years...

more penetrating analysis from Joe! (Umm Joe, have you seen any Brewers or Phillies games?)

And while I'm thinking about....does ESPN realize that the entire country doesn't want to see the Phillies, Mets, Sox or Yankees every dang weekend?