It Could Be That The Astros Aren't Here....

[Alkie]

...or that all my picks are losing, but does anyone else feel like thru the first 3 days, these have been the most boring fucking playoffs you can remember?

These games just haven't been all that interesting.

[DVauthrin]

I think what is readily apparent is how every team in this postseason has a major flaw or two.   There is no dominant team in either league, honestly.  

Then you have the boneheaded moments from Wednesday, and it just seems lackluster.   It's also frustrating to see how crappy the NL is compared to the postseason last year.   Jeff Weaver just won a playoff start with an era of 5 in the regular season and the dodgers(kuo) and mets(maine) have each started a rookie in games 1/2 of their series.

[Alkie]

Well I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I can tell you that I haven't been all that excited about any of the games that have been played yet.  

I don't think I realized how unwatchably bad the NL West must be.

[mihoba]

Quote:
Well I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I can tell you that I haven't been all that excited about any of the games that have been played yet.  

I don't think I realized how unwatchably bad the NL West must be.

In my case, after the Astros lost, I lost about 95% of my interest in baseball. I watch the games, but I don't hang on every pitch.

[RyanED]

GReast idea for a thread mehiba.

I love the Houston Astros.  I think the play offs are bad with out wathing the Houston Astros. I lost 100 per cent of the play offs becase the Houstom Astros are not playing. I think that next year we shoud get Rod Jones to pitch for Brad Lige.  I think Rod Jones will be better than Brad Lige AND ROD JONES PITCHED FOR THE HOUSTON ASTROS BEFORE.  MAwybe we can also get some rookys like TJ House and Charleston Jefferson

[JimR]

what playoffs?

[das]

Quote:
GReast idea for a thread mehiba.

I love the Houston Astros. I think the play offs are bad with out wathing the Houston Astros. I lost 100 per cent of the play offs becase the Houstom Astros are not playing. I think that next year we shoud get Rod Jones to pitch for Brad Lige. I think Rod Jones will be better than Brad Lige AND ROD JONES PITCHED FOR THE HOUSTON ASTROS BEFORE. MAwybe we can also get some rookys like TJ House and Charleston Jefferson  

This is a joke post, right?  It can't  possibly be legit.  It's just too perfect.

[Alkie]

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure why, but this has been allowed to continue.  It was kind of funny in a novelty sense the first day, and now it's just so fucking stupid, you kind of wonder why whoever is doing it is still doing it.

[Alkie]

So far, there have been 8 games this postseason and a total...TOTAL of 3 lead changes.  

Only one game has featured a team losing a lead and getting it back later.  

And unless the Twins, Dodgers, and Padres get their shit together, there's a REAL good chance we won't have any baseball to watch this Sunday.

But I agree with Mihoba, I think after the last 2 weeks of Astros baseball (hanging on every pitch) it's pretty hard to get excited about other teams that suck, not playing interesting games.

Is it February yet?

[das]

Oh, I see.  Been out of the loop for a few days so I just looked around.  How lame is that?  Spoofing a 7 year old...

[Alkie]

Yeah, the first time, ok, it was funny because we had just been knocked out and everyone needed to have a chance to punch a moron.

This is his 5th post, which would be fine if it was someone legitimately that stupid, but it's obviously someone just going out of their way to pretend to be a moron, which as you said, is getting lame.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
So far, there have been 8 games this postseason and a total...TOTAL of 3 lead changes.  

Only one game has featured a team losing a lead and getting it back later.  

And unless the Twins, Dodgers, and Padres get their shit together, there's a REAL good chance we won't have any baseball to watch this Sunday.

But I agree with Mihoba, I think after the last 2 weeks of Astros baseball (hanging on every pitch) it's pretty hard to get excited about other teams that suck, not playing interesting games.

Is it February yet?

From what I can tell on the radio, the Twins-A's games have been decent.

Other than that?  Garbage.

[Alkie]

Yeah, you're probably right.  I guess I should have stated it as "the games I've been able to watch."

I haven't seen a minute of the A's/Twins because the games start at 4 in the morning.  I'll probably leave at 3 today, however, so I can catch the end of that series.

[juliogotay]

who is Rod Jones?

[strosrays]

Quote:
who is Rod Jones?

One of Mark Foley's screen names?

Quote:
So far, there have been 8 games this postseason and a total...TOTAL of 3 lead changes.

Only one game has featured a team losing a lead and getting it back later.

And unless the Twins, Dodgers, and Padres get their shit together, there's a REAL good chance we won't have any baseball to watch this Sunday.

Watered-down baseball.  I know the Wild Card setup has been kind to the Astros, but most years once you get past the top couple of teams in each league, you're talking some seriously flawed playoff entrants.  Especially when a league has something of a mediocre year, like the NL this season.  

I was watching the NYM-LA game last night, and it occurred to me the Dodgers had started Marlon Anderson in left, Kenny Lofton in CF, and Julio Lugo at 3B.  And a kid making his sixth MLB start (1-5, 4+ ERA) going out there against the Mets and Glavine.  That's more like an expansion team lineup.

Since I saw this topic yesterday, I have been trying to think why I haven't really got interested in the post-season yet.  Partly because Houston isn't there, OK, but also because in these division series, the result of every series seemed so obvious, going in.  And the Dodgers have to be the least worthy playoff team I have seen in awhile.  I'd rather the Phillies made it.

[The Spleen]

A total dullfest so far... that Mets-Dodgers game last night was about as exciting as an Amish porn flick...

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
...or that all my picks are losing, but does anyone else feel like thru the first 3 days, these have been the most boring fucking playoffs you can remember?

These games just haven't been all that interesting.

I could care less about the other teams once the Astros are gone. And it doesn't matter whether they're watered-down teams or whether they're teams of epic strength.

It's funny that there's a lot of bitching about the Yankees having a team of all-stars, and there's a lot of bitching about the National League teams being relatively weak. So is it competitive imbalance that sucks or competitive balance that sucks?

[Alkie]

I'm not sure who is bitching about competitive balance.  We don't exactly have an example of that right now.

ETA:  There are 3 series that will most likely end in the next 24 hours without one of the teams getting a win in each series.  How is that competitive?

[Golden Sombrero]

Without the 'Stros the postseason leaves much to be desired, especially when I have to watch the Jakes and the steM run away with their DS.  And then, joy of joys, a Jakes-steM NLCS.  The 10th Circle of Dante's Inferno.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I'm not sure who is bitching about competitive balance.  We don't exactly have an example of that right now.

ETA:  There are 3 series that will most likely end in the next 24 hours without one of the teams getting a win in each series.  How is that competitive?

Are you asserting that the results of three games (in each series) are a reliable measure of competitiveness?

[Alkie]

Are you trying to suggest to me that in 3 of the series, in which one team will most likely not only WIN all 3 games, but in which the loser won't have even held a LEAD in two of those series that this shows anything BUT a lack of competitiveness?

By definition, if a team doesn't even hold a lead in a series of any length, that series was the opposite of "competitive."  

The Twins are about to get swept out having never held a lead.  You call this competitive baseball?

[Alkie]

Ok, here's something for you...

In the history of the National League, only 2 teams have ever been swept in a 5 game series in which the losing team never held a lead.

The '97 Astros and......
Last year.  The SAN DIEGO PADRES against the ST LOUIS CARDINALS.  If the Padres manage to lose tomorrow without a lead, they will have managed quite a feat: swept out in two NLDSs by the same team, without even holding a single lead.  Man.

Suck.

ETA: If that happens, and the Padres get swept without holding a lead, that says quite a bit about the playoffs this year.  In the history of this sport, there had only been 5 five-game-series that had been sweeps where the loesr never held a lead.  Then we'd get two of those this year.  Sucksucksuck.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Are you trying to suggest to me that in 3 of the series, in which one team will most likely not only WIN all 3 games, but in which the loser won't have even held a LEAD in two of those series that this shows anything BUT a lack of competitiveness?

By definition, if a team doesn't even hold a lead in a series of any length, that series was the opposite of "competitive."  

The Twins are about to get swept out having never held a lead.  You call this competitive baseball?

Well, how can I disagree with that? The Twins, Padres and Dodgers obviously aren't fit to hold the jockstraps of the A's, Cardinals and Mets.

Some hacker must've gotten onto the MLB Web site and changed the numbers, because there's no way the Twins went 6-4 against the A's, the Padres went 4-2 against the Cardinals and the Dodgers went 3-4 against the Mets in the regular season. It's manifest from the playoffs that the Twins, Padres and Dodgers just aren't competitive with the A's, Cardinals and Mets.

Why do they even bother to play the games?

[Alkie]

I'm not sure why you're being a fucking jackass about this, but let's see if you can follow this:

I never said the teams shouldn't be IN the fucking playoffs, I said the series have been TERRIBLE, UNCOMPETITIVE BASEBALL.

Or would you like to try to put more words in my mouth and then be a prick about it?

[SoonerJim]

Quote:
I'm not sure why you're being a fucking jackass about this, but let's see if you can follow this:

I never said the teams shouldn't be IN the fucking playoffs, I said the series have been TERRIBLE, UNCOMPETITIVE BASEBALL.

Or would you like to try to put more words in my mouth and then be a prick about it?

The more teams allowed in the post-season, then there is  greater disparity between and the worse initial play. The NBA playoff system is the template for this type  of "competition".

The Astros aren't there, and while I am grateful for the wild card which has kept them from total oblivion, this is not your father's pennant race. Championship teams of old often has one or two HOFers in the lineup. Now, it's Julio Lugo with a championship ring shot. The turnstiles are jumping, and we'll take the watered-down postseason as the tradeoff.

[strosrays]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not sure why you're being a fucking jackass about this, but let's see if you can follow this:

I never said the teams shouldn't be IN the fucking playoffs, I said the series have been TERRIBLE, UNCOMPETITIVE BASEBALL.

Or would you like to try to put more words in my mouth and then be a prick about it?

The more teams allowed in the post-season, then there is  greater disparity between and the worse initial play. The NBA playoff system is the template for this type  of "competition".

The Astros aren't there, and while I am grateful for the wild card which has kept them from total oblivion, this is not your father's pennant race. Championship teams of old often has one or two HOFers in the lineup. Now, it's Julio Lugo with a championship ring shot. The turnstiles are jumping, and we'll take the watered-down postseason as the tradeoff.

All true.  And don't forget hockey.

OK, do forget hockey.  Most everyone else has.

I will amend my whine-a-tribe above to the extent that now I'm getting a bit more interested.  What I forgot before is that one virtue of the compression of the game the short series brings on is that sometimes the lumbering, take-five-pitches-and-then-swing-for-the-fences style of offense popular today doesn't work so well, especially when the opponent A.) has some pitching, and B.) has some speed, and knows how to use it.

Jim Leyland obviously does.  I enjoyed the NYY-DET game yesterday, partly at seeing the fired-up fans in the MC, but mostly because I won't forget for awhile the inning the Tigers took command for good, when Curtis Granderson literally ran the Yankees out of the game (and maybe the series.)

1970s-'80s era National League baseball, in Detroit, in 2006?  Nice.

[JimR]

ok, i'll try to explain without being labeled a prick, but i do not think you can make judgements about competitiveness on the basis of 3 games UNLESS all you are saying is that THOSE 3 games were not competitive and were one-sided.

perhaps that is all you were saying.

imo, even in a sweep, the scores of the games are evidence of competitiveness. the 2005 WS is a good example of that to me.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I'm not sure why you're being a fucking jackass about this, but let's see if you can follow this:

I never said the teams shouldn't be IN the fucking playoffs, I said the series have been TERRIBLE, UNCOMPETITIVE BASEBALL.

Or would you like to try to put more words in my mouth and then be a prick about it?

There's no need to get nasty about it. What I am saying is what Jim says more clearly above: three games don't prove whether two teams are competitive with each other. Whether the series have been played competitively is another matter.

Although I would note that, according to Noe's theory of The Play, that the double play at the plate for the Dodgers and Hunter allowing the inside-the-park homer for the Twins could be argued to have affected the competitiveness of those series. Turn those plays around and these might be different animals.

The 2005 World Series is an excellent example of a few key events turning an otherwise competitive affair into a sweep.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The more teams allowed in the post-season, then there is  greater disparity between and the worse initial play. The NBA playoff system is the template for this type  of "competition".

The Astros aren't there, and while I am grateful for the wild card which has kept them from total oblivion, this is not your father's pennant race. Championship teams of old often has one or two HOFers in the lineup. Now, it's Julio Lugo with a championship ring shot. The turnstiles are jumping, and we'll take the watered-down postseason as the tradeoff.

This is a romanticized and highly inaccurate view of baseball history butressed by the spurious example of Julio Lugo.

[Alkie]

Ok, I was upset last night when I posted, so let's clear everything up.

Arky, you're right, there was no need to get nasty, and I've since calmed down.

Jim, yes, that is all I'm saying.  I am stating exactly this and nothing more: the specific games (with very, very little exception) in this year's postseason have been unexciting, uncompetitive poo.

To further YOUR point, even though last night's Tigers/Yanks game was 6-0, I thought that game was great.  You had the worst postseason pitcher of all time throwing an absolute gem (I can't believe the Yanks had 5 hits!) against a team that had owned him.  While the game wasn't "competitive" at least it was entertaining.

Most of these games, however, haven't even been that.  The Dodgers series has been a total snooze-fest.  The Twins series wasn't just a sweep (as you stated, the WS last year was GREAT baseball, but ended in a sweep), it was one-sided pretty much after the 7th inning of Game One.  The Cards series I'm watching right now LOOKS like a MLB team is playing a HS team.  Which is amazing because coming in to the series, I thought this was going to be a decent series won by SD.  

So to recap: a sweep does not mean "non-competitive."  3 games do not make a team or a season or the rules non-competitive.  I understand all these things.  I'm saying...so far these playoffs have pretty much sucked with the exception of the Tigers/Yanks series; which you could argue is annoying because of the media making it sound like "wait a second...the Yankees can't lose!  Look at their LINEUP!  The were 162-0!"

Fuck the Yankees.  Go Pads.  Go Dodgers.

Is it February yet?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Ok, I was upset last night when I posted, so let's clear everything up.

Arky, you're right, there was no need to get nasty, and I've since calmed down.

Jim, yes, that is all I'm saying.  I am stating exactly this and nothing more: the specific games (with very, very little exception) in this year's postseason have been unexciting, uncompetitive poo.

To further YOUR point, even though last night's Tigers/Yanks game was 6-0, I thought that game was great.  You had the worst postseason pitcher of all time throwing an absolute gem (I can't believe the Yanks had 5 hits!) against a team that had owned him.  While the game wasn't "competitive" at least it was entertaining.

Most of these games, however, haven't even been that.  The Dodgers series has been a total snooze-fest.  The Twins series wasn't just a sweep (as you stated, the WS last year was GREAT baseball, but ended in a sweep), it was one-sided pretty much after the 7th inning of Game One.  The Cards series I'm watching right now LOOKS like a MLB team is playing a HS team.  Which is amazing because coming in to the series, I thought this was going to be a decent series won by SD.  

So to recap: a sweep does not mean "non-competitive."  3 games do not make a team or a season or the rules non-competitive.  I understand all these things.  I'm saying...so far these playoffs have pretty much sucked with the exception of the Tigers/Yanks series; which you could argue is annoying because of the media making it sound like "wait a second...the Yankees can't lose!  Look at their LINEUP!  The were 162-0!"

Fuck the Yankees.  Go Pads.  Go Dodgers.

Is it February yet?

I've seen a couple of those Tommy Lasorda ads on TV. So let me get this straight: MLB wants all fans to watch the playoffs, but then the playoffs are pretty much covered like everyone loves the Yankees.

Going back to your point last week about the fall in World Series ratings, note that the World Series ratings went down after the strike, but also when the Yankees began making the playoffs every single year.

[Alkie]

Well, I think the playoffs get instantly more interesting if the Yanks get knocked out today.  

It means the media will have to make a choice: cover the OTHER teams or stop paying attention to the playoffs.

Which leads into your second point: I think the over hyping of the Yankees not only ruins baseball for the casual fans, but for folks like us too.

I read something this week that FOX execs were asked if they really wanted another Subway Series, and without answering the question, they pointed out that the last one was a ratings bust.

[homer]

Josh Lewin is awful. He doesn't quite rival McCarver or Morgan, but he is extraordinarily awful in his own special way.

[Alkie]

I don't know if Astrobabe is around or if she can vouch for this, but I was talking to someone in sports broadcasting a couple years ago and they explained to me the reason that FOX broadcasts are so amateur is that they pay worse than anyone else by FAR.

Apparently, they understand that, sure if you don't like it, there's always a hundred thousand kids who will be happy to take minimum wage to be an on-air personality.  What they don't seem to care about is the listener.

[homer]

Never fails, FOX flashes the nohitter graphic and then Cano gets the seeing eye basehit.

[Alkie]

9 outs to go and I don't have to listen to any more about the Yankees.  Except for the people who want to discuss what went wrong, who should they fire, who should they trade, how much can they get for ARod's liver on the black market, why Cashman was brought back, who will pitch for them next year, why we should all be steM fans now, how whoever wins won't have earned it since they're not the Yankees, how it's possible that the Yankees haven't won a World Series in six years (which makes life worth living), have I missed anything?

[homer]

Jeter and the MVP.

[Alkie]

Right.

He's the greatest player ever, you know.  Mr. PERFECT in the playoffs.  His team always win.

Except for the last 6 years.

[homer]

If they say one more time that 'Nobody in the country thought the Yankees could lose' or 'Nobody in the country thought the Tigers could win', I just might vomit.

The Yankees don't have any pitching outside of Wang. The Tigers have a TON of young pitching, top to bottom. Seemed like an easy pick for me.

[Alkie]

We did an office pool in here and of the 36 people, 13 had the Tigers winning this series (36%), more than any of the underdogs in any of the other series (Mets 22%, A's 33%, Cards 14%).  So, yeah, unless you count the people who don't live in NY, no one had the Tigers winning.

In fact, of the picks for eventual WS champs, only the Padres, Yankees, and Twins had more picks than the Tigers.

[Reuben]

Quote:
If they say one more time that 'Nobody in the country thought the Yankees could lose' or 'Nobody in the country thought the Tigers could win', I just might vomit.

The Yankees don't have any pitching outside of Wang. The Tigers have a TON of young pitching, top to bottom. Seemed like an easy pick for me.

It's great because, even putting aside the notion of payroll disparity, the Tigers winning reaffirms a tiny bit what the playoffs are supposed to be about- pitching and a versatile offense (and to a lesser extent a mix of young and old). Nobody in the Tigers lineup put up power numbers like ARod (who hit 8th today), but it's full of guys like Polanco, Granderson, Guillen- and those are guys that often shine in the playoffs anyway.

Granted, they haven't won the World Series or anything. They won three out of four games, and that really shouldn't be blown out of proportion, as I'm sure it will be in NY/mainstream media.

[austro]

Quote:
Granted, they haven't won the World Series or anything. They won three out of four games, and that really shouldn't be blown out of proportion, as I'm sure it will be in NY/mainstream media.

My favorite part was the idiot announcers pointing out that "outside of Detroit, nobody knows about the Tigers."  Well, why do you suppose that might be?  Think it might have something to do with the fact that all 22 Yankee/RedSox games got ESPN coverage?  And that the few remaining slots were alloacted to the Mets?

Alkie's earlier points about the demise of GotW got me to wondering: did they do a better job of spreading the love?  I honestly cannot remember.

[Alkie]

Yes, they did.  And even if they hadn't, TWIB right before the Game of the Week most certainly did.

[austro]

It makes me wonder if the constant emphasis on a handful of teams isn't backfiring.  Not only do people get fed up with the teams that are shoved down their throats, embarrassments like the Royals aren't thrown up on the national stage.  Would KC ownership allow the prolonged suckitude if they knew it was going to be front and center on the national stage?  More to the point, how much pressure would Steinbrenner et al apply to owners of perennially lousy teams if they thought those teams were actually depressing the values of TV contracts, etc?

[Gizzmonic]

I've always maintained that ESPN and FOX are taking the lazy way out, rather than being ambassadors of the game.

In the long run, they would make more money and get better ratings if they did not focus on Yankees-Red Sox to the exclusion of every other team.

But...the people producing the baseball programming, particularly at FOX, seem to start with the idea that baseball is boring and that people need to be distracted from it while they're watching it.

Thus, the only thing that gets any attention is the Red Sox Yankee rivalry.  Interesting to be sure, but not interesting enough to be worth 90% of all their baseball coverage (statistics courtesy of My Ass Inc.).  

In short, television presentation of baseball needs an enema.

Quote:
It makes me wonder if the constant emphasis on a handful of teams isn't backfiring.  Not only do people get fed up with the teams that are shoved down their throats, embarrassments like the Royals aren't thrown up on the national stage.  Would KC ownership allow the prolonged suckitude if they knew it was going to be front and center on the national stage?  More to the point, how much pressure would Steinbrenner et al apply to owners of perennially lousy teams if they thought those teams were actually depressing the values of TV contracts, etc?

[Alkie]

Quote:
But...the people producing the baseball programming, particularly at FOX, seem to start with the idea that baseball is boring and that people need to be distracted from it while they're watching it.

Oh, this was entirely my point about FOX.  It's obvious that THEY don't find baseball interesting, they assume Americans don't find it interesting, and they produce it as such.  

Listen to Vin Scully call a Dodger game.  He assumes you not only love baseball and the Dodgers, but that you understand and appreciate the game.  He talks to you like a die-hard baseball fan, but keeps it easy enough for someone listening to their first game.

Most of the schmucks on FOX couldn't explain the infield fly rule and they don't care that they couldn't.  The important thing is to hire the cheapest announcers that are willing to travel 100% of the time, work 3 major sports at once, and don't mind the fact that, sure, their lives suck, but at least they're on air.  

Fox doesn't care about baseball and they don't care that you don't care about baseball, as long as you tune in long enough during the baseball time slots to help ratings.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
But...the people producing the baseball programming, particularly at FOX, seem to start with the idea that baseball is boring and that people need to be distracted from it while they're watching it.

Oh, this was entirely my point about FOX.  It's obvious that THEY don't find baseball interesting, they assume Americans don't find it interesting, and they produce it as such.  

Listen to Vin Scully call a Dodger game.  He assumes you not only love baseball and the Dodgers, but that you understand and appreciate the game.  He talks to you like a die-hard baseball fan, but keeps it easy enough for someone listening to their first game.

Most of the schmucks on FOX couldn't explain the infield fly rule and they don't care that they couldn't.  The important thing is to hire the cheapest announcers that are willing to travel 100% of the time, work 3 major sports at once, and don't mind the fact that, sure, their lives suck, but at least they're on air.  

Fox doesn't care about baseball and they don't care that you don't care about baseball, as long as you tune in long enough during the baseball time slots to help ratings.

In fact Roone Arledge thought baseball was boring.  He figured out cool ways to broadcast football but didn't do anything for baseball.  Baseball is shot with a medium establishing shot of the pitcher, then one for the batter, long shot from behind or when they have an extra camera, above for the pitch.  Same for every stinking pitch.  Then, they mix it up with closeups of the batter and pitcher.  Dull boring and tells you nothing about the game.  There are small variations, but mostly for atmosphere.

[austro]

Quote:
In fact Roone Arledge thought baseball was boring.  He figured out cool ways to broadcast football but didn't do anything for baseball.  Baseball is shot with a medium establishing shot of the pitcher, then one for the batter, long shot from behind or when they have an extra camera, above for the pitch.  Same for every stinking pitch.  Then, they mix it up with closeups of the batter and pitcher.  Dull boring and tells you nothing about the game.  There are small variations, but mostly for atmosphere.

That's an interesting take.  So imagine that you've staged a palace coup and deposed Roone Arledge; what production changes would you "suggest" for your broadcasts?

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
In fact Roone Arledge thought baseball was boring.  He figured out cool ways to broadcast football but didn't do anything for baseball.  Baseball is shot with a medium establishing shot of the pitcher, then one for the batter, long shot from behind or when they have an extra camera, above for the pitch.  Same for every stinking pitch.  Then, they mix it up with closeups of the batter and pitcher.  Dull boring and tells you nothing about the game.  There are small variations, but mostly for atmosphere.

That's an interesting take.  So imagine that you've staged a palace coup and deposed Roone Arledge; what production changes would you "suggest" for your broadcasts?

Roone Arledge is dead. So, no coup needed.  The only thing that has been added since he invented sports coverage is the little box giving the score and the superimposed first down lines.  Baseball could use different camera angles.  At this point a camera could be put anywhere, a mini camera in the shortstops cap?  Could be done easy.  The camera angles that are used were invented for football which is perfect for wide angles.

[otterj]

I'm still waiting for the time when each game, in all sports, has multiple cameras on the field where each individual at-home viewer gets to pick his own camera choice via his own remote. Why wouldn't this work?

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In fact Roone Arledge thought baseball was boring.  He figured out cool ways to broadcast football but didn't do anything for baseball.  Baseball is shot with a medium establishing shot of the pitcher, then one for the batter, long shot from behind or when they have an extra camera, above for the pitch.  Same for every stinking pitch.  Then, they mix it up with closeups of the batter and pitcher.  Dull boring and tells you nothing about the game.  There are small variations, but mostly for atmosphere.

That's an interesting take.  So imagine that you've staged a palace coup and deposed Roone Arledge; what production changes would you "suggest" for your broadcasts?

Roone Arledge is dead. So, no coup needed.  The only thing that has been added since he invented sports coverage is the little box giving the score and the superimposed first down lines.  Baseball could use different camera angles.  At this point a camera could be put anywhere, a mini camera in the shortstops cap?  Could be done easy.  The camera angles that are used were invented for football which is perfect for wide angles.

i think what's needed most is an audio/visual scheme that fully captures all the goings on in every part of the field.  tv makes baseball seem like a game that's purely pitcher versus batter, with the defense a significant factor only for diving stops and the like, and the manager and umpires only factors for the occassional arguments each has with the other.  it doesn't require that much creativity to design a production scheme that is able to monitor the many different evolving matchups and interactions going on in each at-bat (defensive positioning, umpire and catcher, batter and manager etc.), a production scheme that is able to accurately portray the way a given at-bat evolves from pitch to pitch.  currently, at-bats seem like random events where a pitcher just throws up his best pitch and the batter just tries to hit it anywhere he can.  but even on a basic level, the viewer should be able to easily see, for instance, exactly where the defense is positioned in a given at-bat and how the pitcher is trying to get the batter to hit the ball to those positions.  imagine a john madden-like color man examining, say, an overhead shot of an infield playing for a ground ball up the middle against a left handed hitter, with the color man using his telestrator to show on that overhead shot where the ball is expected to go in the infield, and then showing a closeup of the catcher to telestrate where the pitcher is going to try to pitch the hitter to get that ground ball up the middle.  and then as we watch this play out, we can really understand why it happens the way it happens, and what the pitcher, batter, and defense are doing to adjust to the changing count, and other considerations like baserunners.

which brings up another issue; the horrible audio on most mlb broadcasts.  there's so much intersting audio happening on the field at any given time, yet all the viewer hears is the announcers, crowd noise, and the crack of the bat and pop of the pitch into the glove.  how many times has, say, an umpire called a strike on a pitch the batter thought was a ball and all you hear are the announcers saying "he doesn't like this call one bit," which is accompanied by a soundless medium shot of the batter TURNED AWAY FROM THE CAMERA (!) saying a subtle, frustrated word to the ump that the viewer doesn't see or hear?  and that's just one example.

[Gizzmonic]

Quote:
I'm still waiting for the time when each game, in all sports, has multiple cameras on the field where each individual at-home viewer gets to pick his own camera choice via his own remote. Why wouldn't this work?

They don't want you to see the cameramen zooming down hot chick's shirts while they're not live.

Also, broadcasting equipment is just not set up that way-you have one transmitter going back to the satellite.  Perhaps in the far future, a separate channel like DirecTV's "mix" channel where they show 6 games at once would be possible, except it would be 6 angles at the same time.
 
I'd love a video game simulation of the live sporting event director's job.  Start with 4 cameras, then move up to 6, 8, etc.  Pick the best angle, or your ratings tank.  Man the faders, yell at the cameraman...fire the announcers when they show up drunk.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
It makes me wonder if the constant emphasis on a handful of teams isn't backfiring.

I think it is. It's the NBAization of baseball. The Yankees get covered like the Bulls and Lakers used to, which got old really fast.

[pravata]

Quote:
...or that all my picks are losing, but does anyone else feel like thru the first 3 days, these have been the most boring fucking playoffs you can remember?

These games just haven't been all that interesting.

You're not alone The Link

[Alkie]

Just wait til the end of the NLCS.  This one won't have nearly the drama or great games of the last two, I bet you.

Honestly, and I'm not saying this because I'm biased, I can't believe that real sportswriters don't openly hope we make the playoffs, if for no other reason than we seem to play in some of the most dramatic postseason games that make for great stories.

If I'm remembering right, we've played in the Greatest Game Ever, Greatest Series Ever, Longest Postseason Game Ever, and Longest World Series Game ever.  Did I miss one?  This doesn't even include Game Five.

[pravata]

Quote:
Just wait til the end of the NLCS.  This one won't have nearly the drama or great games of the last two, I bet you.

Honestly, and I'm not saying this because I'm biased, I can't believe that real sportswriters don't openly hope we make the playoffs, if for no other reason than we seem to play in some of the most dramatic postseason games that make for great stories.

If I'm remembering right, we've played in the Greatest Game Ever, Greatest Series Ever, Longest Postseason Game Ever, and Longest World Series Game ever.  Did I miss one?  This doesn't even include Game Five.

You remember rightly.  And biased? Hardly.  This guy from Emory University sees it.  How is it that there's only 2 guys on the planet who understand that the post season is crap without the Astros?  How "entertaining" is the ass whoopin the Mets are about to put on the Cardinals going to be?

[Alkie]

Well, but this guy is a Braves fan at a university in Atlanta.  He's saying he misses the Braves/Astros in the NLDS, not that he just wishes the ASTROS were in the playoffs.

[pravata]

Quote:
Well, but this guy is a Braves fan at a university in Atlanta.  He's saying he misses the Braves/Astros in the NLDS, not that he just wishes the ASTROS were in the playoffs.

Really?  Braves vs Cardinals?  Braves vs Mets?  When has that ever been fun.  Nope, admit it.  The playoffs are objectively to shit without the Astros.

[Alkie]

Oh, I hope you're not trying to convince ME.  

I fer it.

I think they should give the Astros a free pass every year so I don't have to ride the emotional roller coaster of the regular season.  I think they should skip the NLDS unless the Braves and Astros are playing.

[Tralfaz]

Quote:

If I'm remembering right, we've played in the Greatest Game Ever, Greatest Series Ever, Longest Postseason Game Ever, and Longest World Series Game ever.  Did I miss one?  This doesn't even include Game Five.

You know, I always feel like total homer argueing this with fans of other teams, but I really think there is something to it.  I'm with you on the Longest Postseason and World Series games ever and Game Five against the 86 Mets, but which are you calling the Greatest Game and Series?

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:

If I'm remembering right, we've played in the Greatest Game Ever, Greatest Series Ever, Longest Postseason Game Ever, and Longest World Series Game ever.  Did I miss one?  This doesn't even include Game Five.

You know, I always feel like total homer argueing this with fans of other teams, but I really think there is something to it.  I'm with you on the Longest Postseason and World Series games ever and Game Five against the 86 Mets, but which are you calling the Greatest Game and Series?

Greatest Series - 1986 NLCS
Greatest Game - 1986 Game 6 - this is not even open for debate.  It is settled fact.

[Bench]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If I'm remembering right, we've played in the Greatest Game Ever, Greatest Series Ever, Longest Postseason Game Ever, and Longest World Series Game ever.  Did I miss one?  This doesn't even include Game Five.

You know, I always feel like total homer argueing this with fans of other teams, but I really think there is something to it.  I'm with you on the Longest Postseason and World Series games ever and Game Five against the 86 Mets, but which are you calling the Greatest Game and Series?

Greatest Series - 1986 NLCS
Greatest Game - 1986 Game 6 - this is not even open for debate.  It is settled fact.

I thought "Greatest Series" was the 1980 NLCS.

[Limey]

Quote:
I'm still waiting for the time when each game, in all sports, has multiple cameras on the field where each individual at-home viewer gets to pick his own camera choice via his own remote. Why wouldn't this work?

Cable/Satellite subscribers in the UK have had this for years.  But the bigger question is: why isn't this available for porn?