Uh-oh...Harrelson wants to hold on until 2020

[chitownsportsfan]

 

I'm pretty sure it's insight like this that is why Hawk is still around, right? He can tell you that hitting ahead in the count is better than behind. What a tremendous, rare insight into the game of baseball.

[Thad Bosley]

I'm pretty sure it's insight like this that is why Hawk is still around, right? He can tell you that hitting ahead in the count is better than behind. What a tremendous, rare insight into the game of baseball.

More insight gathered there than in playing "Sox Math" every single game with Benetti.

[flavum]

If there was an option just to watch the game with the ambient crowd noise, I would use it.

[southsider2k5]

More insight gathered there than in playing "Sox Math" every single game with Benetti.

 

Or that moths fly out of Steve Stones wallet.

[Quin]

More insight gathered there than in playing "Sox Math" every single game with Benetti.

 

How dare he engage the audience at home and encourage interaction!

[Thad Bosley]

Or that moths fly out of Steve Stones wallet.

My problem with that schtick is that it's not original. Both Carays - Harry and Chip - used to fill in the gaps during a broadcast with the "Steve is cheap!" routine. It's been done, and for several years already.

[Jake]

I still definitely prefer Hawk and in my ideal world we'd be able to replace him with a person who truly loves the team he's broadcasting for (and isn't afraid to show it). I also felt that he seemed really reinvigorated by the time off last year, which is a plus. For where the Sox are right now, Hawk has an important quality: He falls in love with young players and has no qualms singing their praises in spite of bad performance. We're going to need someone to cheerlead our young guys—Soxtalkers know not to take scouting advice from Hawk, but lots of fans don't follow along closely enough to know whether to get excited about a player, who he is, etc. Hawk can help get some people excited for the future.

 

I really don't mind Benneti and I think he has some major potential. It seems like some people are put off by his geeky sense of humor, but I think he'll learn how to hone that and not let it get too far out there. But he's definitely a more conventional broadcaster in that he tries not to get too enthusiastic.

 

The guy who I don't like is Steve. With Hawk, I always felt that they both are trying to be the smartest, best broadcaster in the booth and it takes away from their back and forth. Benneti and some of the other fill-ins have no problem deferring to Steve and it gets gross. My best example of Steve's demeanor is how he tends to respond to the "sticks and Stone" segments; he gets as vague as possible because even in a silly little thing like that he hates to be wrong on the air. Of course, something that is true regardless of his partner is his dead silence if he disagrees with what is said.

 

I will say this about Hawk, though: He's the rare former player-turned-PBP guy. It's what makes him hard to work with because as a former player, you expect him to provide analysis in the same way you do the color day. At the same time, he has control over the pace and rhythm of the broadcast because he's doing play-by-play. When I first became familiar with the distinction between color guy and PBP guy, I didn't understand it because if Hawk is anything, it's colorful. So he's a rare bird, pardon my pun.

 

...but if we have to get someone, who would I have to bribe to get Jon Miller?

[Con te Giolito]

I've long wanted Ozzie in the booth but that is a wish I will never see granted.

[Bananarchy]

I don't know why people

1) Require their announcers to love the team

2) Don't understand that the broadcast team is meant to be professional and reasonably inpartial

3) Think Hawk is a broadcaster

[Dick Allen]

I don't know why people

1) Require their announcers to love the team

2) Don't understand that the broadcast team is meant to be professional and reasonably inpartial

3) Think Hawk is a broadcaster

So a local telecast being beamed out to White Sox fans trying to sell the White Sox is supposed to be impartial?

 

That's pretty funny.

[Thad Bosley]

I don't know why people

1) Require their announcers to love the team

2) Don't understand that the broadcast team is meant to be professional and reasonably inpartial

3) Think Hawk is a broadcaster

ESPN announcers with no affiliation to either team should be impartial during a broadcast and have no obligation to "love" the team. A team's announcer broadcasting to the team's fan base has no reason to be impartial, none whatsoever, and ought not to be. 162 games of impartial broadcasting would be dreadfully boring. Give me the Hawk or Harry Caray any day over that kind of a snoozefest.

 

Meanwhile, those in the know responsible for administering the Ford Fricke award seem to think the Hawk is a broadcaster, given that he's been nominated a couple of times now for that prestigious "broadcasting" award.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Thad Bosley

[Bananarchy]

So a local telecast being beamed out to White Sox fans trying to sell the White Sox is supposed to be impartial?

 

That's pretty funny.

Most great broadcasters limit their partiality in order to not lose sight of their jobs. A play-by-play person is meant to give play-by-play, not cheer along with the fans or curse umpires.

 

Of course you don't understand. You want your announcer to be your best friend. The rest of us deserve a real broadcaster for both home and road games.

 

ESPN announcers with no affiliation to either team should be impartial during a broadcast and have no obligation to "love" the team. A team's announcer broadcasting to the team's fan base has no reason to be impartial, none whatsoever, and ought not to be. 162 games of impartial broadcasting would be dreadfully boring. Give me the Hawk or Harry Caray any day over that kind of a snoozefest.

 

Meanwhile, those in the know responsible for administering the Ford Fricke award seem to think the Hawk is a broadcaster, given that he's been nominated a couple of times now for that prestigious "broadcasting" award.

That's a career-long award, but the Hawk they wish to honor no longer calls White Sox games. He's been horrible for a decade.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Deadpool

[Thad Bosley]

Most great broadcasters limit their partiality in order to not lose sight of their jobs. A play-by-play person is meant to give play-by-play, not cheer along with the fans or curse umpires.

 

Of course you don't understand. You want your announcer to be your best friend. The rest of us deserve a real broadcaster for both home and road games.

 

 

That's a career-long award, but the Hawk they wish to honor no longer calls White Sox games. He's been horrible for a decade.

In your opinion. There are many others who respectfully disagree with this view.

[Bananarchy]

In your opinion. There are many others who respectfully disagree with this view.

But when you really think about it, Hawk is the worst part of any broadcast in baseball. He's the signature piece of a perennial loser.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-broadc...ntro-and-31-32/

Edited January 4, 2017 by Deadpool

[Dick Allen]

Most great broadcasters limit their partiality in order to not lose sight of their jobs. A play-by-play person is meant to give play-by-play, not cheer along with the fans or curse umpires.

 

Of course you don't understand. You want your announcer to be your best friend. The rest of us deserve a real broadcaster for both home and road games.

 

 

That's a career-long award, but the Hawk they wish to honor no longer calls White Sox games. He's been horrible for a decade.

The only one who doesn't understand is you.

 

There isn't a local broadcast in professional sports that is impartial. Even your boys Len and whoever his partner get excited when the Cubs are winning. Not as excited as you perhaps, but not exactly impartial.

 

 

The only person who thinks having a passion for the White Sox is a negative is you.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Dick Allen

[Bananarchy]

The only one who doesn't understand is you.

 

There isn't a local broadcast in professional sports that is impartial. Even your boys Len and whoever his partner get excited when the Cubs are winning. Not as excited as you perhaps, but not exactly impartial.

 

 

The only person who thinks having a passion for the White Sox is a negative is you.

But they don't let it get in the way of the job at hand. They, like Benetti (and Stone, for that matter), get excited when it's appropriate, but they don't start yelling at umpires or whining about umpiring when the next guy is up to bat. Hawk shatters like a broken glass whenever anything unexpected happens and Stone has to do Hawks job to keep the broadcast coherent.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Deadpool

[Dick Allen]

But they don't let it get in the way of the job at hand. They, like Benetti (and Stone, for that matter), get excited when it's appropriate, but they don't start yelling at umpires or whining about umpiring when the next guy is up to bat. Hawk shatters like a broken glass whenever anything unexpected happens and Stone has to do Hawks job to keep the broadcast coherent.

Get excited hen it's appropriate? I suppose it would be up to you to determine when it's appropriate, but it does contradict what you wrote. You just wrote we don't understand the broadcast is supposed to be impartial.

 

If that is what you want, why even have the sound on? You can see if a pitch is a strike or the ball his hit to the SS. They flash the stats and the score and the pitch count and the pitch speed on the screen. You want a boring broadcast, it's easy to achieve.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Dick Allen

[Thad Bosley]

But when you really think about it, Hawk is the worst part of any broadcast in baseball. He's the signature piece of a perennial loser.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-broadc...ntro-and-31-32/

And I have really thought about it, and what I've concluded is that there's not one announcer out there that's for everybody, not even the venerable Mr. Scully, and therefore everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter. You are not a fan of the Hawk for whatever reason you've drummed up in your head, and that's fine. You've made that clear. But there are those who thoroughly enjoy his style of broadcasting, and that's fine as well. That really is all there is to it. No one person's opinion prevails on this one.

[Quin]

Lmao at people in here taking shots at Vin Scully.

[southsider2k5]

So a local telecast being beamed out to White Sox fans trying to sell the White Sox is supposed to be impartial?

 

That's pretty funny.

 

Look around Chicago. You will find Homer's that put Hawk to shame. Stacey King might as well be a getting a cut as hard as he pushes the Bulls agenda. Pat Foley won't say anything bad about a Blackhawk, but wait until they leave town. Joniak and Thayer are the same way.

 

It really isn't just a Harrelson thing. Again, understanding that each of these groups has a billion dollar business at stake means I absolutely get why they want someone promoting their product every single time they get on the air. Plus from a local broadcast team, I like getting the emotions of the team from my announcers. When they get screwed by a call, I want them to portray upset. When a great shot happens, I want them excited. Go listen to a Pat Foley call of a huge Crawford save. Listen to King give one of his patented one liner calls after a three pointer.

[southsider2k5]

But they don't let it get in the way of the job at hand. They, like Benetti (and Stone, for that matter), get excited when it's appropriate, but they don't start yelling at umpires or whining about umpiring when the next guy is up to bat. Hawk shatters like a broken glass whenever anything unexpected happens and Stone has to do Hawks job to keep the broadcast coherent.

 

Yeah, you must not listen to much other Chicago sports because there are plenty of times that I have heard announcing crews get bitter with officiating.

[Bananarchy]

Get excited hen it's appropriate? I suppose it would be up to you to determine when it's appropriate, but it does contradict what you wrote. You just wrote we don't understand the broadcast is supposed to be impartial.

 

If that is what you want, why even have the sound on? You can see if a pitch is a strike or the ball his hit to the SS. They flash the stats and the score and the pitch count and the pitch speed on the screen. You want a boring broadcast, it's easy to achieve.

rea·son·a·bly

ˈrēz(ə)nəblē/Submit

adverb

1. in a fair and sensible way.

 

 

Reasonably partial. Reasonably.

[Thad Bosley]

Lmao at people in here taking shots at Vin Scully.

Don't know what thread you're reading, but nobody's taken anything remotely resembling a "shot" at Mr. Scully throughout this discussion.

[Bananarchy]

Yeah, you must not listen to much other Chicago sports because there are plenty of times that I have heard announcing crews get bitter with officiating.

Are you arguing that Stacey King is a good broadcaster? I most certainly am not. He can go, too.

[ChiSoxFanMike]

Hawk Harrelson is the greatest thing since sliced bread and anyone who disagrees with that statement is wrong. End of discussion.