Harrelson, predictably, taken to task by media

[caulfield12]

Oh come on...baseball has trouble attracting younger viewers because of the slow pace. It has very little to do with what Hawk, or Vin or other "old men" say or do.

 

God forbid kids actually have to sit down and think a little. Or take something at a little bit of a slower pace than their video games provide.

 

I don't understand why everything needs to revolve around what "kids today want." Maybe the kids of today are wrong? Maybe the kids of today need to wake up and smell the coffee that the real world doesn't always give them exactly what they want RIGHT NOW? I get it, the kids of today determine where the money of tomorrow is spent, and we all need to please them...but it's really not a great lesson to be teaching them.

 

 

Actually, lots of young people love to listen to Vin Scully describe a game...so many people bring their radios to Dodgers Stadium just to follow along and listen to his play by play, it's almost eerie.

 

Hawk is certainly not in that league with Scully, Jon Miller, Jerry Coleman, John Rooney, Dave Niehaus, Ernie Harwell, Uecker, etc.

Edited August 14, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Didn't read the article, but what he said is absolutely wrong. You can dismiss it as being OMG YOU ARE SO SENSITIVE but he talked down to a portion of the Sox fanbase. It's just pointless and stupid.

 

He really needs to go. There's so much adding up at this point. He's flat-out bad at his job. He can't see the game (oh, the ball bounced over the wall?). Everything has to be some grandiose, incorrect point about the game of baseball. He doesn't understand, or dismisses, advanced statistics.

 

Anyone who listened to any of those Wimpy and Stone games know what a non-s***ty broadcast booth can sound like. It was so refreshing to have people call a game, talk about today's game and the sport overall, and leave it at that. It wasn't hard, and every one of those broadcasts was so much better than any Hawk-called game right now.

 

Best suggestion I heard is letting Hawk do home games next year, and that's it. Start to phase out.

 

Blackhawks have already backtracked on playing THE STRIPPER while they're doing the score-the-puck promo.

 

Next, they're probably not going to have the "hot girl" go out there anymore along with the kids and Joe Schmo dude that gets booed for missing.

 

Finally, they're changing the attire of their ice crew to make them a little more conventional/conservative. All responses to the fact that 38% of their fanbase is female and notices these types of things.

 

It's just like the story with Land's End cross-promotion sending out complimentary GQ magazines to women and impressionable young kids with a half-naked model/actress on the front...sometimes you have to THINK first. While GQ isn't exactly porn, I could understand mothers of boys being upset, and then you can also find plenty of women simply citing the obvious inherent objectification of women issue.

Edited August 14, 2014 by caulfield12

[Buehrle>Wood]

If you want to attract younger fans, Hawk is absolutely the solution to that, not getting rid of him. He's fun, his nicknames are cool, and his catchphrases are memorable. He got me to be a Sox fan as I'm sure he has many others. He's the Dick Vitale of baseball. He may not be for you, but he's good for the game.

[bmags]

Didn't read the article, but what he said is absolutely wrong. You can dismiss it as being OMG YOU ARE SO SENSITIVE but he talked down to a portion of the Sox fanbase. It's just pointless and stupid.

 

This is what I was trying to get at. When baseball is already hurting, why risk stuff like this.

 

Every other sport I follow is trying to increase it's reach with women because women like sports.

 

Glad to know baseball is healthy enough that it can use them as fodder for old man jokes.

[Dick Allen]

Blackhawks have already backtracked on playing THE STRIPPER while they're doing the score-the-puck promo.

 

Next, they're probably not going to have the "hot girl" go out there anymore along with the kids and Joe Schmo dude that gets booed for missing.

 

Finally, they're changing the attire of their ice crew to make them a little more conventional/conservative. All responses to the fact that 38% of their fanbase is female and notices these type of things.

 

It's just like the story with Land's End cross-promotion sending out complimentary GQ magazines to women and impressionable young kids with a half-naked model/actress on the front...sometimes you have to THINK first. While GQ isn't exactly porn, I could understand mothers of boys being upset, and then you can also find plenty of women simply citing the obvious inherent objectification of women issue.

Are the Hawks going to get rid of the scantily clad Ice Crew? Doesn't seem they hire any average looking women for that job. How wrong.

[bmags]

Are the Hawks going to get rid of the scantily clad Ice Crew? Doesn't seem they hire any average looking women for that job. How wrong.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-dad...-202440158.html

 

It's amazing...it's like people don't like being treated like s*** by teams they are fans of.

[shysocks]

Anyone who listened to any of those Wimpy and Stone games know what a non-s***ty broadcast booth can sound like.

God was that great. It really was delightful and we'll have something like it before too long.

 

At the same time, you should read the article. It was super, super dumb.

[southsider2k5]

I wonder where the outrage was when Frank Thomas was being referred to as the Big Skirt.

 

Which was very popular with radio talk show hosts. I'll bet tape exists with all of them doing it at various times when Frank made some of his patented dumb statements.

[iamshack]

Didn't read the article, but what he said is absolutely wrong. You can dismiss it as being OMG YOU ARE SO SENSITIVE but he talked down to a portion of the Sox fanbase. It's just pointless and stupid.

 

He really needs to go. There's so much adding up at this point. He's flat-out bad at his job. He can't see the game (oh, the ball bounced over the wall?). Everything has to be some grandiose, incorrect point about the game of baseball. He doesn't understand, or dismisses, advanced statistics.

 

Anyone who listened to any of those Wimpy and Stone games know what a non-s***ty broadcast booth can sound like. It was so refreshing to have people call a game, talk about today's game and the sport overall, and leave it at that. It wasn't hard, and every one of those broadcasts was so much better than any Hawk-called game right now.

 

Best suggestion I heard is letting Hawk do home games next year, and that's it. Start to phase out.

All I can say is watch the other games. You'll quickly find out that the vast majority of other team's broadcasters are dreadfully dull to watch. Yes, I agree, it would be nice if Hawk would be willing to repeat less of his "You show me a hitter who can't be jammed and I'll show you a bad hitter" nonsense. But at the same time, he does actually provide wisdom and experience from time to time. If you don't appreciate it, fine...but some people do. There are people who played this game before you started watching. There were great players that played before 1993. It would actually add some perspective to the game to recognize that.

 

I'm not sure how many of you guys that rip on Hawk ever got a chance to hear Harry Caray call games. Hawk is to you guys what Harry Caray was to me growing up, and Jimmy Piersall to kids a decade or so older than me. When I was younger, we used to die laughing, or cringe, or just shake our heads at the stuff Harry Caray would say. Guy was flat out drinking old styles during the game. He'd say things like "Sosa spelled backwards is Asos" and "Hey Steve, I haven't seen you with any ladies lately." Once he reached a certain age, he was just brutal...but it was hilarious, and it added character to a game that has plenty of time for character to be added. Years later, do you think Cubs fans miss the games his much more professional grandson Chip called, or the ones that Harry called?

 

Who cares if he can't see whether a ball bounced over the wall or not. You have 27 different replays to show you otherwise. You have Steve in there correcting him.

 

And Wimpy...the guy is hilarious, but c'mon...he doesn't know the game any better...in fact, he knows a lot less. All he says is stuff like "Gee Steve, Gordon is really hitting the ball hard lately...watch how he lets the ball get deep on him so he can take it the other way." I mean that gets old after about the 4th time he says it. For as talented as Steve is, and as much as I enjoy listening to him, the games Hawk and Wimpy do are far more entertaining to me than the ones Steve and Wimpy do....but then again, maybe that's just because I grew up listening to the two of them for so many years.

Edited August 14, 2014 by iamshack

[iamshack]

Olbermann had a good piece on this yesterday, you should find it if you can. Kids is one thing, but the game overall is going down in popularity with all age levels. They are going to run into a bigger problem sooner than later. Adapt or die.

 

You have plenty of people on here who think the pace is too slow and hurting the game, and I'm pretty sure all of them aren't 13 years old.

Golf is getting hit with the same criticisms.

 

Baseball and golf are not going to die. And we shouldn't be making huge changes to games that have been around for 2+ centuries so that the latest generation of teenagers can get their fat asses off the couch.

[IlliniKrush]

All I can say is watch the other games. You'll quickly find out that the vast majority of other team's broadcasters are dreadfully dull to watch. Yes, I agree, it would be nice if Hawk would be willing to repeat less of his "You show me a hitter who can't be jammed and I'll show you a bad hitter" nonsense. But at the same time, he does actually provide wisdom and experience from time to time. If you don't appreciate it, fine...but some people do. There are people who played this game before you started watching. There were great players that played before 1993. It would actually add some perspective to the game to recognize that.

 

I'm not sure how many of you guys that rip on Hawk ever got a chance to hear Harry Caray call games. Hawk is to you guys what Harry Caray was to me growing up, and Jimmy Piersall to kids a decade or so older than me. When I was younger, we used to die laughing, or cringe, or just shake our heads at the stuff Harry Caray would say. Guy was flat out drinking old styles during the game. He'd say things like "Sosa spelled backwards is Asos" and "Hey Steve, I haven't seen you with any ladies lately." Once he reached a certain age, he was just brutal...but it was hilarious, and it added character to a game that has plenty of time for character to be added. Years later, do you think Cubs fans miss the games his much more professional grandson Skip called, or the ones that Harry called?

 

Who cares if he can't see whether a ball bounced over the wall or not. You have 27 different replays to show you otherwise. You have Steve in there correcting him.

 

And Wimpy...the guy is hilarious, but c'mon...he doesn't know the game any better...in fact, he knows a lot less. All he says is stuff like "Gee Steve, Gordon is really hitting the ball hard lately...watch how he lets the ball get deep on him so he can take it the other way." I mean that gets old after about the 4th time he says it. For as talented as Steve is, and as much as I enjoy listening to him, the games Hawk and Wimpy do are far more entertaining to me than the ones Steve and Wimpy do....but then again, maybe that's just because I grew up listening to the two of them for so many years.

You ripped Wimpy for repeating things? How many Sox games do you actually watch that Hawk calls? That's all he does. You learn things from Hawk at this point? No one does.

 

There's a difference between sometimes talking about old players or games and telling the same story 500 times, or making some stupid, incorrect, grandiose point, because he feels like he has to do so.

 

I have watched other games. Not every team. But they are better than Hawk's absolute nonsense for 9 innings.

[Chisoxfn]

Oh come on...baseball has trouble attracting younger viewers because of the slow pace. It has very little to do with what Hawk, or Vin or other "old men" say or do.

 

God forbid kids actually have to sit down and think a little. Or take something at a little bit of a slower pace than their video games provide.

 

I don't understand why everything needs to revolve around what "kids today want." Maybe the kids of today are wrong? Maybe the kids of today need to wake up and smell the coffee that the real world doesn't always give them exactly what they want RIGHT NOW? I get it, the kids of today determine where the money of tomorrow is spent, and we all need to please them...but it's really not a great lesson to be teaching them.

One of the many reasons I think the biggest priority for the next commissioner, outside of the labor agreement, is speeding up the pace of baseball. Drop replay, put in some serious regulations to increase the action / speed. IIRC, the length of a baseball game today vs. 40 years ago is significantly longer. I'm sure part of that is commercial breaks (although those existed back in the day too). However, since 1970, the average baseball game has increased by approximately 30 minutes (from roughly 2.5 hr's to almost 3hr's). There are also more pitching changes now, I'm going to presume, then 30 or 40 years ago, however, I'd go to more extreme's to limit the amount of pitches and the total amount of time you can take during pitching changes and also potentially alter rules for mound visits in an inning. Maybe truly cap it at 1 per inning vs. current rules which can allow multiple in an inning (presuming the 2nd time you visit each pitcher you are pulling them).

[chw42]

Wow, this sure got overblown...

[IlliniKrush]

Golf is getting hit with the same criticisms.

 

Baseball and golf are not going to die. And we shouldn't be making huge changes to games that have been around for 2+ centuries so that the latest generation of teenagers can get their fat asses off the couch.

Well, again, it's not just "kids." But they are indeed the future fans of the game, and changing pace of play is good for everyone.

[bmags]

Golf is getting hit with the same criticisms.

 

Baseball and golf are not going to die. And we shouldn't be making huge changes to games that have been around for 2+ centuries so that the latest generation of teenagers can get their fat asses off the couch.

 

You'd think baseball was like, the most athletically demanding from the way you talk.

[bmags]

God was that great. It really was delightful and we'll have something like it before too long.

 

At the same time, you should read the article. It was super, super dumb.

 

I may have never read the article either.

[iamshack]

You ripped Wimpy for repeating things? How many Sox games do you actually watch that Hawk calls? That's all he does. You learn things from Hawk at this point? No one does.

 

There's a difference between sometimes talking about old players or games and telling the same story 500 times, or making some stupid, incorrect, grandiose point, because he feels like he has to do so.

 

I have watched other games. Not every team. But they are better than Hawk's absolute nonsense for 9 innings.

I've watched more games that Hawk has called than probably 95% of people that post here, trust me. I've watched probably 80-90% of our games since 1983 or so.

 

I know, I know...we kids and young adults always know so much more than our stupid elders...

 

Do you think that your generation is the first to think they knew everything? Honestly? Can't you tell by now that basically every generation grows up thinking they know everything, only to realize as they grow older just how smart their parents and grandparents really were? I know I am coming off like some old fart here, but honestly, have some respect for people that have done things you haven't. Have some respect for a guy that played the game at an incredibly high level for many years. Have some respect for a guy that was a GM, turned down managerial jobs, and has been a broadcaster for 35 years.

 

That certainly is not to say that 100% of what the guy says is correct. We all know it isn't. But c'mon...it usually turns out that people that have come before us aren't nearly as dumb as we once thought they were. He does know just a little bit about the game.

 

 

[iamshack]

You'd think baseball was like, the most athletically demanding from the way you talk.

Right, because you would know

[Rowand44]

Wait...this really bothers people?

 

I've been tired of Hawk for years but good god the oversensitivity of people now a days is absurd.

[Steve9347]

How stupid.

[iamshack]

One of the many reasons I think the biggest priority for the next commissioner, outside of the labor agreement, is speeding up the pace of baseball. Drop replay, put in some serious regulations to increase the action / speed. IIRC, the length of a baseball game today vs. 40 years ago is significantly longer. I'm sure part of that is commercial breaks (although those existed back in the day too). However, since 1970, the average baseball game has increased by approximately 30 minutes (from roughly 2.5 hr's to almost 3hr's). There are also more pitching changes now, I'm going to presume, then 30 or 40 years ago, however, I'd go to more extreme's to limit the amount of pitches and the total amount of time you can take during pitching changes and also potentially alter rules for mound visits in an inning. Maybe truly cap it at 1 per inning vs. current rules which can allow multiple in an inning (presuming the 2nd time you visit each pitcher you are pulling them).

Well, the games are longer for several reasons, first of which is that the analytics have changed the strategy to the point where hitters are seeing more pitches, we're seeing more pitching changes, and of course, probably longer breaks between innings because of television.

 

I have no problem with speeding up the pace of the game a bit, but that should probably come from more efficiently operating and managing the game rather than changing rules.

[greg775]

One of the many reasons I think the biggest priority for the next commissioner, outside of the labor agreement, is speeding up the pace of baseball. Drop replay, put in some serious regulations to increase the action / speed. IIRC, the length of a baseball game today vs. 40 years ago is significantly longer. I'm sure part of that is commercial breaks (although those existed back in the day too). However, since 1970, the average baseball game has increased by approximately 30 minutes (from roughly 2.5 hr's to almost 3hr's). There are also more pitching changes now, I'm going to presume, then 30 or 40 years ago, however, I'd go to more extreme's to limit the amount of pitches and the total amount of time you can take during pitching changes and also potentially alter rules for mound visits in an inning. Maybe truly cap it at 1 per inning vs. current rules which can allow multiple in an inning (presuming the 2nd time you visit each pitcher you are pulling them).

 

Great great post.

The sixth inning on is often brutal in baseball! Also the superstitious hitters (yes, Paulie included) who have to go through the ritual where they unstrap the batting gloves then re-strap them, etc. I think the rule is you can't step out of the box once you are in it. If that's true, stay in the box! Also pitchers take way too long to deliver a pitch and that is against rules as well.

Finally the umps won't call the strike zone correctly and haven't for 15 years.

[Rowand44]

One of the many reasons I think the biggest priority for the next commissioner, outside of the labor agreement, is speeding up the pace of baseball. Drop replay, put in some serious regulations to increase the action / speed. IIRC, the length of a baseball game today vs. 40 years ago is significantly longer. I'm sure part of that is commercial breaks (although those existed back in the day too). However, since 1970, the average baseball game has increased by approximately 30 minutes (from roughly 2.5 hr's to almost 3hr's). There are also more pitching changes now, I'm going to presume, then 30 or 40 years ago, however, I'd go to more extreme's to limit the amount of pitches and the total amount of time you can take during pitching changes and also potentially alter rules for mound visits in an inning. Maybe truly cap it at 1 per inning vs. current rules which can allow multiple in an inning (presuming the 2nd time you visit each pitcher you are pulling them).

I agree in theory but baseball is just slow no matter what you do to speed it up.

[iamshack]

I agree in theory but baseball is just slow no matter what you do to speed it up.

But that is part of the beauty of it...there are 162 of these freaking things! The games are on EVERY FREAKING NIGHT practically.

 

I've always thought the beauty of it was you can do other things and still follow the game. You don't have to be focused intently like with football. You turn the game on and enjoy dinner, or read a book, or surf the internet (post on Soxtalk!). If you're at the game, you can enjoy something to eat and drink, have conversations with your friends, enjoy being outdoors on a summer evening.

 

Baseball is a relaxed thing to take in. I don't understand what is wrong with that.

Edited August 14, 2014 by iamshack

[caulfield12]

But that is part of the beauty of it...there are 162 of these freaking things! The games are on EVERY FREAKING NIGHT practically.

 

I've always thought the beauty of it was you can do other things and still follow the game. You don't have to be focused intently like with football. You turn the game on and enjoy dinner, or read a book, or surf the internet (post on Soxtalk!). If you're at the game, you can enjoy something to eat and drink, have conversations with your friends, enjoy being outdoors on a summer evening.

 

Baseball is a relaxed thing to take in. I don't understand what is wrong with that.

 

And yet most football games only have 3-4 minutes of ACTUAL action.