PDA

View Full Version : New appreciation for Marty B.



StillFunkyB
04-12-2006, 09:14 AM
I have always liked Marty, I just get very annoyed when someone walks in the booth, and he starts talking about golf, or one of those "you had to be there to understand" stories.

Well, yesterday I was forced to listen to the Cubs radio guys on XM. Holy Cow, they suck. Ron Santo is a complete moron, and while the other guy is just plain bad.

So, I have a new found appreciation for Marty, even with his "stories".

RedsManRick
04-12-2006, 09:15 AM
Santo can be pure comedy - especially after the game. You honestly fear he's going to hurt himself after some of those homers.

Heath
04-12-2006, 09:33 AM
This week get a listen if you can to Mike Shannon - there's another one for you that might be Marty B.-like

Also - late at night, sometime in my car - you can get the "far off" teams. The Yankees are down right horrendous & the Mets aren't much better. Tom Hamilton of the Indians does a pretty good job, but gets a little too emotional and listening to Mike Hegan is like watching the paint dry. I'm actually impressed with Rick Manning.

As much as I disagree with Marty sometimes - I'm glad I have him to discuss the game and the other stuff. There are a ton of worse radio announcers out there.

NJReds
04-12-2006, 09:40 AM
The Mets team isn't too bad. Not very exciting.

Sterling (Yankees) is a clown, but highly entertaining. Poor Suzyn Waldman only gets to do commercials for 9 innings.

Chip R
04-12-2006, 09:50 AM
I have always liked Marty, I just get very annoyed when someone walks in the booth, and he starts talking about golf, or one of those "you had to be there to understand" stories.

Well, yesterday I was forced to listen to the Cubs radio guys on XM. Holy Cow, they suck. Ron Santo is a complete moron, and while the other guy is just plain bad.

So, I have a new found appreciation for Marty, even with his "stories".

I've been as rough on Marty as anyone here. I could care less about his stories and he doesn't have to be so critical of players. But the only thing Santo is good for is comedy i.e. when the Cubs are getting beat. I have been forced to listen to that moron too many times when the Reds were playing the Cubs. Of course a game like yesterday would be golden. One Saturday afternoon I was driving on the backroads of eastern Illinois trying to get back to I-74. The Cubs were playing the Sox in the Cell that day and I was listening to it on the radio. I think the Sox were ahead by a run or two about the middle of the game. Then the Sox just broke out that inning and scored several runs. Santo was just dying and it was hilarious. The Cubs were playing lousy so that just added to his ire. The Sox scored another run and the PA started playing some song on the organ - not sure if it was Na Na, Hey Hey - but Santo just exploded and said, "Aw, shut up!" I about drove my car off the road I was laughing so hard. He barely spoke the rest of the game and accused Pat Hughes of cheating on their little Guess the Attendence game when Hughes won. :laugh:

Yachtzee
04-12-2006, 09:58 AM
It was pretty funny when the Reds kept hitting HRs and the Cubs couldn't get anything going. I think Santo had to keep it together though because he was singing the 7th Inning stretch. I didn't get to hear much after that because I had to go to class.

GAC
04-12-2006, 09:58 AM
Why is it that we, as fans, can be critical of players (and man are we ever!)... but someone like Marty cannot?

TRF
04-12-2006, 10:01 AM
Why is it that we, as fans, can be critical of players (and man are we ever!)... but someone like Marty cannot?

Because Marty represents the team and has a duty to promote the product. Sometimes he doesn't fully understand the product (Dunn). Sometimes he really doesn't understand (Aurilia). And that lack of understanding hurts the Reds with the public. The man thinks he's bigger than the team.

traderumor
04-12-2006, 10:04 AM
Why is it that we, as fans, can be critical of players (and man are we ever!)... but someone like Marty cannot?He can, its just not always valid and often is stuff that should be left in the clubhouse, like calling WMP the laziest player that he's ever seen. He should leave his criticism to performance issues, but often it is obvious that it is more personal than anything.

Chip R
04-12-2006, 10:12 AM
I don't mind the criticism. If someone makes an error or doesn't hustle or screws up, he has every right to be critical. But there is being critical and there's being overly critical. Say it was a bad play and move on.

registerthis
04-12-2006, 10:20 AM
Because Marty represents the team and has a duty to promote the product. Sometimes he doesn't fully understand the product (Dunn). Sometimes he really doesn't understand (Aurilia). And that lack of understanding hurts the Reds with the public. The man thinks he's bigger than the team.

Yes and no. Marty is one of the public "faces" of the Reds, but he isn't paid to be a homer. I have some problems with Marty, to be sure, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that Marty's criticisms were "hurting the Reds" with the public. Years of consistent losing and management ineptitude have done far, far more to tarnish the team's public image than anything Marty might spout off about during the course of a game.

Yachtzee
04-12-2006, 10:25 AM
I don't mind the criticism. If someone makes an error or doesn't hustle or screws up, he has every right to be critical. But there is being critical and there's being overly critical. Say it was a bad play and move on.

That sums it up for me. Marty's great when he's doing play-by-play. Unfortunately, he will sometimes pontificate about poor play and let the game go by the wayside. We know Adam Dunn strikes out a lot. We also know the defense isn't the best. Harping about it while there's action on the field does nothing to endear you to people who tuned in to hear the game. Why not call the game and then give us your opinion of the way it was played in the post-game wrap up?

reds44
04-12-2006, 11:06 AM
I would have loved to hear Santo's reaction after EE's slam.

Heath
04-12-2006, 11:28 AM
I don't mind the criticism. If someone makes an error or doesn't hustle or screws up, he has every right to be critical. But there is being critical and there's being overly critical. Say it was a bad play and move on.


Funny you mention that Chip - in the Rhodes/Erardi book on the BRM, Marty said that Dick Wagner would tell him the same thing as you mentioned. Marty said that he didn't think that was right.

Marty's much better when the Reds are winning. (Aren't we all?)

Chip R
04-12-2006, 12:09 PM
Funny you mention that Chip - in the Rhodes/Erardi book on the BRM, Marty said that Dick Wagner would tell him the same thing as you mentioned. Marty said that he didn't think that was right.

Marty's much better when the Reds are winning. (Aren't we all?)

I sure didn't like him as a GM but he was great at marketing the Reds.

SteelSD
04-12-2006, 01:18 PM
Because Marty represents the team and has a duty to promote the product. Sometimes he doesn't fully understand the product (Dunn). Sometimes he really doesn't understand (Aurilia). And that lack of understanding hurts the Reds with the public. The man thinks he's bigger than the team.

Yup. And not only does that lack of understanding manifest itself as overly-critical commentary, Marty harbors.

Take, for example, Marty's clueless diatribe about Dunn's Sac Fly drought last season. Ignore the fact that his words DID meld themselves into the consciousness of Joe Average fan. Flash forward to this season when Dunn recorded his 2nd Sac Fly. No one on the Reds could have scored on that ball other than Freel. But that's the nature of a Sac Fly- hit a fly ball far enough away that it will allow the player on 3B to advance 90 feet. Dunn could have hit that ball 100 feet further with Rich Aurilia on 3B and nothing would have come of it.

At that point, Marty had the opportunity to credit Dunn with a "professional" AB for "putting the ball in play" and "advancing the runner". Instead, he called the Sac Fly illegitimate. I just shook my head. After all the times Marty has chastized players for lacking "situational" hitting skills, the Reds best (and most marketable) player does exactly what was needed in that particular situation and Marty acts as if it didn't really happen.

And it's not just Dunn. I'm still waiting for Marty to utter a positive comment about Eddie E's fast start. Maybe it's happened and I missed it. I dunno. Unfortunately, no matter how well you're doing, if Marty Brennaman doesn't like your game you're not going to get positive press even if you deserve it.

That's a real problem because Joe Average fan is worth a lot of money in multiples. And when Marty Brennaman is poisioning the brain of Joe Average fan for the sake of Marty Brennaman, that hurts the ballclub.

lollipopcurve
04-12-2006, 01:46 PM
Dunn could have hit that ball 100 feet further with Rich Aurilia on 3B and nothing would have come of it.

Excellent point. Yet, had this happened, Marty would have scolded Dunn for failing to get the run home.


he called the Sac Fly illegitimate.
Really? Unbelievable. Little fish in big pond anoints self Master of the Sacrifice Fly.


I'm still waiting for Marty to utter a positive comment about Eddie E's fast start.
Why am I not surprised?

I doubt Brandon Phillips is going to be getting any rides on Marty's welcome wagon, either.

Castellini and his co-owners from the broadcasting biz need to freshen the airwaves. The power of tradition is fully corrupted and stale inside the broadcast booth.

Heath
04-12-2006, 02:12 PM
Actually, after EdE's GS and a spectacular & "smart" play by EdE, Marty mentioned about EdE's start of the year and how he's solidifying 3rd Base.

That's unabashed cheerleading out of Marty.

KronoRed
04-12-2006, 02:26 PM
Cub announcers don't really count as announcers, just like the cubs don't really count as a major league team :D

The fact that Marty couldn't bring himself to say something even remotely positive about Dunn's sac fly just goes to prove that he has an agenda in place concerning certain players.

StillFunkyB
04-12-2006, 05:26 PM
I would have loved to hear Santo's reaction after EE's slam.

IIRC he just groaned. I was yelling (by myself, in the car, on I-57) so I didn't really hear him say anything.

vaticanplum
04-12-2006, 05:31 PM
I adore Ron Santo. He doesn't actually call the game, you can just kind of get the gist of what's going on from whether he's screaming in delight or groaning in frustration, and that's pretty much all I care to know about the cubs' games.

His diatribes are absoluely hilarious. I remember one game late last season when the Cubs were losing badly, and he took about fifteen minutes to rant about all the things they had done wrong the entire season. Then he spent about ten minutes complimenting his fellow announcer's watch and asking if he had brought a jacket because it was supposed to get cold. I don't think there was a moment of play-by-play after the fifth inning.

He knows what he's talking about...he just doesn't really bother to share it with people. As a "color" announcer, he's a hoot. It suits the Cubs somehow.

pedro
04-12-2006, 06:08 PM
I don't like to listen to Santo, but then again I'm not a Cubs fan or from Chicago.

I do think he deserves to be in the HOF though. (as a player)

WVPacman
04-12-2006, 11:21 PM
Why is it that we, as fans, can be critical of players (and man are we ever!)... but someone like Marty cannot?


Exactly!!!! Thats why Marty is so GREAT b/c he is no fake.He tells it like it is and if its bad then so be it b/c its the truth.:beerme:

Cedric
04-12-2006, 11:28 PM
Cub announcers don't really count as announcers, just like the cubs don't really count as a major league team :D

The fact that Marty couldn't bring himself to say something even remotely positive about Dunn's sac fly just goes to prove that he has an agenda in place concerning certain players.

Yeah, because he didn't slobber on Dunn he wants him in Dayton.

I doubt if a fan or announcer spoke of Dunn without saying he was perfect you wouldn't be happy. Let's be honest.

KronoRed
04-12-2006, 11:31 PM
Yeah that's just what I said.

Rich Aurilia hits a sac fly = "He produces professional at bats"

Adan Dumm hits a sac fly = "Sac Fly illegitimate"

M2
04-12-2006, 11:31 PM
Exactly!!!! Thats why Marty is so GREAT b/c he is no fake.He tells it like it is and if its bad then so be it b/c its the truth.:beerme:

If Marty were telling the truth, he'd have to admit that despite watching baseball on a constant basis he should stick to calling the action because he's a schmuck at the analysis side of the game.

TeamBoone
04-12-2006, 11:46 PM
Exactly!!!! Thats why Marty is so GREAT b/c he is no fake.He tells it like it is and if its bad then so be it b/c its the truth.:beerme:

Often, it's quite the opposite... usually his opinion, distorted as fact.

WVPacman
04-12-2006, 11:47 PM
If Marty were telling the truth, he'd have to admit that despite watching baseball on a constant basis he should stick to calling the action because he's a schmuck at the analysis side of the game.


What do you expect him to do talk good about Chris Hammand when he is stinking up the joint? Or talk great about the Reds if they are 30 games under 500?? No I don't think so!! A announcer is suppose to tell you whats happening in the games and tell you the truth about a team,player,organzation.Thats exactly what Marty is doing he and joe are the best announcers that I have listened to in my life. I don't want to listen to no fake like Bob Walk or Steve Stone I want to hear the facts of the game and players and thats exactly what Marty gives me.

WMR
04-13-2006, 12:15 AM
What do you expect him to do talk good about Chris Hammand when he is stinking up the joint? Or talk great about the Reds if they are 30 games under 500?? No I don't think so!! A announcer is suppose to tell you whats happening in the games and tell you the truth about a team,player,organzation.Thats exactly what Marty is doing he and joe are the best announcers that I have listened to in my life. I don't want to listen to no fake like Bob Walk or Steve Stone I want to hear the facts of the game and players and thats exactly what Marty gives me.


You see, that's the problem because the average fan thinks exactly like you do concerning Marty which is one reason why so many Reds fans are critical of Dunn without really understanding his game. Sure, Marty, in his mind and many fans, is simply "telling it like it is" [IN HIS MISGUIDED OPINION], but all he's really doing is propagating myths and misnomers that are misrepresenting the value of our best player. (And Dunn is hardly the only victim of his "rants of truth," just the most glaring example.)

StillFunkyB
04-13-2006, 12:19 AM
Well, I didn't really mean for this to turn into a debate on Marty's knowledge of the game.

I really just wanted to say that I felt alot different after hearing other announcers.

pedro
04-13-2006, 12:19 AM
The misguided negativity doesn't bother me as much as the inattention to the game.

Not many announcers are astute about the game and get sucked into the same cliche's. It's to be expected unfortunately.

What isn't OK is talking about your personal life and ignoring the fact that there is a game going on that some people would actually like to try and follow.

If Marty wants to talk about himself let him get a talk show. I don't want to hear it when I tune in to listen to the Reds.

pedro
04-13-2006, 12:20 AM
Well, I didn't really mean for this to turn into a debate on Marty's knowledge of the game.

I really just wanted to say that I felt alot different after hearing other announcers.

The man is good when he tries. He really is. And I agree that that is sometimes very evident when you listen to other announcers such as Santo.

WVPacman
04-13-2006, 12:34 AM
Well, I didn't really mean for this to turn into a debate on Marty's knowledge of the game.

I really just wanted to say that I felt alot different after hearing other announcers.


Nah don't worry about it man, I just wanted to post and tell them that I thought Marty was'nt doing nothing wrong atleast to me he isn't. Everybody has an opinion and I can respect that!!;)

StillFunkyB
04-13-2006, 12:40 AM
The man is good when he tries. He really is. And I agree that that is sometimes very evident when you listen to other announcers such as Santo.

I do really like Marty's interviews before the game. I also really like the way he calls the game, when he's calling the game and not involved in the extra curricular. I like the fact he gets disgusted with bad play, we all do the same. I agree that he crosses the line sometimes with the criticism.

I also like his son, Thom.

Then again, I like alot of the people that some here really hate. I have always liked Jon and Joe on Sunday nights. I agree that Joe says some of the dumbest things ever. I think it's just something I have grown up with and grown to like them.

I like hometown announcers getting excited for their teams. I like Tom Hamilton "SWING AND DRIVE....DEEP LEFT FIELD......GONE!!!!!!"

I like the White Sox guy, "You can put it on the board....YES!"

I don't like when NATIONAL announcers show extreme bias to one team. That annoys me. Nothing wrong with getting excited about a great play or homerun, though.

Just listening to that game on Tuesday, Pat Hughes had a very annoying style. Guess people have their own tastes. Santo was talking about David Ross, and he said something like "I heard he was very good with the arm, but doesn't hit all that well, just something I heard." I was thinking, it's something you heard? Don't you have access to scouting reports right in front of you? He just sounded dumb to me, and I was hoping for something more.

One more thing to note..While I don't think that George Grande is a good announcer, he doesn't annoy me as much as he does others, save his unhealthy man love for Jim Edmonds.

SteelSD
04-13-2006, 12:57 AM
Yeah, because he didn't slobber on Dunn he wants him in Dayton.

I doubt if a fan or announcer spoke of Dunn without saying he was perfect you wouldn't be happy. Let's be honest.

Honesty is telling it like it is rather than Marty telling it how he thinks it should be.

Regarding Adam Dunn- Marty Brennaman has been on his case for years now. Most of it entirely undeserved and caused by Marty's intense dislike of young players and his misunderstanding of how the game really works. Does Dunn have room for improvement. Yes. Sure. That's being honest. But Marty Brennaman has so much invested in a nigh-unrelenting bash fest in some cases that he locks himself into a position he can't back away from without looking foolish- and he knows it.

When that happens, a negative "halo" effect ensues and Brennaman starts looking for things to harp on in order to lend "credibility" to his erroneous positions. Calling Dunn's 2nd sac fly "illegitimate" is just further evidence of that (the actual quote was akin to, "Dunn now has two sacrifice flies this year- one legitimate..."). There's no reason to say crap like that. Ditto for going on and on about Eddie E. last season. No reason for it; particularly during a lost season that SHOULD be used to give good young MLB-ready talent the reps they'll need to get better. At this point, Marty is just a flat out mess who thinks he's got enough rep and tenure to say whatever he likes regardless of the cost to the team. And there is a cost.

A team with Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey Junior possesses a pair of players who should be just as marketable (if not more so) as the "Bash Brothers" combination of Canseco/McGwire in the late 1980's. There's a young exciting 3B on the field. There's real payroll dollar value in marketing that kind of talent and it's imperative that the Reds start to figure out that Marty Brennaman's act is costing the team revenue. And I'm not talking about pie-in-the-sky unabashed hype marketing either. Just good plain intelligent "telling it like it is" will help tremendously.

I'd love it if Marty "told it like it is". If he did so, he'd not only help in making games more bearable to watch but he'd be helping at the gate. I'd trade Brennaman for the Brewers announcers five times a day, seven days a week. Those guys, while mostly insane, actually educate their fans. They talk about the bad when it's bad and likewise the good. They've been smartly prepping their fans for a winning team by talking honest intelligent baseball so that when it happens those fans are going to identify the what and why and are going to be convinced that they're seeing a winning team. In today's environment of intense competition for the disposable entertainment dollar that means money. Big money. The kind of money that can allow a small market club to afford that additional piece NEXT season while running out players THIS season who are worth watching regardless of the team's Won/Loss record.

The Reds? They have a Hall of Fame announcer gone bad fighting for his right to preach "Martyball" instead of giving accurate intelligent commentary. His agenda has turned sharply from providing that kind of commentary; swinging instead to telling it how he thinks it should be in order to further his own legend- which does nothing but cloud the hearts and minds of potential customers with garbage. That means big money too- but in the bad direction.

At some point, even "legendary" announcers gotta go. That time came for Harry Caray and he stayed on long after because he was a loveable guy listened to by folks who like loveable more than they hate losing. At worst, he was a mildly amusing neutral pseudo-distraction. Not so with Marty Brennaman. Not anymore. Not for a long while now.

kyred14
04-13-2006, 01:14 AM
When Marty decides to actually call a game, he still one of the best. I just wish he would keep his opinions to himself. The other day I was listening the Marty B. show, and during one of his 10 second game updates, Aurilla must have made decent play. While gushing over that play, he then goes on to say that "other than Griffey, Rich had the best year of any Red last year." It's sad to listen to Marty anymore.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 09:29 AM
You see, that's the problem because the average fan thinks exactly like you do concerning Marty which is one reason why so many Reds fans are critical of Dunn without really understanding his game. Sure, Marty, in his mind and many fans, is simply "telling it like it is"

I hardly think that the opinion held by many fans that an excessively high strikeout total is a *bad* thing can be attributed to Marty.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 09:45 AM
At some point, even "legendary" announcers gotta go. That time came for Harry Caray and he stayed on long after because he was a loveable guy listened to by folks who like loveable more than they hate losing. At worst, he was a mildly amusing neutral pseudo-distraction. Not so with Marty Brennaman. Not anymore. Not for a long while now.

I've heard the arguments and read post after post regarding this topic, and while I do think Marty is a shadow of his former self, I simply cannot buy into the notion that an announcer--any announcer--has such a detrimental effect on a team and its players as has been attributed to Marty.

His rantings about Dunn cause people to view Dunn more infavorably than they otherwise would? I don't buy it. I know--he's the voice of the Reds, he's their top PR man, he has a certain duty to the franchise, etc. But if this team were winning consistently, not one of those things would matter. If this team were winning, I'd be happy to bash Marty all day long because the behavior of a team's play-by-play guy is so darn trivial in the grand scheme of things. But the fact of the matter is, this team has so many other problems, the misguided opinions of the team's play-by-play guy don't even register with me as a problem that this franchise should focus on addressing. Fix the farm system, the bullpen, the rotation, and the bench first. Put a winning team on the field. Win a division, win a pennant, win a World Series. THEN go after the play-by-play man.

Until then, I'll focus my rantings elsewhere. Marty may be getting bitter in his old age, but this team has bigger fish to fry than him.

westofyou
04-13-2006, 09:51 AM
I doubt if a fan or announcer spoke of Dunn without saying he was perfect you wouldn't be happy. Let's be honest.

And I doubt that any criticism of Marty's now 30 year plus tenure as a Reds announcer would go by the wayside with you, even though most who complain have been listening to him longer than you've been alive and yet you act like their opinion has no weight in the debate.

Let's be honest.

membengal
04-13-2006, 10:36 AM
Steel, that may be the single best post and breakdown of this issue I have ever encountered.

Thanks.

SteelSD
04-13-2006, 10:44 AM
I've heard the arguments and read post after post regarding this topic, and while I do think Marty is a shadow of his former self, I simply cannot buy into the notion that an announcer--any announcer--has such a detrimental effect on a team and its players as has been attributed to Marty.

When Marty Brennaman ludicrously labels Rich Aurilia as the 2nd best player on the team people listen. No doubt in my mind. When Marty continually harps on BA with RISP or Strikeouts or Sac Flies as if they were the consummate indicators of player performance, people listen. When Marty repeatedly slams Edwin Encarnacion for no particular reason, people listen.

People listen and they adopt those opinions as their own. Not you or I. But Joe Average fan does. Folks less adept at picking through truth and lies are influenced by what the voice of the Reds has to say. We see the bleed on internet message boards every single day.

The Reds have a HOF Center Fielder. They have a superstar LF capable of putting up historic numbers as he progresses. They have a young All-Star Shortstop, and a young exciting Third Baseman. All of that is praise-worthy. All marketable. And almost all of it being either ignored or bashed by an announcer who carries weight with the fan base.

As for the effect of winning, I'm with you. Winning takes care of attendance issues. But before the point at which Joe Average fan can identify a winning or losing season, there's money to be made. And yes, there's a great deal of benefit to be had by building up young players in the hearts and minds of Joe Average fan while we're all waiting for a winning club. It's win "prep" work. Accurately represent the positives of good players and you'll end up with a segment of your fan base that's more willing to more quickly rush to the park when the Reds are someplace between "winning" and "contending".

Are there things more important to attendance than Marty Brennaman? Yep. But that doesn't insulate Brennaman from being a negative piece of the puzzle.

traderumor
04-13-2006, 10:49 AM
I'd trade Brennaman for the Brewers announcers five times a day, seven days a week.Have to agree with this one. Uecker gets sold short for how good a pbp and color man he actually is because of his clown reputation, and his sidekick is just as good. I really enjoy when the Brewers are the day game and usually choose their announcers in a game other than the Reds.

And I've always said Marty is a great pbp guy. He just isn't focused enough.

traderumor
04-13-2006, 10:53 AM
When Marty Brennaman ludicrously labels Rich Aurilia as the 2nd best player on the team people listen. No doubt in my mind. When Marty continually harps on BA with RISP or Strikeouts or Sac Flies as if they were the consummate indicators of player performance, people listen. When Marty repeatedly slams Edwin Encarnacion for no particular reason, people listen.

People listen and they adopt those opinions as their own. Not you or I. But Joe Average fan does. Folks less adept at picking through truth and lies are influenced by what the voice of the Reds has to say. We see the bleed on internet message boards every single day.

The Reds have a HOF Center Fielder. They have a superstar LF capable of putting up historic numbers as he progresses. They have a young All-Star Shortstop, and a young exciting Third Baseman. All of that is praise-worthy. All marketable. And almost all of it being either ignored or bashed by an announcer who carries weight with the fan base.

As for the effect of winning, I'm with you. Winning takes care of attendance issues. But before the point at which Joe Average fan can identify a winning or losing season, there's money to be made. And yes, there's a great deal of benefit to be had by building up young players in the hearts and minds of Joe Average fan while we're all waiting for a winning club. It's win "prep" work. Accurately represent the positives of good players and you'll end up with a segment of your fan base that's more willing to more quickly rush to the park when the Reds are someplace between "winning" and "contending".

Are there things more important to attendance than Marty Brennaman? Yep. But that doesn't insulate Brennaman from being a negative piece of the puzzle.
To be honest, Steel, having listened to about half of the games already on radio due to all the day games, Marty has been identifying the real problems on the team--the D and bully. He really hasn't been critical of the offense from what I've heard thus far. Maybe he's finally getting it some.

M2
04-13-2006, 10:53 AM
What do you expect him to do talk good about Chris Hammand when he is stinking up the joint? Or talk great about the Reds if they are 30 games under 500?? No I don't think so!! A announcer is suppose to tell you whats happening in the games and tell you the truth about a team,player,organzation.Thats exactly what Marty is doing he and joe are the best announcers that I have listened to in my life. I don't want to listen to no fake like Bob Walk or Steve Stone I want to hear the facts of the game and players and thats exactly what Marty gives me.

Steel covered most of this in his post, so I'll just refer you to that instead of attempting to repeat it.

My only addition is that anybody who thinks Marty's limited himself to knocking obvious flameouts clearly hasn't paid much attention to him running down pretty much every young player who's come through in recent years. On a daily basis he lobbies against the very thing that might someday pull the franchise out of the five-year slump in which it's been mired.

TRF
04-13-2006, 10:57 AM
If ever there was a couple of posts that should be sent to RCast, it's Steels last two.

Not everyone is a Redszoner type. not everyone has the opportunity to learn about thegame they love from guys and gals that can break down a players value. So they see a strikeout, hear marty lambast the player for not making contact without realizing that strikeout was a better option than swinging at a pitch the player can't do anything with and hitting into a DP.

The game is more than the surface. It's always been more than what you see. Marty is a surface kinda guy. He just reacts without thought. Now when calling a basketball game, that works. The action is so fast, but baseball is a slow game that has spurts of action and plenty of time to break down the game in between pitches. Marty prefers to talk about where he's going to dinner instead.

Tradition is fine. I've never been a rousing we need new blood guy. Marty isn't tradition, he's more an institution. Those are tougher to change much less get rid of. He's a relic of an imagined different time.

lollipopcurve
04-13-2006, 11:08 AM
America is a youth culture, and sports in general have embraced it -- from the X games to shoe contracts for teenage superstars, to the NBA Rookie/2nd-Year player game at the All-Star Game, to the NFL Draft on ESPN, to ESPN's "Next" edition of its newspaper, and on and on.

Here sit the Reds with several very good young players -- All Stars and guys with a chance of becoming All Stars. Yet, every night, game broadcasts hosted by Marty Brennaman ridicule the youngsters for their growing pains and praise older players for, at worst, deeds they never committed (Aurilia's "second-best-on-the-team" 2005) and at best, intangible deeds ("knowing how to play the game") the fans have to embrace on faith alone. It's old, old, behind the curve stuff, and it has no selling power.
They want to grow revenue? Win, yes, but get a broadcasting strategy in place that grows markets around players with growth potential. The young guys. Right now, Brennaman, an older guy with a big head, depresses those markets. He needs to go.

Yachtzee
04-13-2006, 11:11 AM
I hardly think that the opinion held by many fans that an excessively high strikeout total is a *bad* thing can be attributed to Marty.

It's not just the strike outs. Marty criticizes Dunn for striking out too much and not hitting enough sac flies to bring in runners. To Marty, that's a sign that he's not a "professional" hitter. Apparently Marty's a big fan of the dead ball era, when players batted with their hands apart to give them more bat control.

Look at Sean Casey. Last year Dunn hit 2 sac flies to Casey's 5. Not much difference if you ask me. Dunn made fewer outs than Casey, based on OBP (.387 to .371), had more HRs (40 to 9), Doubles (35 to 32), Triples (2 to 0), Walks (114 to 48), Runs (107 to 75), RBI (101 to 58). Dunn had an OPS of .927 compared to Casey's .795. Casey had way more GIDPs at 27 to 6 for Dunn. The only blemishes on Dunn's season at the plate were 168 Ks and a .247 batting average (48 and .312 for Casey). Yet who do you think Marty believes to be the more "professional" hitter? Marty looks at Ks, Sac Flies and batting average and decides that a player isn't doing well enough in his mind.

Look at Rich Aurilia. Last year Rich Aurilia got on base at a clip of .338. Dunn got on base at a clip of .387. If we flip the stat around to make it a negative state, we could say that Aurilia made an out 66% of the time he came to the plate. Dunn made an out 61% of the times he came to the plate. That 5%, over the course of a season, has a significant effect on runs a team scores. Aurilia is 5% more likely to hit the team out of the inning than Dunn. Yet ask Marty who is the more "professional" hitter.

KittyDuran
04-13-2006, 11:15 AM
Winning cures everything - just sayin'... Marty will come around when this team starts to win.

Cedric
04-13-2006, 11:19 AM
And I doubt that any criticism of Marty's now 30 year plus tenure as a Reds announcer would go by the wayside with you, even though most who complain have been listening to him longer than you've been alive and yet you act like their opinion has no weight in the debate.

Let's be honest.

Who's opinion did I give no weight to?

A new Marty B post get's made about once a day and I'm gonna give my opinion on him just like the haters do.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 11:26 AM
Are there things more important to attendance than Marty Brennaman? Yep. But that doesn't insulate Brennaman from being a negative piece of the puzzle.

I don't disagree, but he's LOW on the totem pole as far as I'm concerned. I understand perfectly the argument you're articulating, and I've said that i think Marty could do better and has fallen off substantially in recent years. But I view this as more of a mountain out of a molehill than anything.

Winning is the absolute best marketing a franchise could do. This franchise has been a turd for the better part of the last decade, the problems are going to be so much more apparent. If the reds were perrenial playoff contenders, I'm willing to bet that the negativity of Brennamen would gain nary a mention on this board. Criticism is so much more apparent and open when the team is sucking wind.

So all I'm saying is that I'm not hitching my cart to the anti-Marty bandwagon on the basis that he's causing significant harm to the club. I just don't see the evidence of it.

TRF
04-13-2006, 11:39 AM
I don't disagree, but he's LOW on the totem pole as far as I'm concerned. I understand perfectly the argument you're articulating, and I've said that i think Marty could do better and has fallen off substantially in recent years. But I view this as more of a mountain out of a molehill than anything.

Winning is the absolute best marketing a franchise could do. This franchise has been a turd for the better part of the last decade, the problems are going to be so much more apparent. If the reds were perrenial playoff contenders, I'm willing to bet that the negativity of Brennamen would gain nary a mention on this board. Criticism is so much more apparent and open when the team is sucking wind.

So all I'm saying is that I'm not hitching my cart to the anti-Marty bandwagon on the basis that he's causing significant harm to the club. I just don't see the evidence of it.

But see, the problem is the Reds haven't been winning. Not since 2000, and since they haven't been winning THE MOST RECOGNIZABLE VOICE of the Reds damn sure better be promoting the positives of the Cincinnati Reds.

Problem is Marty doesn't understand the positives.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 11:41 AM
But see, the problem is the Reds haven't been winning. Not since 2000, and since they haven't been winning THE MOST RECOGNIZABLE VOICE of the Reds damn sure better be promoting the positives of the Cincinnati Reds.

Why? I can buy the argument that some of his criticisms are mis-placed, but since when did announcers sign on to be homers?

Cedric
04-13-2006, 11:44 AM
When Marty Brennaman ludicrously labels Rich Aurilia as the 2nd best player on the team people listen. No doubt in my mind. When Marty continually harps on BA with RISP or Strikeouts or Sac Flies as if they were the consummate indicators of player performance, people listen. When Marty repeatedly slams Edwin Encarnacion for no particular reason, people listen.

People listen and they adopt those opinions as their own. Not you or I. But Joe Average fan does. Folks less adept at picking through truth and lies are influenced by what the voice of the Reds has to say. We see the bleed on internet message boards every single day.

The Reds have a HOF Center Fielder. They have a superstar LF capable of putting up historic numbers as he progresses. They have a young All-Star Shortstop, and a young exciting Third Baseman. All of that is praise-worthy. All marketable. And almost all of it being either ignored or bashed by an announcer who carries weight with the fan base.

As for the effect of winning, I'm with you. Winning takes care of attendance issues. But before the point at which Joe Average fan can identify a winning or losing season, there's money to be made. And yes, there's a great deal of benefit to be had by building up young players in the hearts and minds of Joe Average fan while we're all waiting for a winning club. It's win "prep" work. Accurately represent the positives of good players and you'll end up with a segment of your fan base that's more willing to more quickly rush to the park when the Reds are someplace between "winning" and "contending".

Are there things more important to attendance than Marty Brennaman? Yep. But that doesn't insulate Brennaman from being a negative piece of the puzzle.

I agree on his whining. It get's old and is often just flat out wrong. I just think I'm not as sensitive to it because like Register I don't see the harm. I understand your post but I personally think it's a little much to put any blame on Marty for the losing team. Just as I don't blame Cutler or the two angry idiots.
I just think his skills as the announcer of this team outweighs the negatives. I just find a way to laugh them off.

Roy Tucker
04-13-2006, 11:59 AM
Eh. I think Marty's role as announcer is twofold:

#1 is there as a reporter to describe the action accurately and timely to the listener. Like a newspaper reporter who is supposed to get the story correct.

#2 is something akin to a newspaper columnist that expresses his opinion freely. He doesn't care as much for accuracy but more that he has the pulpit to rant and rave. The important thing here is to get people to listen, just like a columnist will intentionally write a controversial column just to get people to read.

Sometimes Marty spends too much time on #2. But, judging by this and other threads, he does that #2 role well. He sure can get people riled up about what he says.

SteelSD
04-13-2006, 12:09 PM
Why? I can buy the argument that some of his criticisms are mis-placed, but since when did announcers sign on to be homers?

I didn't perceive that TRF was implying that Brennaman be an unabashed "homer". But truthfully highlighting the positives should be an expectation.

Here's a great excerpt from an early 2005 chat transcript with Marty. Keep in mind that he's interacting directly with Joe Average fan here...

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050329/SPT04/50329001


redskinalum02 (Mar 29, 2005 12:31:51 PM)
Marty, yet another Adam Dunn strikes out too much question. I have read countless articles discussing how he's changing his approach somewhat and not letting himself get to two strikes, but just the other night you commented that he continues to take too many close pitches. I know changing his approach will take some time (right, wrong or indifferent), but have you noticed any improvement over the course of the spring?

Marty Brennaman (Mar 29, 2005 12:31:51 PM)
Yes, I have. I think his first 26 at-bats he had struck out only three times, and the strikeouts have been more numerous since then. I know he's working hard to make better contact. Adam Dunn, even though he struck out 195 times last year, he walked over 100 times last year, so he has a great eye. I'm thrilled to death that he walks that much, but he's not paid to do that. The most shocking stat of my 31-year career was last year, in 568 at-bats, he did not have one sacrifice fly. If he cut his strikeouts down by 40 or 50, he could probably challenge 60 home runs, that's how talented he is.

Marty Brennaman had an opportunity to highlight the positives of the 9th most productive NL offensive player from 2004 and who was also the best player on the Reds team. Yet instead of getting true insight as to Adam Dunn's value, we get nothing but slaps at Dunn's game. You think that fan went away with a more reasonable perception of Dunn's best player? Nope. He left with the knowledge that Dunn "isn't paid" to avoid Outs and that Dunn's lack of Sac Flies in 2004 was the worst thing Brennaman has ever seen. Would it have been so hard for Brennaman to say something akin to the following:

"Sure, Dunn has been working on cutting down on Strikeouts and I think that's important because he's got enough talent to challenge 60 Home Runs if he does that. But in 2004, Dunn still walked over 100 times last year, scored more than 100 Runs and drove in more than 100 as well. He's a great player and with a continued focus on improving his game he should get even better."

Now, I still might disagree with Marty's take on K's had he said exactly what I just typed, but at least the above would be a reasonable non-homeristic take on the guy. Don't like K's? Fine. But, unsolicited, Brennaman continued PAST that topic to bash the kid for another one of his Marty's pet peeves. Ridiculous stuff, and it does impact fan perception of marketable players. You and I may disagree on how much impact that has, but I'd ask you to consider that marketing is much more important before a product gets "hot". Yes, winning will take care of attendance, but there's money to be made before that point as well.

westofyou
04-13-2006, 12:24 PM
Who's opinion did I give no weight to?

A new Marty B post get's made about once a day and I'm gonna give my opinion on him just like the haters do.

Well just slammed a bunch right there.

"Haters"

You've already "labeled" the peoples opinions as hate, thus giving them no merit in your opinion (which you have every right to have)

So instead of saying, gee you might be right that Marty was up Willie Green's butt in 1997 (I was here before you and I'll be here long after you are gone." was the charm he gave Willie) Instead you just say they are all haters and tell everyone they would hate no matter what.

Well that's fine, but you're reaction to the "haters" is no better than their reaction to Marty.

BTW Cedric, you have my permission to reply to this, and you don't have to back the "common" POV.

M2
04-13-2006, 12:26 PM
Eh. I think Marty's role as announcer is twofold:

#1 is there as a reporter to describe the action accurately and timely to the listener. Like a newspaper reporter who is supposed to get the story correct.

#2 is something akin to a newspaper columnist that expresses his opinion freely. He doesn't care as much for accuracy but more that he has the pulpit to rant and rave. The important thing here is to get people to listen, just like a columnist will intentionally write a controversial column just to get people to read.

Sometimes Marty spends too much time on #2. But, judging by this and other threads, he does that #2 role well. He sure can get people riled up about what he says.

Except I now refuse to listen. I'm a Reds fan with more than a mild interest in the team and I now refuse to listen to the team's radio broadcasts because I find that man so wildly ill-informed and needlessly caustic about the better young players on the team.

I'm not riled up. I'm disgusted.

For those who take his rantings to heart, he's got them all riled up about the most appealing parts of the product.

gonelong
04-13-2006, 01:56 PM
I've heard the arguments and read post after post regarding this topic, and while I do think Marty is a shadow of his former self, I simply cannot buy into the notion that an announcer--any announcer--has such a detrimental effect on a team and its players as has been attributed to Marty.

We are going to watch 60-102 or 102-60 seasons all the same. Its the casual fan that the organization rises and falls with.

Marty is the main conduit of information to (estimating) 50+% of the fanbase, and a MUCH larger percentage of the casual fanbase. If I had a nickel for everytime someone started a sentence with, "Marty said ..." I'd own the Reds.

Its not very pervasisve here, but strike up a conversation with a casual fan and it generally shows up quite quickly.



Marty may be getting bitter in his old age, but this team has bigger fish to fry than him.

No doubt there.

GL

TeamBoone
04-13-2006, 02:14 PM
Ever listen to the Banana Phone conversations? Those callers echo and hang on Marty's every word. And face it, those callers propbably represent 75% of the fan base.

BTW, for whomever said it, I didn't see where anyone said that Marty has an effect on whether the Reds win or lose.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 02:15 PM
You and I may disagree on how much impact that has, but I'd ask you to consider that marketing is much more important before a product gets "hot". Yes, winning will take care of attendance, but there's money to be made before that point as well.

Well, as someone who operates within the marketing field, I both agree and disagree with that. I don't disagree that Marty could cut down on the unnecessary criticisms and unwarranted slams of reds players. I hear the same things you all do--I roll my eyes at the same comments everyone else here does. So, as I think you've correctly ascertained, I'm not a Brennamen defender in the least.

But, with regards to the marketing comment, if we're tying Marty's comments directly into dollars gained and lost by the club, how much of an increase would you expect for the Reds' income if Marty's opinions were more in line with those here, and less critical of undesserving players? I don't perceive much, if any, correlation between the two.

The people "affected" by Marty's behavior are those who are already Reds fans--they're listening and paying attention to the games. It's not the same as the Reds purchasing a full page ad in the Enquirer telling everyone and their brother how much Dunn sucks because he doesn't hit sac flies. These are people who likely already attend games, purchase Reds apparel, and follow the Reds regularly on TV and radio. I don't think Marty telling them that Dunn is an incomplete player is keeping them from spending money on the club. I don't think Marty complaining about Encarnacion's plate discipline, or Lopez's defense, is keeping them from spending their money.

In marketing speak, Marty is a symptom, not a cause. Is his act a tired one? Sure, no doubt about it. Do I get tired of his inconsitencies and flat-out misinformed opinions? Definitely. I just don't think they're harming the club, financially or otherwise, nearly to the extent that some seem to believe they are.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 02:18 PM
Ever listen to the Banana Phone conversations? Those callers echo and hang on Marty's every word. And face it, those callers propbably represent 75% of the fan base.

I don't know about that. I think a vast majority of Reds fans view the banana phone as a waste of time--good for comedic value, and nothing more--and simply don't bother trying to call in. And I've heard plenty of callers disagree with a Marty-ism, or vice versa. The banana phone is a poor representation of Reds fans, methinks.

pedro
04-13-2006, 02:19 PM
I don't know about that. I think a vast majority of Reds fans view the banana phone as a waste of time--good for comedic value, and nothing more--and simply don't bother trying to call in. And I've heard plenty of callers disagree with a Marty-ism, or vice versa. The banana phone is a poor representation of Reds fans, methinks.

sadly, I think it's a pretty good representation.

westofyou
04-13-2006, 02:21 PM
The banana phone is a poor representation of Reds fans, methinks.Shoot, it represents 75% of the people I talk to about the Reds when I'm in Cincinnati.

Now that might say more about how much they like the Reds, or baseball... but they all know Marty and Joe..... but have a hard time naming the infielders.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 02:28 PM
sadly, I think it's a pretty good representation.

i guess I just hang with a idfferent crowd. ;)

MWM
04-13-2006, 02:29 PM
Anyon hear Marty during Dunn's first AB today before he hit the HR? I didn't hear it but someone mentioned he was harping on Dunn's lack of producing runs yesterday. I'd be curious as to what he actually said.

OnBaseMachine
04-13-2006, 02:34 PM
Anyon hear Marty during Dunn's first AB today before he hit the HR?

Nope. What he say? Something stupid I imagine.

pedro
04-13-2006, 02:36 PM
i guess I just hang with a idfferent crowd. ;)

just because we don't hang out with them doesn't mean they don't exist. I pretty sure the last election taught us both that lesson.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 02:41 PM
just because we don't hang out with them doesn't mean they don't exist. I pretty sure the last election taught us both that lesson.

Not sure what you expect me to say--I haven't run into them, and the baseball fans I *do* know are knowledgeable, miles beyond anything that calls into the banana phone. I know Republicans, I know Bush supporters, but I don't know anyone who thinks the Reds should go sign Roger Clemens.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 02:42 PM
Anyon hear Marty during Dunn's first AB today before he hit the HR? I didn't hear it but someone mentioned he was harping on Dunn's lack of producing runs yesterday. I'd be curious as to what he actually said.

He said Dunn was 0-3 yesterday, had plenty of opportunities to drive in a run but was unable to.

pedro
04-13-2006, 02:43 PM
Not sure what you expect me to say--I haven't run into them, and the baseball fans I *do* know are knowledgeable, miles beyond anything that calls into the banana phone. I know Republicans, I know Bush supporters, but I don't know anyone who thinks the Reds should go sign Roger Clemens.

fair enough. :)

westofyou
04-13-2006, 02:44 PM
He said Dunn was 0-3 yesterday, had plenty of opportunities to drive in a run but was unable to.
Did he mention he scored the only run for the Reds all day? :p:

registerthis
04-13-2006, 02:48 PM
Did he mention he scored the only run for the Reds all day? :p:

Sure did, after being cattle prodded by Steve.

KronoRed
04-13-2006, 03:13 PM
Good for Steve

TRF
04-13-2006, 05:23 PM
In the early 80's my uncle would only go to games pitched by Soto. They were that bad. As time went by and hearing very little good about the younger players, he stopped going altogether. Oh, he'd listen, and my grandmother would insist on going to at least 1-2 games per year, but he basically just accepted that the 1982 team was still playing.

Perception is often reality to fans. I'm arguing with a lifelong friend that thinks that Jim Thome was a better player through age 26 than Adam Dunn. His perception is all BA based. He hears that from announcers and thinks .245 BA is killing the Reds.

It makes my head hurt.

Dunn, Kearns, FeLo, EE, Freel, LaRue and of course Jr.

It's a PR dream, and the FO has insomnia.

vaticanplum
04-13-2006, 05:26 PM
May I ask an incredibly basic question that has been plaguing me?

What is the banana phone?

pedro
04-13-2006, 05:32 PM
May I ask an incredibly basic question that has been plaguing me?

What is the banana phone?

it's what they call the segments during rain delays when people call in and ask questions. they seem to screen them to ensure utter stupidity.

pedro
04-13-2006, 05:34 PM
In the early 80's my uncle would only go to games pitched by Soto. They were that bad. As time went by and hearing very little good about the younger players, he stopped going altogether. Oh, he'd listen, and my grandmother would insist on going to at least 1-2 games per year, but he basically just accepted that the 1982 team was still playing.

Perception is often reality to fans. I'm arguing with a lifelong friend that thinks that Jim Thome was a better player through age 26 than Adam Dunn. His perception is all BA based. He hears that from announcers and thinks .245 BA is killing the Reds.

It makes my head hurt.

Dunn, Kearns, FeLo, EE, Freel, LaRue and of course Jr.

It's a PR dream, and the FO has insomnia.


I was having a burger at a local restaurant and was talking about the Reds with some guy at the bar who had grown up in cincinnati and was still a big reds fan. All he could talk about was Dunn's K's and BA.

BRM
04-13-2006, 05:37 PM
I was having a burger at a local restaurant and was talking about the Reds with some guy at the bar who had grown up in cincinnati and was still a big reds fan. All he could talk about was Dunn's K's and BA.

No amount of OBP and SLG will change that person's perception of him either.

SteelSD
04-13-2006, 05:41 PM
Well, as someone who operates within the marketing field, I both agree and disagree with that. I don't disagree that Marty could cut down on the unnecessary criticisms and unwarranted slams of reds players. I hear the same things you all do--I roll my eyes at the same comments everyone else here does. So, as I think you've correctly ascertained, I'm not a Brennamen defender in the least.

Oh, I realize that you're not, in the least, a Marty Brennaman supporter. I think our sole disagreement is as to the amount of damage he causes- not that he's good or bad.


But, with regards to the marketing comment, if we're tying Marty's comments directly into dollars gained and lost by the club, how much of an increase would you expect for the Reds' income if Marty's opinions were more in line with those here, and less critical of undesserving players? I don't perceive much, if any, correlation between the two.

I think that may be (as you note later in this thread), you don't represent the lowest common denominator as a fan and hang with a non-representative cross-section of fans. Fans like you, I, or the folks you know appear to be able to sift through the garbage Marty spews and understand it for what it is. I can do that as well. Any smart person can, regardless of how closely they follow baseball.

That being said, I think I place more weight on the fact that you, I, and your friends don't accurately represent the true nature of the fan base.


The people "affected" by Marty's behavior are those who are already Reds fans--they're listening and paying attention to the games. It's not the same as the Reds purchasing a full page ad in the Enquirer telling everyone and their brother how much Dunn sucks because he doesn't hit sac flies.

I'd rather the Reds purchased said advertisement because a print ad in a daily local periodical would do less damage than does the spoken word when repeatedly positioned to a fanbase that stretches across the country.


These are people who likely already attend games, purchase Reds apparel, and follow the Reds regularly on TV and radio. I don't think Marty telling them that Dunn is an incomplete player is keeping them from spending money on the club. I don't think Marty complaining about Encarnacion's plate discipline, or Lopez's defense, is keeping them from spending their money.

Sure it is. In some cases, it's the make-or-break decision-making point for a middle income (or lower) family.

And Marty's problem isn't that he positions players as "incomplete" it's that he repeatedly bashes the neutral along with the bad and refuses to do anything but begrugingly acknowledge the good from a player who's on his fecal matter list.


In marketing speak, Marty is a symptom, not a cause. Is his act a tired one? Sure, no doubt about it. Do I get tired of his inconsitencies and flat-out misinformed opinions? Definitely. I just don't think they're harming the club, financially or otherwise, nearly to the extent that some seem to believe they are.

Sales and marketing is my career as well, BTW. Marty Brennaman is a living breathing advertisement for the Cincinnati Reds. Heck, he's the primary spokesperson as the acknowledged "Voice of the Reds". He's a credible source to millions and he provides information via two of the most successful marketing avenues on the planet (radio, television). What he says is heard and taken to heart by, IMHO, far more people than you'd care to realize. His opinion about Player X or Player Y impacts consumer interest and consumer loyalty. You hear it on talk shows. You read it on message boards. Every day. Seven days a week.

Is he the biggest problem? Nope. That's losing baseball games. But he's certainly no symptom.

vaticanplum
04-13-2006, 05:43 PM
it's what they call the segments during rain delays when people call in and ask questions. they seem to screen them to ensure utter stupidity.

Thanks Pedro. why is it called the banana phone?

pedro
04-13-2006, 05:46 PM
Thanks Pedro. why is it called the banana phone?

that I do not know.

maybe they have a phone shaped liek a banana that they take calls on.

or maybe it's a nod to chaquita banana which Carl Linder use to own. (or owns)

KronoRed
04-13-2006, 05:47 PM
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgerphone.php

Reds Nd2
04-13-2006, 05:51 PM
that I do not know.

maybe they have a phone shaped liek a banana that they take calls on.

or maybe it's a nod to chaquita banana which Carl Linder use to own. (or owns)

I don't know if they still have it, but at one time they did have a banana shaped phone.

Also, I think Marty is a closet Raffi fan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Bananaphone.jpg

TeamBoone
04-13-2006, 05:56 PM
I don't know about that. I think a vast majority of Reds fans view the banana phone as a waste of time--good for comedic value, and nothing more--and simply don't bother trying to call in. And I've heard plenty of callers disagree with a Marty-ism, or vice versa. The banana phone is a poor representation of Reds fans, methinks.

I sure hope you're right. I can't even listen to it anymore.

TeamBoone
04-13-2006, 06:03 PM
He said Dunn was 0-3 yesterday, had plenty of opportunities to drive in a run but was unable to.

And, of course, it's true, but you had to hear the tone... sooooo condescending.

He expects good batters (especially Griffey and Dunn) to have nothing but perfect ABs, perfect days as a whole. Hell, he expects EE to have perfect ABs at all times.

As long as human beings play this very strategic game, that is not going to happen... not even with Pujols or any of the other big guns.... not even with ANYONE!

Cyclone792
04-13-2006, 06:15 PM
First, I've gotta hand it to Steel, who has posted several outstanding posts in this thread.


We are going to watch 60-102 or 102-60 seasons all the same. Its the casual fan that the organization rises and falls with.

Marty is the main conduit of information to (estimating) 50+% of the fanbase, and a MUCH larger percentage of the casual fanbase. If I had a nickel for everytime someone started a sentence with, "Marty said ..." I'd own the Reds.

Its not very pervasisve here, but strike up a conversation with a casual fan and it generally shows up quite quickly.

I also wanted to highlight GL's post above, because it is absolutely, 100 percent correct. I'm not sure how many people who frequent RedsZone are locals and how many are out-of-towners, but I'm a local and I'll spend 75+ hours in GABP each season (roughly 25 games, give or take a few).

While at the park, I have a tendency to strike up conversations with the fans sitting near me, and I'll inquire about their viewpoints on certain players, certain moves, etc. Just about every single conversation I've had with a random fan in GABP talks as if they're a replica of Marty. It never fails. Some fans are slightly versed in advanced/sabermetric thinking, but many haven't a clue what OPS or any new type of baseball thinking consists of.

Here's some summaries:

Ask them about Dunn? "His BA is low, he strikes out too much and he's the worst defensive player I've seen in my life. He's a clown out there. I don't care about his home runs because he never hits them when guys on are base."

Ask them about Womack? "He has good speed, which we need at the top of the order. I'd rather have him than Freel because Freel's always hurt and can't ever play every day."

Ask them about Encarnacion? "Worst defensive third baseman in the game, too many strikeouts and he can't ever get a clutch hit."

Ask them about Casey? "Our offense needs great hitters like Casey who can put the ball in play with runners on base. He didn't strike out much, and he always had a high BA. He was our best hitter."

Ask them about LaRue? "Always strikes out and has a ton of passed balls. One of the worst catchers in the game."

It goes on and on and on.

At any given Reds game in GABP, there's over 15,000 Marty Brennamen clones sitting in the seats, and it's humorous to see how the overwhelming opinions of Joe Average Fan seem to parallel the thinking of Marty. What Marty thinks and says is what Joe Average Fan down at GABP also thinks and believes. I told one guy down there last season that Dunn was the best hitter on the team, and he asked me when the last time I had my eyes checked out.

Now I do enjoy listening to Marty when he's actually calling the action on the field in an objective manner. But once he starts throwing around his inaccurate and misinformed opinions about individual players, he starts to irritate me, so much so that I've learned to just tune him out when he runs his mouth.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 06:30 PM
His opinion about Player X or Player Y impacts consumer interest and consumer loyalty. You hear it on talk shows. You read it on message boards. Every day. Seven days a week.

How, though? I'm sorry--I don't see it. I need more than mere conjecture that he's "harming" the team financially in order for me to accept it to be so. A middle income family may go to less ballgames because Marty said Adam Dunn walks and K's too much and Wily Mo is lazy? So the guy on the message board, or calling into Furman's show, thinks that Marty is right, and that the examples we've listed are true. You think he's going to decide to stop going to games because of that?

I don't. I think the lure of baseball, of seeing a Junior or a Dunn HR, or a Reds win, is what brings people to the game. Not whether or not they think Dunn K's too much because Marty says so. Attendance and interest in the games correlates significantly with the success of the team (unless you live in Florida or Atlanta.) Look at the steroid scandal, which IMO has a significantly higher chance of impacting the game financially than the comments of play-by-play announcers. Attendance at baseball games has been unaffected by the "scandal"--people are going to games regardless.

Marty's irresponsible behavior leads to uninformed and ignorant fans--which is unfortunate. It leads to the booing of otherwise good players and unnecessary bad-mouthing of the team via the media you mentioned. But I've not seen any evidence that it harms the team any more than that.


Is he the biggest problem? Nope. That's losing baseball games. But he's certainly no symptom.

If he's not a symptom, then the implication is that he's a cause--but if the reds income or attendance is down, it's not because of Marty. He's a symptom of a losing franchise--one that has been so for years. A winning team cures many ills, and a bitter old curmudgeon like Brennamen is one of them. I could virtually guarantee that if the Reds somehow pull together a successful season, Marty's tone would diminish substantially.

registerthis
04-13-2006, 06:33 PM
Now I do enjoy listening to Marty when he's actually calling the action on the field in an objective manner. But once he starts throwing around his inaccurate and misinformed opinions about individual players, he starts to irritate me, so much so that I've learned to just tune him out when he runs his mouth.

I completely agree with you, and your post essentially supports my point. The people you are speaking with are at the games - they're still coming. They're spending their money. Marty's bitterness towards particular players doesn't cause them to stay away.

if the debate is that Marty's opinions are irresponsible and misinformed, then I'm right there with you. If it's that these same opinions are "harming" the franchise, financially and otherwise, that's where I diverge.

RANDY IN INDY
04-13-2006, 06:47 PM
After telling myself not to read this thread, I broke down and read it. Now, again, I know why I tell myself not to read threads like this.

MWM
04-13-2006, 07:12 PM
After telling myself not to read this thread, I broke down and read it. Now, again, I know why I tell myself not to read threads like this.

Why, because some folks view the game, and Marty, differently than you? I agree some of the Marty threads are less than productive, this thread has provided a very well thought out and intelligent discussion of both sides of this issue. I would think that regardless of where one stands on Marty, they would have enjoyed reading this thread.

KittyDuran
04-13-2006, 09:30 PM
At any given Reds game in GABP, there's over 15,000 Marty Brennamen clones sitting in the seats, and it's humorous to see how the overwhelming opinions of Joe Average Fan seem to parallel the thinking of Marty. What Marty thinks and says is what Joe Average Fan down at GABP also thinks and believes. I told one guy down there last season that Dunn was the best hitter on the team, and he asked me when the last time I had my eyes checked out.
And those over 15,000 Marty clones are putting money in the coffers at any given Reds game at GABP... :)

RANDY IN INDY
04-13-2006, 10:06 PM
Why, because some folks view the game, and Marty, differently than you? I agree some of the Marty threads are less than productive, this thread has provided a very well thought out and intelligent discussion of both sides of this issue. I would think that regardless of where one stands on Marty, they would have enjoyed reading this thread.

Sorry, didn't enjoy it. Found it very tired.

RANDY IN INDY
04-13-2006, 10:10 PM
And those over 15,000 Marty clones are putting money in the coffers at any given Reds game at GABP... :)

Good point, Kitty.

Why are some "clones" perceived to be more or less important than other "clones?" I prefer to not be a clone.

KronoRed
04-13-2006, 10:12 PM
And those over 15,000 Marty clones are putting money in the coffers at any given Reds game at GABP... :)
Well considering what some of them say I guess they like the product on the field ;)

KittyDuran
04-13-2006, 11:10 PM
Some fans are slightly versed in advanced/sabermetric thinking, but many haven't a clue what OPS or any new type of baseball thinking consists of.Hey, I resemble that remark! :laugh: ;)

Like I said before those "clones" are attending the games, rooting on the team and spending money. I'd be curious to know how many that you talked to were season ticket holders or go to more than 25 games. They might not like certain players KOs and defense, and hang on to Marty's every word, but I'm sure they love to see the team win. I go to see the team win, too - I don't care who is out on the field or at the plate, and I feel robbed if the team doesn't win.

KittyDuran
04-13-2006, 11:12 PM
Well considering what some of them say I guess they like the product on the field ;)And if they are season ticket holders they have to take the FO's word on fielding a good team since they have to pay before the season. No waiting until the team starts to win to buy tickets...:)

Cyclone792
04-13-2006, 11:59 PM
Hey, I resemble that remark! :laugh: ;)

Like I said before those "clones" are attending the games, rooting on the team and spending money. I'd be curious to know how many that you talked to were season ticket holders or go to more than 25 games. They might not like certain players KOs and defense, and hang on to Marty's every word, but I'm sure they love to see the team win. I go to see the team win, too - I don't care who is out on the field or at the plate, and I feel robbed if the team doesn't win.

I think people may have taken my post in the wrong way, and it wasn't an intention to single anyone out. If I did, my apologies.

Kitty, you're the type of fan that this team needs. You support the team thoroughly throughout the season, you're constantly looking for positives and I very much doubt if you've ever hurled insults at any players whatsoever, much less the guys that are the core of our team.

GABP and the Reds would really benefit if 35,000 fans like you were filling that yard on a nightly basis. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and I'm not pointing the finger of blame to the fans, rather I'm pointing it at Marty (and yes, the finger also greatly points to the front office for fielding the product that they've fielded the last half dozen years).

Part of the problem with what I said about 15,000 clones in the park is the number itself. The place is half empty during the majority of games, and despite having a new stadium, tons of seats don't have butts in them during the games. When Marty blasts certain players based on misinformation, it trickles down to the fans within the local area. If those fans don't know any better to extract some of the inaccurate information from his comments, some will get the impression that key main cogs on our team do nothing but contribute to losing instead of actually heavily contributing to however much winning is occurring on the field. It's not the fans' fault for not being able to differentiate between Marty's ridiculous statements, but it is Marty's fault for saying those same things over and over again. So what do some of those fans do? They don't show up with the same frequency, or they don't show up at all.

Other fans will continue to show up, but when one of a handful of players just makes a routine error or strikes out, the chorus of booing, profanity and insults thrown towards those guys reaches new levels. They hear Marty bash certain players on the air repeatedly when said guys has a rough game, so it must be the in thing to do while witnessing it in person. When Rich Aurilia swings at a terrible pitch out of the zone and grounds out as a result, people shrug it off. Marty himself will shrug it off and still find a way to call it a professional at bat. When Adam Dunn strikes out or misplays a fly ball, people stand up and yell at him. And up in the booth Marty will go off on a rant about how poor of a job Dunn does with runners in scoring position or whatever the situation is. When Rich Aurilia fails to make a play on a ball because he has no range, people shrug it off. When Edwin Encarnacion strikes out or throws a ball away to first that he reached only because of his excellent range, people yell at him.

It's not so much the overall crowds' fault for how they react to mistakes made by certain players, it's the fault of Marty for creating that situation in the first place. With certain highly productive players, Marty still finds ways to concentrate on the negatives, and it just trickles down into the fan base so they too concentrate on those same negatives.

There are very few public figureheads for the Reds, and none bigger than Marty himself. The Reds are a product, and oftentimes the overall reflection of that product mirrors what the public figureheads state about it. In a sense, Marty is a highly public "baseball educator," and when the baseball educator is clearly wrong on several topics he's teaching, the students (fans) learn the wrong material. When Marty beats the dead horse of on-the-air and uncalled for chastising of specific key future ingredients of this franchise, a certain percentage of the fan base really starts to believe that Marty is correct, all of which results in a ton of unfair negativity upon those key players.

There's already a quote in this thread where Marty stated he does not care about walks. Wait a second here. Walks contribute a great deal to the single most important function of a batter's job, which is avoiding outs. When fans ask him about Dunn's low batting average and high strikeout totals, Marty can - and should - find a way to mention that Dunn takes a ton of walks, has a high on-base percentage, avoids outs and creates more scoring opportunities for the team than any other player in the lineup. But Marty doesn't do that. Instead he rails on about how he doesn't care about walks, that Dunn strikes out too much and that Dunn isn't a very good situational hitter. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of the Reds' public begins to buy into such statements.

It just gets old and tiresome having to listen to some of the nonsense that Marty rambles on about game after season after decade. All that nonsense does is just make its way to the local fan base, and in turn the local fan base isn't as supportive of their team as they would be if Marty was actually accurate and well-informed on much of what he says.

I'm not asking for Marty to bow down to guys like Dunn for their great play; I'm merely asking him to be as objective and accurate as possible about Dunn's level of play. The same goes for all 24 other players on the roster.

Like I said, the team need 35,000 fans like you filling the yard every night. Obviously the front office and the product they field plays a large role, but Marty himself also plays a role as a public figurehead speaking about the Reds. I do enjoy listening to Marty when he's calling the action on the field in an objective manner. But his less than half-truth color commentary about the performance of certain players on the team is something the franchise is best off not having to deal with.

M2
04-14-2006, 12:49 AM
May I ask an incredibly basic question that has been plaguing me?

What is the banana phone?

I'm not sure if I remember this right, but didn't Lance Link Secret Chimp use a banana phone on occasion?

SteelSD
04-14-2006, 01:20 AM
How, though? I'm sorry--I don't see it. I need more than mere conjecture that he's "harming" the team financially in order for me to accept it to be so. A middle income family may go to less ballgames because Marty said Adam Dunn walks and K's too much and Wily Mo is lazy? So the guy on the message board, or calling into Furman's show, thinks that Marty is right, and that the examples we've listed are true. You think he's going to decide to stop going to games because of that?

Superstar players are draws even if a team is losing and certainly while a team provides its fanbase the hope of winning even without an absolute confirmation of winning. Adam Dunn should be one such player. There shouldn't be a single fan in earshot of Marty Brennaman who doesn't realize that. Yet, the potential marketing power of said superstar player hasn't been actualized and most likely won't be actualized unless Dunn continues to do historic things for this franchise and becomes what he already is to Joe Average Reds fan in SPITE of Marty Brennaman.

That's clear as day.


I don't. I think the lure of baseball, of seeing a Junior or a Dunn HR, or a Reds win, is what brings people to the game. Not whether or not they think Dunn K's too much because Marty says so. Attendance and interest in the games correlates significantly with the success of the team (unless you live in Florida or Atlanta.) Look at the steroid scandal, which IMO has a significantly higher chance of impacting the game financially than the comments of play-by-play announcers. Attendance at baseball games has been unaffected by the "scandal"--people are going to games regardless.

Of course no one has stopped going to baseball games over steroids. It's probably the single-most overblown attendance non-issue in the history of the game.

And yes, the trump card for attendance is winning baseball. We agree on that and our agreement is absolute. The disagreement is in the amount and/or value of the residual attendance bleed caused by someone who keeps telling the fan base that there's nothing good to see when things aren't going right.

The biggest attendance boost a team can get by playing winning baseball is the year after producing a winning playoff-caliber season. That's an interesting dynamic because it tells us that there's significant opportunity to increase attendance prior to the point at which the playoffs are a certainty. There's a "buildup" period and the more a team can capitalize on it's early-opportunity return, the better off it's going to be.

Losing teams rely on superstar players and never-say-die fans to drive attendance. The Reds have two of those. But to the majority of the fan base only one exists. That's a problem, particularly when he gets hurt (which is, of course, often).

Teams can capitalize on superstar players (if available), but have an additional ability to draw interest to the team if they've got young exciting talent to market. I'm again going to cite the Milwaukee Brewers.

Like the Reds in 2003, the Brewers got an attendance boost benefit from a new park (sometimes entertainment and novelty does trump winning) in 2001 from the newly-opened Miller Park. Let's take a look at their yearly record and attendance from that point forward:

Year: W-L (Attendance <in millions>)

2001: 68-94 (2.8 M)
2002: 56-106 (1.97 M)
2003: 68-94 (1.7 M)
2004: 67-94 (2.06 M)
2005: 81-81 (2.21 M)

What I find interesting is that the difference in attendance between 2003 and 2004, with an identical record, is over 300 K at the ticket window- a bigger gap than when the Brew Crew improved their Win total by 14 games from 2004 to 2005. Now, the Brewers started off decently in 2004, but tanked so badly beginning in July that the 2 million attendance mark should have been nothing but a dream. Yet, they bettered that mark a season after they traded their superstar (Sexson) away. Not a single offensive draw on that team and the only player anyone could consider close to "superstar" level (Sheets) pitched only every five days.

So how'd they do that lacking a daily superstar draw of any kind after a poor season, the lowest payroll in MLB (down 13M from 2003), a second half that could qualify as a Titanic-level ship sinking, and after the luster of a new ballpark had worn off?

Marketing. Take a fan base starved for winning, market excitement, and educate said fan base. Prep them for how winning is going to happen. Does that marketing effort begin and end with a broadcasting crew that's one of the best in the game? Nope. But it sure includes them.

Now, you can tell me that I don't have the empirical data to tell you how many fans those broadcasters were worth and you'd be right. And I'm not even going to hazard a guess as to the actual turnstile value. Conjecture you may call it (and you'd be right), but I fail to see how that broadcasting crew did anything but help prep that team's fan base for when hope and excitement would be something the Brewers could use to further their 2005 efforts. And that additional attendance produced a payroll bump of about 12.5 million bucks for the 2005 squad and that payroll bump was the primary reason the Brewers were able to acquire Carlos Lee- who was responsible for about a third of the Brewers' offensive improvement last season.

So if 12.5 million bucks equals 300,000 fans, how much is each fan worth to the Brewers? Forty-one dollars and sixty-seven cents. Sure seems reasonable to me.

Any portion of the marketing effort is worth dollars and cents. We can disagree on what Marty Brennaman is worth as a negative but, IMHO, I can't see where the degredation of exciting young players is anything but a realistic negative when it comes to revenue production. The Reds have a huge advantage over a team like Milwaukee. The payroll is bigger. The fan base is more rabid about baseball. But they're also more misinformed by a de facto Reds spokesperson who cares more about furthering his own legend than he does about accurately representing what's on the field.

And the Reds just had a season in 2005 very similar to that of the Brewers in 2004. The Reds drew 2.3 million fans in 2004. They spent about 15 million more on payroll in 2005, should have had a great "buzz" going for that season. They won about the same amount of games (with a mostly healthy Griffey), and were in the midst of an All-Star season from Felipe Lopez, and an historic season from Dunn in a Reds history context. The result? The 2005 Reds dumped 350,000 fans versus 2004. If a Reds fan is worth what a Brewers fan is worth, that's a loss of 14.6 million bucks. Yay.

All we heard of was Rich Aurilia, Joe Randa, Strikeouts and no Sac Flies from Dunn, a lack of situational hitting while the Reds were leading the NL in situational hitting, etc. etc. And yes, we also heard about a "lazy" Pena, a "fat" Kearns, a "lazy" Jimenez, chairgate, and every other stupid excuse for bad pitching under the sun. Marty wasn't the sole media propagandist from the Reds side, but he did enough damage to qualify as a major contributor to the "nothing more to see here" faction.

The coup de' grace was his unwavering bashing of the best young positional prospect the Reds have in the system (Encarnacion) when the Reds needed to give every possible opportunity to the best young positional prospect they had. The Brewers turned to Richie Weeks at 2B last season. Hyped for sure. Production not so good either offensively or defensively. But do you think those announcers turned on him the way Brennaman turned on Edwin Encarnacion? No way in Hades, because they understood the idea that players need to learn at the MLB level when you're not contending. And they were excited to see Weeks every game he played. Yet all Marty did was pine for Joe Randa back while obstinately obscuring the real positives Encarnacion's game provided. That's not just misguided. That's harmful.


Marty's irresponsible behavior leads to uninformed and ignorant fans--which is unfortunate. It leads to the booing of otherwise good players and unnecessary bad-mouthing of the team via the media you mentioned. But I've not seen any evidence that it harms the team any more than that.

As I mentioned, if you'd like specific metrics via a case study of Joe Average fan, I'm not going to be able to produce them. But at this point, I'd think that having a product spokesperson who can't be fair and truthful about the product gives us enough insight into the situational dynamic. Color me "old school" about this if you wish but if a spokesperson can't be truthful about the positives while, at the same time, ignoring and/or denigrating best attributes of the product he's nothing but a marketing negative.

Marty Brennaman went on and on and on about the Reds inability to produce situationally in 2004. The Reds were the best situational hitting team in the National League in 2005. How much play has that fact received from Marty Brennaman this season? None other than Rich Aurilia's BA w/RISP numbers. Why? Because Marty Brennaman will only use data if it supports his opinions because he can't possibly waver on his stance that the Reds sucked situationally in 2005. Joe Average fan eats that stuff up and Marty knows it.


If he's not a symptom, then the implication is that he's a cause--but if the reds income or attendance is down, it's not because of Marty. He's a symptom of a losing franchise--one that has been so for years. A winning team cures many ills, and a bitter old curmudgeon like Brennamen is one of them. I could virtually guarantee that if the Reds somehow pull together a successful season, Marty's tone would diminish substantially.

A winning team makes Marty Brennaman more easy to ignore, but that doesn't mean he's helpful from a consumer confidence perspective. You're focusing on the gushing head wound and that's all well and good. But a slow bleed kills you just the same.

WMR
04-14-2006, 01:52 AM
The point I was trying to make and the point that Steel has made so incredibly well throughout this thread is that if Marty B. is taking a "stock" (valuable commodity) such as EE that, let's say for arguments sake, is valued at $100 and reduces its value to $40 in the eyes of X number of fans then the Reds as a product are being harmed and their intrinsic value is diminished.

The actual correlations in terms of dollars and cents might be difficult to prove, but the product is definitely being harmed when X fans adopt Marty's warped value-determination for a player as their own. Marty is their Muse and he DOES watch the Reds everyday, so, if he's making a "point" about EE or Dunn... well, I know *I* don't see the Reds everyday, and Marty DOES tell it like it is... so... I think I agree with him.

I think Marty's effect on the fanbase, particularly the older fanbase, cannot be overestimated.

For the younger fans, he just makes all the young stars--stars that SHOULD be bringing in the younger demographics--sound like incompetent doofuses.

WMR
04-14-2006, 01:58 AM
that I do not know.

maybe they have a phone shaped liek a banana that they take calls on.

or maybe it's a nod to chaquita banana which Carl Linder use to own. (or owns)


I always thought they called it the banana phone as a sort of tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that the majority of the callers on said banana-phone are goofballs (by design?).

Ron Madden
04-14-2006, 02:37 AM
Exactly!!!! Thats why Marty is so GREAT b/c he is no fake.He tells it like it is and if its bad then so be it b/c its the truth.:beerme:

Not Hardly.

It's just his biased opinion.

Caveat Emperor
04-14-2006, 02:47 AM
I think Marty's effect on the fanbase, particularly the older fanbase, cannot be overestimated.

For the younger fans, he just makes all the young stars--stars that SHOULD be bringing in the younger demographics--sound like incompetent doofuses.

I'm actually more than a little curious if there are actually any young fans that LISTEN to baseball games anymore.

When I grew up back in the "bad old days" of the late 80s/early 90s, Marty and Joe were pretty much the only way to follow the Reds if the games weren't being broadcast on over-the-air TV. I don't remember exactly when we got SportsChannel to start watching the games on cable, but it certainly was well into the 90s. Before that, Reds baseball meant listening to the clock radio on my nightstand.

Nowadays, there are just so many options for kids who want to follow the Reds. Just about every game is televised on FSN, and the nearly everyone has the basic cable package that gets the games. Whereas we didn't have a computer at our house until I was at 10 or 11, most people today have computers with at least some access to the internet, allowing people to use GameCast or other services to follow games online.

If I had to hazzard a guess, I'd say there are far, far fewer kids sitting next to the AM radio and getting their Reds news from WLW than there were when most of us grew up.

WMR
04-14-2006, 02:54 AM
You know you're probably right, but as a college-aged kid, I would always keep 700 as my main pre-set for AM channels... plus, won't kids who have XM experience him that way as well? For those people w/o EI or perhaps with MLB.com as well, Marty might be their main link to the Reds...

Although I think you're certainly correct in stating that the genre as a whole doesn't have the "clout" that it used to, ESPECIALLY for younger people in this SportsCenter age...

Ron Madden
04-14-2006, 04:01 AM
Winning cures everything - just sayin'... Marty will come around when this team starts to win.

The 1999 Reds won 96 games.

I enjoyed that '99 season every bit as much as the 1990 club that went wire to wire.

Both seasons have one thing in common.

There was very little rise in attendence untill mid September both years.. Why?

Could it have been the voice of doom in the radio booth ?

Through the dog days of late July untill mid September of both '90 and '99 fans would tune in to hear Marty tell it like it is.

Every night Marty would tell Reds fans that the bottom was about to drop out, "This Team just doesn't have what it takes" Fans listen to him. Fans believe everything he says.

That Hurts this organization in terms of attendence and the dumbing down of the fanbase.

Tradition is all well and good. But at what cost?

KittyDuran
04-14-2006, 08:35 AM
The 1999 Reds won 96 games.

I enjoyed that '99 season every bit as much as the 1990 club that went wire to wire.

Both seasons have one thing in common.

There was very little rise in attendence untill mid September both years.. Why?

Could it have been the voice of doom in the radio booth ?

Through the dog days of late July untill mid September of both '90 and '99 fans would tune in to hear Marty tell it like it is.

Every night Marty would tell Reds fans that the bottom was about to drop out, "This Team just doesn't have what it takes" Fans listen to him. Fans believe everything he says.

That Hurts this organization in terms of attendence and the dumbing down of the fanbase.

Tradition is all well and good. But at what cost?You know, I had about 3 paragraphs written but erased them all because I'd probably get banned...:p: I'll play nice... ;)

Short and simple...Marty, IMHO, is a very very small part of the attendance problem or any other woes this ballclub has. But he's a very easy target to aim at - he the voice of the Reds! And the fact that he's seems to been given god-like powers over the image of the organization means that the Reds as a whole (esp. the PR department) are not doing a good job or they're just plain lazy. Marty, his ego and hair need to be downsized to minimalize his impact on this team.

Roy Tucker
04-14-2006, 08:38 AM
I was of the opinion that Marty is cranky but not harmful till reading Steel's last post about the Brewers. And that got me to thinking.

One thing the Reds under Castellini have not yet really started doing is marketing the team. Maybe it will start when the Reds are back in town, but have yet to see billboards, TV ads, radio ads, etc. touting the new Reds, the young talent, the new attitude, etc etc. The old "build it and they will come" marketing strategy seems in place.

And the Reds do have an attendance problem. With the team and the talent and the fan base they have, they should be drawing better. I'd think with some savvy marketing, they could boost attendance 10-20% if not more. And with Marty talking down the talent they have, abusing the young talent, it certainly can't be helping.

Cyclone's post about the Marty clones in the stands is a good one. My only comment on that is that I think they are probably the older BRM-era fans. I think the younger fans are more of a ESPN mind-set. And that is probably somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between Moneyball and Martyball.

KittyDuran
04-14-2006, 08:43 AM
One thing the Reds under Castellini have not yet really started doing is marketing the team. Maybe it will start when the Reds are back in town, but have yet to see billboards, TV ads, radio ads, etc. touting the new Reds, the young talent, the new attitude, etc etc. The old "build it and they will come" marketing strategy seems in place.
:thumbup: Absolutely! I only know of a couple of billboards around town and nothing past the 275 corridor.

KittyDuran
04-14-2006, 08:46 AM
All we heard of was Rich Aurilia, Joe Randa, Strikeouts and no Sac Flies from Dunn, a lack of situational hitting while the Reds were leading the NL in situational hitting, etc. etc. And yes, we also heard about a "lazy" Pena, a "fat" Kearns, a "lazy" Jimenez, chairgate, and every other stupid excuse for bad pitching under the sun. So Marty was reading RedsZone??? ;)

Heath
04-14-2006, 08:51 AM
Roy, one would wonder what the marketing attack is going to be for this year. I'm thinking that they are doing alot of "behind the scenes" stuff for 2007 and this is a "wash" year.

I want to give the new ownership and GM a full-off-season before I pass any judgements. I must say, I'm wondering if they are laying low this year because of "previous administration woes".

Chip R
04-14-2006, 08:55 AM
:thumbup: Absolutely! I only know of a couple of billboards around town and nothing past the 275 corridor.

And said billboards are just advertising the Power of Tradition. One billboard I saw on Colerain Ave for about 90 days had a light out and since the billboard was black, it was virtually impossible to see after 5 p.m. There's a different billboard up there now and the light is still out so I don't think that is totally the fault of the Reds but they were basically wasting their money having a black billboard at night. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. :(

KittyDuran
04-14-2006, 09:22 AM
And said billboards are just advertising the Power of Tradition. One billboard I saw on Colerain Ave for about 90 days had a light out and since the billboard was black, it was virtually impossible to see after 5 p.m. There's a different billboard up there now and the light is still out so I don't think that is totally the fault of the Reds but they were basically wasting their money having a black billboard at night. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. :(IIRC, the one on I-71 says Reds Baseball and gives the number to order tickets.

Roy Tucker
04-14-2006, 09:38 AM
Roy, one would wonder what the marketing attack is going to be for this year. I'm thinking that they are doing alot of "behind the scenes" stuff for 2007 and this is a "wash" year.

I want to give the new ownership and GM a full-off-season before I pass any judgements. I must say, I'm wondering if they are laying low this year because of "previous administration woes".
Yeah, I suppose that could be true. But I'd be surprised if they just lay low the whole year.

I'm one of those people that believes the future starts today, right now, and not tomorrow or next month or next year, so let's get going *right now*. The Reds have a viable team that is interesting and fun (and frustrating and sometimes horrible) to watch and I think a lot of hay can be mown this year.

Marketing campaigns can be put together in a matter of weeks, not months or years. I'd like to see the Reds' marketing organization be agile and creative and tuned into the 2006 Reds fan instead of some guy eating a cheeseburger in a cube thinking about what color billboard to put up in 2007. So I'd think they could/should be doing something very soon.

Chip R
04-14-2006, 09:49 AM
IIRC, the one on I-71 says Reds Baseball and gives the number to order tickets.

I haven't seen that one, I believe. However neither billboard advertises the assets this team has in Dunn, Griffey and Lopez. Why? I go through Indianapolis about 5-6 times a year and I see plenty of billboards with Colts players on there. They may not all be for the Colts but the Indy business community is not shy about using the Colts players to advertise their businesses. And you really can't pin all this on Marty either. Casey was here for what, 7-8 years? Clean cut, popular, nice, decent to very good player and Marty loved him. How many billboards did we see Sean's mug on in all those years? It's almost like the Reds are/were scared to market their players. Maybe they see it as bad luck since they marketed the heck out of Jr. when he first came here. That was good but it was lazy marketing since they had so many other players that they could market. I have never been to Cleveland but you have to think that they market the heck out of Travis Hafner, Grady (No relation) Sizemore, Jhonny Peralta and C.C. Sabathia. We have guys here like Dunn and Lopez who are by all accounts hail fellows well met. Dunn has a great sense of humor and an easygoing personality. He's not getting arrested for drunk driving or molesting women - without their consent. :D He plays every day and he produces. So why isn't this guy the face of the Reds? As much as I agree with what Steel and others have said about Marty's negativity, I have to think a concerted effort by the Reds to make Dunn their guy would outdo any negativity that Marty spewed.

Roy Tucker
04-14-2006, 09:58 AM
And reading Chip's post reminded me of something I thought previously.

What would happen when (or if) the Reds market the heck out of Dunn, Junior, Lopez, Kearns, EE, etc. and then Marty starts bad-mouthing them? A Castellini-Marty cage match is something I'd pay money to see.

M2
04-14-2006, 10:00 AM
I think Marty's effect on the fanbase, particularly the older fanbase, cannot be overestimated.

For the younger fans, he just makes all the young stars--stars that SHOULD be bringing in the younger demographics--sound like incompetent doofuses.

Excellent summation.

Over the years folks have noted how the Reds don't seem to be all that popular with kids.

Now why is that? Sure, being a better team would help, but radio still gets deep penetration into the would-be fan base. For instance when I take my kids camping this summer, we'll be picking up games on the short wave. When we have a barbecue, the Sox will be playing in the background. When we go to the beach, we'll be listening to a baseball broadcast on the way home. It just kind of filters in.

I can only imagine what effect it would have if the games my kids listened to featured a bitter old man who busied himself in finding fault with every young player on the team. There's zero love for the game coming from that man. I honestly wonder whether Marty would pay much attention to the Reds if he wasn't paid to do so. He certainly makes it sound like he wouldn't and I can't think of any worse message for the Reds to be sending potential young fans than that.

westofyou
04-14-2006, 10:02 AM
IIRC, the one on I-71 says Reds Baseball and gives the number to order tickets.
Must have hired this marketing department for that ad.

http://www.jcrocket.com/images/generic/beercan.jpg

Chip R
04-14-2006, 10:05 AM
Marketing campaigns can be put together in a matter of weeks, not months or years.

Absolutely. One of the best ones I saw was in 2003 when the Reds were coming from behind to win all those games early in the season. I don't know if they did this anywhere else but on Hopple Ave. right where everybody gets off from I-75 one day there was this big billboard of Reds players celebrating another walk off victory. I'm sure they had some slogan on there about feeling the excitement but it was a great idea. Unfortunately the season went down the toilet a month or so later but it still was a great idea to strike while the iron was hot.

M2
04-14-2006, 10:07 AM
I haven't seen that one, I believe. However neither billboard advertises the assets this team has in Dunn, Griffey and Lopez. Why? I go through Indianapolis about 5-6 times a year and I see plenty of billboards with Colts players on there. They may not all be for the Colts but the Indy business community is not shy about using the Colts players to advertise their businesses. And you really can't pin all this on Marty either. Casey was here for what, 7-8 years? Clean cut, popular, nice, decent to very good player and Marty loved him. How many billboards did we see Sean's mug on in all those years? It's almost like the Reds are/were scared to market their players. Maybe they see it as bad luck since they marketed the heck out of Jr. when he first came here. That was good but it was lazy marketing since they had so many other players that they could market. I have never been to Cleveland but you have to think that they market the heck out of Travis Hafner, Grady (No relation) Sizemore, Jhonny Peralta and C.C. Sabathia. We have guys here like Dunn and Lopez who are by all accounts hail fellows well met. Dunn has a great sense of humor and an easygoing personality. He's not getting arrested for drunk driving or molesting women - without their consent. :D He plays every day and he produces. So why isn't this guy the face of the Reds? As much as I agree with what Steel and others have said about Marty's negativity, I have to think a concerted effort by the Reds to make Dunn their guy would outdo any negativity that Marty spewed.

Good point, Marty's influence is abnormally large due to the team's inability to make any other inroads with the fanbase.

The Reds' unwillingnesss to market players is fascinating. IMO, you probably could trace it back to Bob Howsam's disdain for free agency. Players aren't the enemy.

vaticanplum
04-14-2006, 10:09 AM
Excellent summation.

Over the years folks have noted how the Reds don't seem to be all that popular with kids.

Now why is that? Sure, being a better team would help, but radio still gets deep penetration into the would-be fan base. For instance when I take my kids camping this summer, we'll be picking up games on the short wave. When we have a barbecue, the Sox will be playing in the background. When we go to the beach, we'll be listening to a baseball broadcast on the way home. It just kind of filters in.

I can only imagine what effect it would have if the games my kids listened to featured a bitter old man who busied himself in finding fault with every young player on the team. There's zero love for the game coming from that man. I honestly wonder whether Marty would pay much attention to the Reds if he wasn't paid to do so. He certainly makes it sound like he wouldn't and I can't think of any worse message for the Reds to be sending potential young fans than that.

Is this true, about the kids? Do the Reds really not have much in the way of a young fanbase? Not living in Cincinnati, i have zero concept of this, and I'd really like to hear your takes on it.

Then you get into another issue, one of the original points of this thread: Santo is ill-informed and irritating, but almost comically infatuated with his team and the game. Who would you rather listen to? Is the job of an announcer to educate or to inspire his listeners with regard to one particular team? (not that Marty's doing much of either in some opinions, I know -- and of course the ideal is BOTH, but...)

BRM
04-14-2006, 10:24 AM
One thing the Reds under Castellini have not yet really started doing is marketing the team. Maybe it will start when the Reds are back in town, but have yet to see billboards, TV ads, radio ads, etc. touting the new Reds, the young talent, the new attitude, etc etc. The old "build it and they will come" marketing strategy seems in place.


Do you think a heavy marketing campaign by Castellini and the FO would negate some of the damage, if any, caused by the booth? If the Reds started buying ads telling fans to "come see the great young talent" and started hyping EE, Lopez, and Dunn, what happens? Fans will hear Marty talk about Dunn's lack of situational hitting while the Reds are calling him the "next great superstar".

Yachtzee
04-14-2006, 10:31 AM
If I were running the Reds, there would be billboard not just in Cincinnati, but up 71N to Columbus, Up 75N to Dayton, 74 to Indy, 71S to Louisville, and 75S to Lexington. TV and Radio ads in each of those markets. Some of those gigantic ads featuring Dunn, Griffey, Lopez, et. al. on the side of the buildings. And let's get those players more visibility in the community. Take a few tips from Marvin Lewis and the Bengals on how to market the team. The Reds could go a long way to better marketing the team, and it seems like it can be started in a short period of time.

As far as Marty goes, if I were Bob Castellini, I would ask Marty if he actually enjoys watching baseball games. If so, then I would ask him if he wouldn't mind displaying some love for the game during the broadcast. If not, I would suggest he put in an application for Andy Furman's job. It seems to be a more suitable forum for espousing one's opinion of the Reds, other sports, and the results of last night's American Idol vote.

Chip R
04-14-2006, 10:39 AM
Do you think a heavy marketing campaign by Castellini and the FO would negate some of the damage, if any, caused by the booth? If the Reds started buying ads telling fans to "come see the great young talent" and started hyping EE, Lopez, and Dunn, what happens? Fans will hear Marty talk about Dunn's lack of situational hitting while the Reds are calling him the "next great superstar".

Absolutely! But I'm skeptical that it will happen. Cal Levy may have been sacked but I'm sure the same attitude prevails. I'm just not totally convinced that Bob is a lot different than Carl or any of Marge's predecessors - some of whom happen to be related to some of the current owners. I think I get their attitude. They reason that guys like Dunn and Lopez will eventually leave via free agency or that the Reds will trade them for prospects. So why bother marketing a guy who may not be here for the long haul? Bob may talk the talk but I've yet to see him walk the walk.

registerthis
04-14-2006, 10:42 AM
Superstar players are draws even if a team is losing and certainly while a team provides its fanbase the hope of winning even without an absolute confirmation of winning. Adam Dunn should be one such player. There shouldn't be a single fan in earshot of Marty Brennaman who doesn't realize that. Yet, the potential marketing power of said superstar player hasn't been actualized and most likely won't be actualized unless Dunn continues to do historic things for this franchise and becomes what he already is to Joe Average Reds fan in SPITE of Marty Brennaman.

That's clear as day.

I don't disagree that Dunn could be marketed better by the club, and what you say is common sense. But Griffey--still one of the games most marketable players, and a player chasing historic HR numbers of his own--was healthy for most of last year, was playing well, and attendance was down substantially from 2003, when the opening of GABP gave the Reds a nice attendance boost. Is it because fans thought Junior simply wasn't worth watching anymore? I seriously doubt it. More likely, the Reds finishing 29 and 27 games out in 2004 and 2005, respectively, played into the fans staying away.


Of course no one has stopped going to baseball games over steroids. It's probably the single-most overblown attendance non-issue in the history of the game.

Well, you and I realize that, but we've talked alot about "Joe Fan" here, and his/her inability to distinguish legitimate truths with all of the misinformation provided by the media and people like Marty. All offseason, we read article after article and heard talk show hosts galore deplore steroids and their affect on the game, and how angry fans were, and so on and so forth. So, if fans are legitimately completely influenced by the media, and are unable to distinguish for themselves fact from fiction--should not the steorid scandal have affected attendance? Should not fans have bought into the hype sorrounding it, and stayed away from the park because the media was screaming at them all year telling them that baseball's records and numbers were illegitimate?


And yes, the trump card for attendance is winning baseball. We agree on that and our agreement is absolute. The disagreement is in the amount and/or value of the residual attendance bleed caused by someone who keeps telling the fan base that there's nothing good to see when things aren't going right.

On a team that has finished close to 30 games out of first the last two seasons--seasons that they were promised by ownership would be competitive and successful ones due to the influx of payroll brought on by the opening of a new ballpark--there may not BE a whole heckuva a lot of good things to see. On a team as bad as the Reds have been the past 5 years, it takes more than a 40 HR hitter to bring people out to the park. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Junior in his prime, are three players who could significantly bump up attendance for this team. There aren't many others.


The biggest attendance boost a team can get by playing winning baseball is the year after producing a winning playoff-caliber season. That's an interesting dynamic because it tells us that there's significant opportunity to increase attendance prior to the point at which the playoffs are a certainty. There's a "buildup" period and the more a team can capitalize on it's early-opportunity return, the better off it's going to be.

Losing teams rely on superstar players and never-say-die fans to drive attendance. The Reds have two of those. But to the majority of the fan base only one exists. That's a problem, particularly when he gets hurt (which is, of course, often).

See, I don't place Dunn at Junior's level yet. Junior had a full decade of MVP-caliber play in his pocket prior to his arrival in Cinci, and was regarded by many as one of the--if not THE--elite players in all of baseball. I don't think you would get the same response about Dunn from even the most unbiased media reporters today. To me, the hallmark of the draw that a player has is whether or not he can influence road attendance--do fans of other teams come out to the park specifically to see him play? When Junior arrived in 2000, the answer was unequivocally 'yes.' Dunn hasn't reached that level yet--few fans of opposing teams will come out to see their team face the Reds simply because Dunn is playing.


Teams can capitalize on superstar players (if available), but have an additional ability to draw interest to the team if they've got young exciting talent to market. I'm again going to cite the Milwaukee Brewers.

<edited for space>

So how'd they do that lacking a daily superstar draw of any kind after a poor season, the lowest payroll in MLB (down 13M from 2003), a second half that could qualify as a Titanic-level ship sinking, and after the luster of a new ballpark had worn off?

Marketing. Take a fan base starved for winning, market excitement, and educate said fan base. Prep them for how winning is going to happen. Does that marketing effort begin and end with a broadcasting crew that's one of the best in the game? Nope. But it sure includes them.

Perhaps it was marketing. But was the marketing non-existent in 2002, when their attendance plummeted a whopping 30% from 2001? Or in 2003, when it dropped another 14% (down a full 1.1 million fans, despite the team having an identical record)?

Certainly, the bump up in attendance from 2003-2004 was nice, but it was still down 26.5% from 2001, the year Miller Park opened. What I notice is that their attendance in 2005 was the highest they have had since Miller opened and was, not coincidentally, the most competitive team they have fielded iin years.

And since we're comparing attendance records, let's look at the Reds since GABP opened:

2003: 2.35 mil (69-93, 19 GB)
2004: 2.29 mil (76-86 29 GB)
2005: 1.94 mil (73-89, 27 GB)

So, both the Brewers and the Reds had pretty awful teams in the years immediately following the opening of their new park. While the Brewers saw a drop in attendance of 39% by the third season of their new park, the Reds saw a drop of 17.5%. Still bad, but not even half of the amount the Brewers lost. How is this explained? Both teams were excessively bad, neither had any track record of success to build on, yet the Reds were able to do a significantly better job at keepign fans coming to the park than the Brewers were. What was the differentiating factor between the two?

For good measure, let's also look at the Pirates, starting with the year that PNC opened:

2001: 2.43 mil (62-100, 31 GB)
2002: 1.78 mil (72-89, 32.5 GB)
2003: 1.64 mil (75-87, 13 GB)

Here, again, we see a significant drop-off in the second year of the new park (17%) and an even larger dropoff in year two--down a full 22.5% from the opening of the park. Again, in none of these seasons were the Pirates remotely competititve, or had any chance of winning, yet the Reds were outdrawing them by a healthy margin. So, again, what is it?

I would argue star power--Junior (though frequently injured), Dunn and Kearns. It certainly wasn't the prospects of a winning season, or a phenomenal pitching staff.

Thus, I don't think the contention that fans are staying away because they are being told the product is inferior is accurate. The drop-off in attendance the Reds have witnessed since the opening of GABP is that which is expected from a losing team--and is actually quite better than others when compared to similar teams in similar situations.

I don't have the time to respond directly to the remainder of your post, suffice to say that your argument is well-thought and reasoned, I hear what you're saying, I simply don't agree with the conclusion--that Marty is keeping fans away. Since we both know that there's no empirical evidence which could be presented, all we have is our own conjecture. I think I've stated mine quite cleary thus far and don't need to repeat it again. As uninformed as the fans may be, everything i have seen thus far indicates that they're still coming to the park, with no noticeable depreciation in attendance other than that which would normally be expected of a losing franchise.

TRF
04-14-2006, 11:10 AM
Baseball is an "inherited" sport. love for the game is passed down from parent to child. now there is a ton of competition these days for a kid's attention, but as the kid grows older, if he/she is a baseball fan, they will find ways to follow the game.

Fast forward 10 years. the kid is now in his/her early 20's. It's a day game, but it's during work. Your only option is to listen via radio/web. you have listened to Marty off and on for years, but now your brain is being pumped with his slant on how the game is supposed to be played. And because of it, you don't realize that AD is a great player, you just hear K and roll your eyes longing for the days of Hal Morris you remember an 8 year old kid.

Say a lie long enough and it becomes truth. In Marty's case it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the game coupled with an inability to understand the effect his words have. If they he didn't reach people he wouldn't have a job.

A marketing blitz is needed. There is buzz right now with new ownership, and the moves made during ST. The Reds need to capitalize on that.

registerthis
04-14-2006, 11:14 AM
In Marty's case it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the game coupled with an inability to understand the effect his words have. If they he didn't reach people he wouldn't have a job.

What effects would those be? If fans are staying away from the Reds because of Marty's words, that fact isn't represented in the team's attendance figures.

TRF
04-14-2006, 11:20 AM
Simple. If fan A think Dunn is a bad player he is less likely to buy a Dunn jersey.

Best young power hitter in the game. His merchandise should be everywhere.

New stadium, chicks dig the longball, young team.

I'm not asking Marty to be a Homer. I'm asking him to learn the game, and promote the positives of the Cincinnati Reds. He doesn't do that.

gonelong
04-14-2006, 11:32 AM
Then you get into another issue, one of the original points of this thread: Santo is ill-informed and irritating, but almost comically infatuated with his team and the game. Who would you rather listen to?

At the very minimum Santo appears to WANT to be there. For years I listened to Marty and Joe and thought I liked them ... then when Joe quit doing games I realized that I liked Joe ... I tolerated Marty. Joe's love for the game and all things related is obvious and it comes across the airwaves. The vibe I get from Marty is that I am privleged to hear him call the game and he'll give it to me if and when he feels its neccessary. It just flat out dents my fender!


Is the job of an announcer to educate or to inspire his listeners with regard to one particular team? (not that Marty's doing much of either in some opinions, I know -- and of course the ideal is BOTH, but...)

I think it is the job of the announcer to educate the fan base to some degree. They are there to paint the picture of the day's game, and IMO you can't do that without painting the picture of the season/career of the players. I think the Reds actually do an interesting thing on the TV broadcasts with the Creeper. He has a little 3 minute segment about how the game is played - how does the 1B handle a bunt situation, how does the 2B turn two, etc. Great for the kids IMO.

Joe did educate to some degree IMO. Joe, having been on the diamond, could at least impart some of his experiences. As noted above, I also think he gave us some of the inspiration (Get out of here!) and at the very least you knew the guy enjoyed being there.

Steve gives us some of the basic education, but he doesn't (yet) give me the save "love" vibe that Joe did.

To be fair, I only listen to the radio when I have to - day games and in the car.

GL

Heath
04-14-2006, 11:33 AM
All I know is, I feel sorry for the next play-by-play announcer of the Cincinnati Reds.

If its the Bad Boy with Chris Welsh - my goodness that would absolutely reek.

The one name that keeps coming to me - Paul O'Neill - at least for color. Maybe Dan Hoard for PBP.

vaticanplum
04-14-2006, 11:37 AM
The one name that keeps coming to me - Paul O'Neill - at least for color.

I've been very impressed with O'Neill on television. He's pretty articulate and surprisingly even-tempered. Has he done radio too?

registerthis
04-14-2006, 11:38 AM
Simple. If fan A think Dunn is a bad player he is less likely to buy a Dunn jersey.

That's awfully speculative. Besides, if Marty is is guiding light, would he not then purchase an Aurilia jersey, or perhaps a Womack one?


Best young power hitter in the game. His merchandise should be everywhere.

Albert Pujols says hi. ;)


I'm not asking Marty to be a Homer. I'm asking him to learn the game, and promote the positives of the Cincinnati Reds. He doesn't do that.

I don't disagree with this at all.

Chip R
04-14-2006, 11:41 AM
That's awfully speculative. Besides, if Marty is is guiding light, would he not then purchase an Aurilia jersey, or perhaps a Womack one?

How many stores carry Womack or Aurilia jerseys?


Albert Pujols says hi. ;)

He said young. ;)

registerthis
04-14-2006, 11:50 AM
How many stores carry Womack or Aurilia jerseys?

Dunno, but I do know the Majestic carried Joe Randa jerseys last year. Get 'em while you can. :)


He said young. ;)

Well, Pujols is listed as being younger than Dunn...unless this is another one of those Latin American Age Controversies I'm not aware of...

In which case, Mark Teixeira would qualify.

Chip R
04-14-2006, 11:56 AM
Well, Pujols is listed as being younger than Dunn...unless this is another one of those Latin American Age Controversies I'm not aware of...

In which case, Mark Teixeira would qualify.

There has been a lot of speculation that Pujols isn't as young as he says he is. I think the Cards hesitated to sign him to that deal because they wanted to be sure he was as old as he says he is. But they did end up signing him so they must have been satisfied with the answer or Pujols called their bluff.

But it really doesn't matter if Pujols, Texeria or Dunn are the best young power hitters in the game. To an extent the Reds shouldn't care what StL or TEX does to market their players. They should care about what they do to market Dunn.

M2
04-14-2006, 12:15 PM
What effects would those be? If fans are staying away from the Reds because of Marty's words, that fact isn't represented in the team's attendance figures.

I wholly disagree with that conclusion and Steel addressed with an example of how a weaker baseball market (Milwaukee) has managed to acquire fans in advance of winning baseball.

The Reds made strides forward last season and attendance dropped. There wasn't any faux contention early in the season and that surely didn't help the gate, but the organization should be able to articulate why it's headed in the right direction and why it's worth your while to watch this team come together rather than just rely on folks for whom baseball is a habit.

Beyond gate, you've got merchandise sales. Beyond that you've got the strength of your media market. Now we know the Reds take a financial beating in terms of the team media market. The once all-powerful Reds radio network the team once boasted is a shadow of its former self. Well, radio is not taking a beating as an industry. It's still a popular medium and plenty of franchises have growing radio networks. It surely doesn't help when the voice of the Reds rarely has anything positive to say about the product.

There's also television. You might think radio doesn't affect television, but if your radio network is acquiring fans for you rather than alienating them then it strengthens the potential viewer market for your TV broadcasts. Radio, along with newspaper coverage, can also be the advance scout into new markets, helping to open up a territory for television.

I just don't see how you can make the case that having the main spokesman for the product bash the product has little to no effect. It poisons the entire culture around the franchise and undercuts every other thing you attempt to do. It's a percentage cut out of everything you. It increases the height of every hill you need to climb and it deepens every ditch.

TeamBoone
04-14-2006, 12:29 PM
I think the topic is Reds marketing... Pujols does not play for the Reds.

registerthis
04-14-2006, 12:50 PM
I wholly disagree with that conclusion and Steel addressed with an example of how a weaker baseball market (Milwaukee) has managed to acuire fans in advance of winning baseball.

But they lost far more fans than the Reds did, while having a club that was no less competitive. Steel pointed out one year where attendance increased absent a new park, superstar signing, or winning season. The supposition is that good marketing was the cause, but we don't know that. And even if it did, that's only one year out of 5. Beyond that, whatever marketing they were doing wasn't very effective.


The Reds made strides forward last season and attendance dropped. There wasn't any faux contention early in the season and that surely didn't help the gate, but the organization should be able to articulate why it's headed in the right direction and why it's worth your while to watch this team come together rather than just rely on folks for whom baseball is a habit.

The Reds made strides last year? So they finished 27 games out of it, rather than 29? Come on, that can't account for anything. And many people even on this board believe this franchise is lacking any real direction--its the most oft-repeated criticism of this team. If the team has a successful season in 2006, it will be in spite of, not because of, any forward-thinking strategy on the part of Reds management. Perhaps Castellinin and Co. will change that--I think the jury is still out. But the franchise itself hasn't given the fans much of any inclination that ithas a solid long-term plan.


Beyond gate, you've got merchandise sales. Beyond that you've got the strength of your media market. Now we know the Reds take a financial beating in terms of the team media market. The once all-powerful Reds radio network the team once boasted is a shadow of its former self. Well, radio is not taking a beating as an industry. It's still a popular medium and plenty of franchises have growing radio networks. It surely doesn't help when the voice of the Reds rarely has anything positive to say about the product.

Sorry, but as I've said over and over again, if the Reds were winning, Marty's mannerisms would be of little to no consequence. Marty's opinions and mannerisms, though annoying, don't concern me when it comes to righting the direction of this franchise.


just don't see how you can make the case that having the main spokesman for the product bash the product has little to no effect. It poisons the entire culture around the franchise and undercuts every other thing you attempt to do. It's a percentage cut out of everything you. It increases the height of every hill you need to climb and it deepens every ditch.

I make that case because I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts it. I understand that people feel differently than I do--fine. But realize that no one here has put forth any tangible evidence, short of the one Milwaukee Brewers season, that supports the contention that marty's opinions over the air are harming this franchise. Living in maryland, the radio is how I follow the Reds. I listen to Marty as much as anyone here. I've been a fan of the team for 20 years, I've seen the payroll statistics, attendance figures, and other methods of guaging the financial success of the club. I've followed other teams, I've researched their statistics. And I think the venom directed at Marty for hurting the team is mis-directed and fruitless.

I'm off to Good Friday service, and this argument is just going in circles at this point. So I've gotta split. Just put a winning team on the field, and watch the team's financial status thrive. Put a crummy team on the field, and watch the opposite occur. Blaming the play-by-play guy, for even an incremental loss of interest in this team, is simply misdirected.

Roy Tucker
04-14-2006, 12:51 PM
I just don't see how you can make the case that having the main spokesman for the product bash the product has little to no effect. It poisons the entire culture around the franchise and undercuts every other thing you attempt to do. It's a percentage cut out of everything you. It increases the height of every hill you need to climb and it deepens every ditch.
Yeah, but I think the bigger issue is the complete lack of marketing by the Reds.

In a vacuum, Marty's opinions wander wherever Marty wants to go since there is no direction given.

And also in a vacuum, Marty carries more weight since there is really nothing else to go on exacerbating the hills and ditches.

Caveat Emperor
04-14-2006, 01:18 PM
Yeah, but I think the bigger issue is the complete lack of marketing by the Reds.

In a vacuum, Marty's opinions wander wherever Marty wants to go since there is no direction given.

And also in a vacuum, Marty carries more weight since there is really nothing else to go on exacerbating the hills and ditches.

Don't know why, but this just made me think of a favorite seen from a movie I consider to be rathre underrated:


Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

Chip R
04-14-2006, 01:36 PM
Don't know why, but this just made me think of a favorite seen from a movie I consider to be rathre underrated:

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

...and when there was no meat, we ate fowl and when there was no fowl, we ate crawdad and when there was no crawdad to be found, we ate sand.
H.I.: You ate what?
Ear-Bending Cellmate: We ate sand.
pause
H.I.: You ate SAND?
Ear-Bending Cellmate: That's right!

M2
04-14-2006, 01:57 PM
But they lost far more fans than the Reds did, while having a club that was no less competitive. Steel pointed out one year where attendance increased absent a new park, superstar signing, or winning season. The supposition is that good marketing was the cause, but we don't know that. And even if it did, that's only one year out of 5. Beyond that, whatever marketing they were doing wasn't very effective.

Milwaukee's got a larger basement. Point still remains that once the organization got the Seligs out of the daily operation of the franchise, it began to run a stronger business. Absent the winning, I don't see any explanation other than better marketing/operations for the increase. Cleary what the Selig's were doing thorugh 2003 wasn't effective and once the Selig's were removed from the mix, they stepped out of the daily operation of the franchise in January 2004, the Brewers began to turn things around without a big on-field flourish.


The Reds made strides last year?

They came up with a young All-Star SS. They had a 27-year-old pitcher break through with a 211.2 IP, 3.83 season. They had a dynamic young 3B arrive. They had a LH starter with some talent survive his first-season lumps. They had a hitter go back-to-back 40+ HR seasons for the first time in 27 years. That's awfully good progress for a single season.

While I agree that a long-term plan was sorely lacking in the Lindner/Allen/DanO regime, the Reds failed to accentuate the things that went right on their watch and a big part of that has to do with the "Voice of the Reds" refusing to get behind any sort of youth movement.


Sorry, but as I've said over and over again, if the Reds were winning, Marty's mannerisms would be of little to no consequence. Marty's opinions and mannerisms, though annoying, don't concern me when it comes to righting the direction of this franchise.

He's a drag on every positive thing could attempt to do. You can "if" this till kingdom come, fact is what he's doing helps at no level. The best you can say for it is maybe it's not that big a chunk out of your business if everything goes right. Where in a sane, rational world is that something you keep around?

WMR
04-14-2006, 02:01 PM
Do you think a heavy marketing campaign by Castellini and the FO would negate some of the damage, if any, caused by the booth? If the Reds started buying ads telling fans to "come see the great young talent" and started hyping EE, Lopez, and Dunn, what happens? Fans will hear Marty talk about Dunn's lack of situational hitting while the Reds are calling him the "next great superstar".

Exactly. These two ventures--the ad campaign and our radio people--need to be working in conjunction with one another. We shouldn't have an ad campaign being forced to undo or work in opposition to the acknowledged "voice of the Reds." It's not only counter-intuitive, it's an idiotic strategy for successfully promoting and growing your product.

Chip R
04-14-2006, 02:06 PM
Exactly. These two ventures--the ad campaign and our radio people--need to be working in conjunction with one another. We shouldn't have an ad campaign being forced to undo or work in opposition to the acknowledged "voice of the Reds." It's not only counter-intuitive, it's an idiotic strategy for successfully promoting and growing your product.

In an ideal world that makes a whole lot of sense. But the problem is that Marty's not going anywhere until he retires. Bob won't get rid of him because he values the Power of Tradition. The media will kill him because to a man they love Marty and are his acolytes. Best you can hope for is to put a full court press on marketing Dunn, Lopez, et. al. and hope Marty will be somewhat swept up in the era of good feeling and tone down his criticism.

WMR
04-14-2006, 02:14 PM
In an ideal world that makes a whole lot of sense. But the problem is that Marty's not going anywhere until he retires. Bob won't get rid of him because he values the Power of Tradition. The media will kill him because to a man they love Marty and are his acolytes. Best you can hope for is to put a full court press on marketing Dunn, Lopez, et. al. and hope Marty will be somewhat swept up in the era of good feeling and tone down his criticism.

I hope that can happen.

Until he retires, no matter how successful the Reds or certain players become, however, I see Marty always finding ways to add a caveat to include his problems with his aforementioned players because Marty is simply too prideful and self-aware of his taken stances to ever admit that his "takes" were simply incorrect. (Ignorance probably also plays a significant role... but I think that that ignorance is so closely melded to his pride and sticking to a stance once he takes it that the two may as well be inseparable.)

KronoRed
04-14-2006, 02:31 PM
So Marty was reading RedsZone??? ;)
I wondered who BF was :devil:

KronoRed
04-14-2006, 02:32 PM
IIRC, the one on I-71 says Reds Baseball and gives the number to order tickets.
Yep and before that it said "IT'S COMING"

That's all...what kind of martketing is that? nothing about the Reds, a phone number as small as can be.

Was it cheap? ;)

Chip R
04-14-2006, 02:37 PM
Was it cheap? ;)

You even have to ask that question?

KronoRed
04-14-2006, 02:44 PM
I should have taken note on what billboard was there before, it was probably also red ;)

KittyDuran
04-14-2006, 03:34 PM
I should have taken note on what billboard was there before, it was probably also red ;)Oh! I went by there this afternoon - it's been replaced by Montgomery Inn... :p:

Cyclone792
04-14-2006, 03:35 PM
Funny how I've been following this thread for nearly two days now, and over in Reds Live, this beauty pops up this morning ...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44907

I wonder which Reds public figurehead has been known to call certain players lazy, and I also wonder how much some fans really do believe just about everything that certain public figurehead states ...

The irony of it all ...

KronoRed
04-14-2006, 03:46 PM
Oh! I went by there this afternoon - it's been replaced by Montgomery Inn... :p:
Is it Red? :D

Cedric
04-14-2006, 04:02 PM
Funny how I've been following this thread for nearly two days now, and over in Reds Live, this beauty pops up this morning ...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44907

I wonder which Reds public figurehead has been known to call certain players lazy, and I also wonder how much some fans really do believe just about everything that certain public figurehead states ...

The irony of it all ...

OSUCeltic has been on these boards for a long time and is a good baseball fan. I wouldn't go out of my way to try and make him look stupid and a parrot of Marty.

He might be wrong about Dunn and lazy play, but it't not a stretch with Adam's struggles that someone on their own could call it laziness. It's not like Marty is the only person around the Reds trying to come up with reasons for Adam's struggles.

Cyclone792
04-14-2006, 04:07 PM
OSUCeltic has been on these boards for a long time and is a good baseball fan. I wouldn't go out of my way to try and make him look stupid and a parrot of Marty.

He might be wrong about Dunn and lazy play, but it't not a stretch with Adam's struggles that someone on their own could call it laziness. It's not like Marty is the only person around the Reds trying to come up with reasons for Adam's struggles.

A casual observation, nothing more, and I certainly wasn't implying anything against osuceltic.

I just did a quick search for threads with the words "Dunn" and "strikeouts" contained with the thread.

331 results.

Threads with the words "Dunn" and "lazy"? 57 results.

And the people who post on RedsZone are merely a tiny fragment of the overall fan base.

Just sayin'