Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
When Marty is doing his job, he is great.
When Marty is throwing a tantrum, he is the worst.
You don't have to say "by golly they tried their best". You can say that they didn't get the job done. But don't harp on it. Don't sound absolutely disgusted by it. Stop dropping the "I just can't believe they couldn't get a run in" stuff. There is a big gap between saying they didn't get the job done and what Marty and Thom get into at times when it comes to the players not getting the job done. When they get into those times, it sounds like the casual idiot at the sports bar.
This is the main point of contention with me. There's a point where the overemphasis on times where "a player(s) didn't get the job done" does turn personal.
To wit, the game Wednesday night when Votto, Phillips and Bruce struck out in the bottom of the fifth. It was absolutely a big point in the game, and I can understand why it received emphasis at that time.
However Thom brought it up multiple times in the 6th inning, both before and after Heisey's home run. Brought it up again when Votto came up in the 7th. Again when Bruce came up in the 8th. THen again when it went to extras, and again when they came up in the 10th. If I remember correctly, he also brought it up in the post game.
Was it a big moment? Absolutely. But once Heisey homered, the importance went way down. Theoretically you could say if they had scored in the fifth & Heisey homered, the Reds win in 9 innings, but going back and assuming everything follows the exact same way for over half the game is just silly.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hoosier Red
This is the main point of contention with me. There's a point where the overemphasis on times where "a player(s) didn't get the job done" does turn personal.
To wit, the game Wednesday night when Votto, Phillips and Bruce struck out in the bottom of the fifth. It was absolutely a big point in the game, and I can understand why it received emphasis at that time.
However Thom brought it up multiple times in the 6th inning, both before and after Heisey's home run. Brought it up again when Votto came up in the 7th. Again when Bruce came up in the 8th. THen again when it went to extras, and again when they came up in the 10th. If I remember correctly, he also brought it up in the post game.
Was it a big moment? Absolutely. But once Heisey homered, the importance went way down. Theoretically you could say if they had scored in the fifth & Heisey homered, the Reds win in 9 innings, but going back and assuming everything follows the exact same way for over half the game is just silly.
They do do that. And sometimes it bothers me and sometimes it doesn't. I want any announcer to tell you not only what is happening but from time to time how we got to a certain point in a game. One more caveat, if I am listening to the Reds broadcast I want homerism to shine through.
The things is big moments in games are of the utmost importance. In Wednesday's game Bochey went to his pen with 0 outs in the 5th inning. A big hit, or even a RBI would have really put the Giants behind the 8 ball. Even after the tying HR by Heisey that inning was important because the Reds were only tied at the point. Is it fair to say that the middle of the order failed to come though in that inning later in the game? Is it fair to say that Votto struck out in the 5th with runners on 1st and 3rd with no body out? If I just turned on the radio at that point wouldn't that be something important to let me know?
I think the Reds announcers in general do a very good job of giving the players their due praise. Isn't it also fair to criticize when they fail? At least to a certain extent?
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bucksfan2
I think the Reds announcers in general do a very good job of giving the players their due praise. Isn't it also fair to criticize when they fail? At least to a certain extent?
I think few fans believe the players are above criticism. But isn't there a happy medium between that and the continual harping on one mistake? It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chip R
I think few fans believe the players are above criticism. But isn't there a happy medium between that and the continual harping on one mistake? It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
And it's when the harping is used as some sort of "evidence" in support of a larger, already faulty, narrative that it becomes most grating. For example, when Votto strikes out with runners on base, it only supports the "Votto should have more RBIs" stance, in the minds of Marty and Thom.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westofyou
Waite Hoyt probably could eat Marty's lunch from what I have heard from folks who GREW UP With Waite
One mans experience with something colors that mans experience not everyone's
My teetotaling paternal grandparents were diehard Reds fans during those days, but they were not fans of the work of Waite Hoyt. Their take was that Waite's work suffered in later years from excessive consumption of alcohol during games.
I'm not old enough to have heard the man work, but their contempt for his voluntary impairment was memorable.
I also know that Harry Caray was legendary for the same working style, so Waite was probably less abnormal for doing that than he would be today.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Bucksfan,
The Reds announcers are almost always Reds focused in their criticism and/or praise which is certainly understandable, but because of this, the criticism/praise tends to come out in very inconsistent ways.
For instance, if a Reds pitcher strikes out an opposing batter to strand a runner at 3rd, it's a great job by the pitcher.
If a Reds batter strikes out with a runner on third, then the Reds batter just didn't get the job done.
But you almost never hear them credit the opposing pitcher for cutting down the middle of the Reds order or criticize the opposing batter for not getting the job done.
The problem is that it's not always a great job by the Reds pitcher, sometimes it is just the opposing hitter failing in a big spot. And sometimes it's simply a great job by the opposing pitcher and there's really nothing the Reds batter can do.
This is especially important when they take their criticism/praise of a particular incident and harp on it within a game or try to connect it to a larger narrative playing out this season.
Back to the Wednesday game for example, by my count Thom mentioned the middle three striking out about ten times throughout the rest of the broadcast and each and every time he emphasized the Reds failing in that situation.
If perhaps he had two or three times tipped his hat to the Giants pitchers or Bochy's strategy in coming to get his starter so early, I'd be much less critical.
The other reason it burns me for him to do that is that particular situation(runners on 1st and 3rd) and not scoring any runs probably happens 5-10% of the time. The way he continued on and on, you would think this was the first time in 10 years that a 3-4-5 had struck out with a runner on third.
When he does this, it makes the Reds seem unique in their failure which casts an overly negative tone on his critique.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unassisted
My teetotaling paternal grandparents were diehard Reds fans during those days, but they were not fans of the work of Waite Hoyt. Their take was that Waite's work suffered in later years from excessive consumption of alcohol during games.
I'm not old enough to have heard the man work, but their contempt for his voluntary impairment was memorable.
I also know that Harry Caray was legendary for the same working style, so Waite was probably less abnormal for doing that than he would be today.
First I have heard of that. Joe also drank a lot of beer whilst broadcasting, and hid the cup, sometimes, under the desk so the camera did not see it whenever a surprise shot happened.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
My understanding is that Hoyt was a reformed alcoholic when he broadcast for the Reds, unsure if your GPs had it wrong but he was sober, now if they disliked him for past digressions or the fact every HR was a Burger Beer shot I'd see that, as many still loath booze in my wife's family and once attached to it in their mind you have failed
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
When I was working in Mariemont, Waite had a office in the same office building that I did and we would often share elevator rides up and down. When I told him I was a big Reds fan, he would share stories of his days with the Reds (he was already retired from broadcasting)and Yankees. He may have been 'reformed' but, when I met him, he was in no way an alcoholic.
Just my personal experience.
Rem
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hoosier Red
Back to the Wednesday game for example, by my count Thom mentioned the middle three striking out about ten times throughout the rest of the broadcast and each and every time he emphasized the Reds failing in that situation.
If perhaps he had two or three times tipped his hat to the Giants pitchers or Bochy's strategy in coming to get his starter so early, I'd be much less critical.
We really want Thom to give praise to a reliever with a 5.50 ERA?
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
I wonder if Marty would complain if he knew that I (a lifelong die-hard Reds fan) use MLB Gameday Audio to listen to the other teams' radio broadcasts. In fact, I listened to most of Homer's no-hitter on KNBR. Neither Jon Miller nor Duane Kuiper was bashing the Giants players for not having a hit or being in a prolonged slump. They mentioned it casually a few times but did not harp on it. They also complemented everything good about Homer Bailey's performance.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
I listened to many Waite Hoyt broadcasts and he is still among the best I've ever heard.
In my mind, he's in the same rarified air as Dizzy Dean, Harry Caray in his prime, Vin Scully, Ernie Harwell... people you would go out of your way to hear call a game.
The thing that made him different was his amazing ability to tell stories about his past experiences and career as a player. He saw and played with so many of the greatest players ever to play the game. And he was such a raconteur, a true conversationalist who had a great way with words.
He was Jack Paar to Marty's Jay Leno. A lot of people like Jay Leno I guess.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RFS62
He was Jack Paar to Marty's Jay Leno. A lot of people like Jay Leno I guess.
Marty is more of a David Letterman than a Leno to me-a bitter guy past his prime that some people still like for some reason.
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Todd Gack
We really want Thom to give praise to a reliever with a 5.50 ERA?
No, it would be nice if he could differentiate baseball from football.
But he can't, a contest is a contest to Thom. His grasp of the subtle unfolding of baseball is weaker than most announcers and his attempt to create pivotal moments out anything is a constant drag on the broadcast
Re: Things Marty Loves to Complain about
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Todd Gack
We really want Thom to give praise to a reliever with a 5.50 ERA?
Sure Thom should praise a reliever who strikes out two Reds in that spot. He may have had a 5.5 ERA, but he came up big in that spot.
Or maybe the Reds' batters came up small.
Or maybe it was a little bit of both.
The point is it doesn't really matter what the pitcher's ERA, if he were a Reds pitcher, he'd be praised for a good job done.