Lammycat Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 True true! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 The Murphy Curse? Bartman admits he's the problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 KevinG, I know, I was just bitching. About once a year, I have regrets about not having cable or satellite but that silly notion passes quickly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I am in the same boat - but I have a Roku hooked up to my TV, so I spent $20 for Sling (internet TV channel) so I get TBS for a month to watch the NL playoffs. Also get ESPN and ESPN2 with the package - it's been fun watching more college football. (Still have no desire to get cable, though, nor do I miss it.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I've been cable/satellite free since 1996 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Hey NoJ: *********************SPOILER ALERT**************** Kristin shot J.R.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 Well that was depressing (as a Cubs fan), but honestly not unexpected. I just think the youth and inexperience of the Cubs caught up with them. They were unable to handle the pressure of the big game. The pitching was subpar and we all learned that Jake Arrieta is a human being, and maybe Lester is not worth all of that money. Also not to take away anything from the Mets. They pitched well, they got timely hits and their defense was outstanding. They always seemed to be in the right place at the right time. And what can be said about Murphy? That guy certainly came up big, 6 HR's in the postseason, after only hitting 14 all year. Incredible. Hats off to you Mets, it is well deserved. I look forward to watching the Mets continue to play well in World Series. I will be cheering them on. All I can say is, even though this season did not end the way I hoped, it is encouraging to see the Cubs do as well as they did. If you would have told me in April the Cubs would have won 97 games and beat the Pirates in the Wild Card and the Cardinals in the NLDS, I would have thought you mad. This team has a great young core, with another pitcher and a bit more bullpen help they will be right back in it. And really one of the favorites to win the toughest division in all of baseball. So as the mantra of all Cubs fans goes, "there is always next year." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Didn't the Cubs win 7 straight against the Mets in the regular season? Mets pitching really improved and hit it's peak at the right time, I guess. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Hey Lammy, who's side are you on anyways? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Almost always Jerry/Brent's side, but once in a blue moon on Phil's side. I rooted for the Mets against L.A. but the Cubs against the Mets. Now I'll root for whoever plays the Mets to win. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 F KC (whom I assume will finish off Toronto) -- Go Mets! Disappointed in the Cubs -- watching the series as White Sox fan was a bit weird -- I found myself laughing at the Cubs during the Mets series - then I always caught myself thinking 'No wait - I am rooting for the Cubs to win.' The Mets played perfect baseball. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Last night I got in the van and turned on the game. Ten seconds later the Mets hit that 3 run shot. The follow up homer made me groan in horror knowing that Cubs fans could plainly see their hopes and dreams crumbling before their eyes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Almost always Jerry/Brent's side, but once in a blue moon on Phil's side. I rooted for the Mets against L.A. but the Cubs against the Mets. Now I'll root for whoever plays the Mets to win.Scratch that. I learned just last night about Fox bringing in Pete Rose for post-game analysis (along with Hamburger Helper hand A-Rod). Christ, Fox blows. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Plus FOX lost the feed last night (power outage to their truck) --- glad they had emergency back-up plan in place, jeez. The whole thing was poorly handled. They threw it back to the three people back in the studio - and they seemed like deer caught in headlights. Good game last night -- couldn't make it past the 9th. Hopefully the Mets rebound. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I missed large parts up until the 6th inning but stayed up to watch to the end. Very entertaining game last night but I still had nightmares about Pete Rose even though I didn't see him.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Scratch that. I learned just last night about Fox bringing in Pete Rose for post-game analysis (along with Hamburger Helper hand A-Rod). Christ, Fox blows. Someone needs to take away whatever contracts and licenses they have for all sports. And they need to ban Joe Buck from everything. Also this happened: But beyond the horribleness of Fox the game was a great one. Human drama, inside the park home run, extra innings. Really good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I've always found Joe Buck to be well-prepared and more than capable as a play-by-play announcer for both football and baseball. I've never really understood the hate for him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chez Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 ^^^ I agree. I don't have a problem with Joe Buck. Harold Reynolds, on the other hand, isn't much of an analyst. Worse than Tim McCarver. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think the main announcing for the game last night was horrible, but the guys who were on the other feed who filled in while the main feed was out were way way better. Meanwhile I only made it into the 12th inning before hitting the sack. Go KC. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 McCarver is one of the worst. I hate listening to him fellate the NYY. I always liked Harold Reynolds, though. I think Joe Buck catches a lot of shit just because "he's not his dad." And that he's a twit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think the main announcing for the game last night was horrible, but the guys who were on the other feed who filled in while the main feed was out were way way better. Meanwhile I only made it into the 12th inning before hitting the sack. Go KC. LouieB Only if you compare John Smoltz to Harold Reynolds. But Joe Buck is a much better play-by-play guy than Matt Vasgersian. And I have no issues with Tom Verducci either. I think he would benefit if you got Reynolds out of the way. Three-man booths are pretty much always terrible. And since Reynolds is so bad, it drags the others down with him. Also, this was a great article following the Royals' ALCS win from Verducci: http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/10/24/royals-blue-jays-alcs-clinch-pennant Quote Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Only if you compare John Smoltz to Harold Reynolds. But Joe Buck is a much better play-by-play guy than Matt Vasgersian. And I have no issues with Tom Verducci either. I think he would benefit if you got Reynolds out of the way. Three-man booths are pretty much always terrible. And since Reynolds is so bad, it drags the others down with him. Also, this was a great article following the Royals' ALCS win from Verducci: http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/10/24/royals-blue-jays-alcs-clinch-pennant Last night's 'Dark Knight' exchange between Reynolds and Verducci was pretty cool -- I didn't realize that Verducci came up with the nickname for Harvey - and that story that Reynolds shared (him asking Harvey during batting practice prior to the last night's game ) was pretty cool 'behind the scene - on the field pregame info. The whole Harvey looking around the field and so he can point to Verducci. Of course I think Reynolds should have known that the person he shares the booth with came up with a cool nickname for pitcher. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Well I am just fine with watching sports with the sound off. Except for a few obscure calls in any sports (and I'm not that much of a sports nut) you can easily watch a game and know what is going on and not have the intrusion of the announcers killing time. I know everyone is partisan to certain announcers but honestly they add very little in my opinion, unless they are announcing on radio, at which point they are obviously important. And I heard the entire Dark Knight exchange too and could have cared less, but then again I like the World Series for what it is (the end of a long season) simply enjoy watching the championship go down. I really have no idea who is playing on either team. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thejokeexplained Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I've always found Joe Buck to be well-prepared and more than capable as a play-by-play announcer for both football and baseball. I've never really understood the hate for him.For me it's the lack of insight he has for any sport he calls. Growing up and listening to his dad call a game, Jack always added something special with his description and insight. Last night Joe gave us this enlightening tidbit in a key moment of the game. "'this is when the game of baseball is at it's best: when you've got a guy on the mound with a ball in his hand, and a guy at the plate with a bat in his hand." Uh... Joe, that is Baseball! It's almost like he tries to be poetic with his call but ends up sounding like a douch bag! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 For me it's the lack of insight he has for any sport he calls. Growing up and listening to his dad call a game, Jack always added something special with his description and insight. Last night Joe gave us this enlightening tidbit in a key moment of the game. "'this is when the game of baseball is at it's best: when you've got a guy on the mound with a ball in his hand, and a guy at the plate with a bat in his hand." Uh... Joe, that is Baseball! It's almost like he tries to be poetic with his call but ends up sounding like a douch bag! True. But every broadcaster has moments like that. Jim Nantz does this all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. To me, a play-by-play guy needs to merely describe what he sees and otherwise stay out of the way. The main criticism I would have of Joe Buck would be that sometimes he talks too much. But I generally have no problem with him. Even in 2011 when "his" Cardinals beat the Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.