shawnrbu said:Harold is sick of playing matchups and hearing about platoons.
You should hear him drone on about shifts
shawnrbu said:Harold is sick of playing matchups and hearing about platoons.
Someone needs to get him fired.Ed Hillel said:A grand slam doesn't hurt you up 4 runs, Harold?
He's Joe Morgan-stupid with a history of sexual harassment. Safe to say he's got pictures of someone.soxhop411 said:Someone needs to get him fired.
:speechless:nvalvo said:Reynolds is kind of goofy, but I think this is a better role for him than as an in-studio analyst. More conversational.
I just don't think he has the smarts to earn a living by talking in any fashion.nvalvo said:I'm fully aware it's an unconventional opinion, AZ.
Al Zarilla said:I just don't think he has the smarts to earn a living by talking in any fashion.
I shook my head at that too. It's still better than the alternative broadcast. They need to show more of the game and fewer stats on that one. The game isn't even half the screen and they keep flipping. The replays beside the live action are entirely distracting as well. Fail.Ed Hillel said:A grand slam doesn't hurt you up 4 runs, Harold?
Buck Martinez, although he's probably more annoying than dumb. Dizzy Dean comes to mind but I think he was playing dumb. Somehow, we hear Harold differently. I think he's terrible.nvalvo said:
We've all heard dumber on national broadcasts.
@pgammo: '13 doesn't die:Clay Buchholz and Jonny Gomes flying to SF to see Jake Peavy Sunday then to SF for John Lackey Tuesday
You lose a bit of the excitement of watching the game too. I wouldn't have liked it for the last couple innings of the last two Os/Royals games, but I kind of like flicking back and forth.cwright said:I like the alternate broadcast idea. And it's pretty good analysis. Two problems:
1. I hate the split screen and weird angles. And I'm currently watching on an HD widescreen tv, but my tv at home is not a widescreen and probably cuts off part of each picture.
2. The way they're discussing the game, you can't only kind of listen - they're not really doing a play-by-play. It's great if you're totally focused, but not if you're multitasking.
Still, it beats the regular Fox broadcast.
cwright said:I like the alternate broadcast idea. And it's pretty good analysis. Two problems:
1. I hate the split screen and weird angles. And I'm currently watching on an HD widescreen tv, but my tv at home is not a widescreen and probably cuts off part of each picture.
2. The way they're discussing the game, you can't only kind of listen - they're not really doing a play-by-play. It's great if you're totally focused, but not if you're multitasking.
Still, it beats the regular Fox broadcast.
SemperFidelisSox said:
@pgammo: '13 doesn't die:Clay Buchholz and Jonny Gomes flying to SF to see Jake Peavy Sunday then to SF for John Lackey Tuesday
mauidano said:C'mon. Wasting time Baumgarner got him on the knee with the glove.
Good luck with that. Madison has ice water in his veins.nvalvo said:
Trying to ice Bumgarner?
Matheny tried to play the "but he knocked him into right field" angle.mauidano said:C'mon. Wasting time Baumgarner got him on the knee with the glove.
What is your beef with Matheny? Just wondering.Van Everyman said:Imagine how insufferable a Showalter-Matheny World Series would be.
Right. The question is whether he started a natural pitching motion before he disengaged. From the front it looks like he did, but on the replay from the back, his front foot buckle is virtually simultaneous with the back foot disengaging. After watching a few times, I think Harold was right, but Buck shouted him down. It looked weird, but that doesn't make it a balk. It was damned close. But there was no intent to deceive a runner there. It was second and third. Defensible (non) call.nvalvo said:It wouldn't be a balk if he stepped off with his back foot, no?
Excellently explained.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:Right. The question is whether he started a natural pitching motion before he disengaged. From the front it looks like he did, but on the replay from the back, his front foot buckle is virtually simultaneous with the back foot disengaging. After watching a few times, I think Harold was right, but Buck shouted him down. It looked weird, but that doesn't make it a balk. It was damned close. But there was no intent to deceive a runner there. It was second and third. Defensible (non) call.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:Right. The question is whether he started a natural pitching motion before he disengaged. From the front it looks like he did, but on the replay from the back, his front foot buckle is virtually simultaneous with the back foot disengaging. After watching a few times, I think Harold was right, but Buck shouted him down. It looked weird, but that doesn't make it a balk. It was damned close. But there was no intent to deceive a runner there. It was second and third. Defensible (non) call.
Yeah, my initial reaction was that it was an obvious balk, but I think these umps nailed it. We give them shit but they know their stuff. It was a little disappointing that Verducci and Buck were really off base in trying to explain it in the next half inning. There were two movements of the front foot. One when he did his shuffle and one a few seconds before. They were analyzing it by looking at the first movement, or that's what it seemed they were saying. But he hadn't 't come set yet on the first movement.nvalvo said:The weird shuffle made it ambiguous, but I think you're exactly right.