The Giants being "lucky" to win WS

[sfgdood]

I meant to mention that I saw the most recent "Inside the Clubhouse" segment on CSN and it was a team Q&A. Bochy talked about how the team still isn't getting it's due respect. The look on his face told you all you need to know about how that burns him up. I'll tell you this much...if you told him to his face that the team got lucky and there were no cameras around...you'd have to fight him and I tend to doubt you'd get the better of it.

[sharksrog]

Randy -- I meant to mention that I saw the most recent "Inside the Clubhouse" segment on CSN and it was a team Q&A. Bochy talked about how the team still isn't getting it's due respect. The look on his face told you all you need to know about how that burns him up. I'll tell you this much...if you told him to his face that the team got lucky and there were no cameras around...you'd have to fight him and I tend to doubt you'd get the better of it.

Rog -- There's a difference between a team's not getting its due respect and it not getting that respect because of an East Coast Bias.

There are indeed reasons why an East Coast team may get more attention than a West Coast team, but I don't think there is any bias involved.

As for Bruce's comment, it's in his and the Giants' best interest for them to feel unde-rappreciated. Gives them extra incentive and more of an us-against-them attitude.

And you know what? When all is said and done, who give a darn? If my feelings for the Giants need to be validated by their acceptance by others, I'm not the fan I thought I was.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1599#ixzz2McCiDgR3

[sfgdood]

And where in my post did I mention an East Coast bias? I just was addressing the issue of "luck" in winning the WS. You're the one that is obsessed with this East Coast bias thing.

~Dood

[Islandboagie]

Rog- As for Bruce's comment, it's in his and the Giants' best interest for them to feel unde-rappreciated. Gives them extra incentive and more of an us-against-them attitude.

Boagie- This was Baker's style of managing, not Bochy's. Baker consistently adopted this "underdogs" label even when they clearly weren't the underdogs, to take the pressure off and to secure his job. Not Bochy's style. It's not Sabean's style either, that's a main reason why Baker is gone and Bochy was hired, and why we now have 2 World Series championships. The media will continue to call the Giants "misfits" or "underdogs" but I can tell you the message in the clubhouse is different, and I'm glad it is.

[sharksrog]

Randy -- And where in my post did I mention an East Coast bias? I just was addressing the issue of "luck" in winning the WS. You're the one that is obsessed with this East Coast bias thing.

Rog -- How can I be obsessed with something that doesn't exist? You on the other hand first brought the concept up.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9351#ixzz2MgN4aKN0

[sharksrog]

Rog- As for Bruce's comment, it's in his and the Giants' best interest for them to feel unde-rappreciated. Gives them extra incentive and more of an us-against-them attitude.

Boagie- This was Baker's style of managing, not Bochy's. Baker consistently adopted this "underdogs" label even when they clearly weren't the underdogs, to take the pressure off and to secure his job. Not Bochy's style. It's not Sabean's style either, that's a main reason why Baker is gone and Bochy was hired, and why we now have 2 World Series championships. The media will continue to call the Giants "misfits" or "underdogs" but I can tell you the message in the clubhouse is different, and I'm glad it is.

Rog -- I repeat. It is in Bruce Bochy's and the team's interest to feel underappreciated. Certainly can't HURT motivation. As for Bochy's not making his team feel they are underdogs or misfits, of course he's going to make them feel like they are the good team they are.

As fans, why do we care how the Giants are viewed nationally? I can see it if it affects the voting for awards, but the Giants don't seem to be adversely affected in that area.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#ixzz2MgNiCM3v

[allenreed]

I think this works as an advantage because the media can only be a distraction, especially the current media who are always looking for dirt or some other kind of sensationalistic BS to talk about. As far as I'm concerned, the Giants can just keep flying under the radar and continue to win.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- I think this works as an advantage because the media can only be a distraction, especially the current media who are always looking for dirt or some other kind of sensationalistic BS to talk about.

Rog -- Which guys who cover Giants baseball is it that you think are always looking for dirt of some other kind of senstationalistic BS to talk about?

I'm not even sure that the two Chronicle writers who broke the Balco/Barry Bonds steroids issue were simply being sensationalistic.

I know that one of the two Balco writers wrote just a sensational and emphatic story about Leon Powe.

The Melky Cabrera story was handled pretty even-handedly last summer. Tim Lincecum's marijuana possession wasn't sensationalized at all.

You're a Raiders fan, Allen. And a far better person than most of them. Remember when John Gruden was arrested in Pleasanton for drunk driving?

You likely enjoy Raiders beat writer Steve Corkran and might even have heard him on KNBR. I can tell you that Steve wasn't overly thrilled when he found out about the incident. He called Gruden and said that the story was going to come out and that he needed to talk to Jon about it. Corkran got no pleasure from writing what might have been the most sensationalistic story of his writing career.

By the way, Allen, I know you're not exactly enamored of sports journalists, but have you noticed how efficient Corkran is with the words he uses to write about the Raiders?

Corkran also wrote an excellent story about the 2009 San Jose Giants, who had such a deep lineup that Thomas Neal began the season batting 9th. Neal was traded to the Indians by the Giants and has played a few games in the majors.

The Corkran article covered guys like Buster Posey, Madison Bumgarner, Tim Alderson, Joe Martinez, Dan Runzler, Sergio Romo, Ryan Sadowski, Angel Villalona, Nick Noonan, Brandon Crawford, Conor Gillaspie, Neal, Darren Ford and Roger Kieschnick. It was great except for one glaring error: Corkran spoke highly of Gillaspie's glove.

When this was pointed out to him, he simply said he made a mistake. Given that he was a Raiders writer who was simply doing an off-season special assignment, I think he could be forgiven.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9360#ixzz2MhDRxGr8

[allenreed]

Actually, I may have misspoke. Not all the media are like that. The Bay Area media is pretty docile. If Bonds had pulled the crap in NY or Boston that he pulled here, he would have been crucified. But I do remember ESPN assigning a guy just to cover Bonds and dig for dirt on him. There are alot of media now who feel as if there job ids to make news rather than report it, or feel that there job is to promote their own personal agenda. They make up stories that aren't there, exaggerate minor stories into huge ones, and if it suits their purpose, cover up stories that should be reported. Timmy's marijuana bust may fall under the latter. He was an SF darling at the time, so the story was largely buried.
I'm curious to know what you mean by saying that I'm better than most Raider fans. Please expand.
Corkran's OK, I just don't pay alot of attention to these guys anymore. I just glean the facts from the story and go from there.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- I'm curious to know what you mean by saying that I'm better than most Raider fans. Please expand.

Rog -- You're a good guy, and a lot of the Raiders fans aren't.

Allen -- Corkran's OK, I just don't pay alot of attention to these guys anymore. I just glean the facts from the story and go from there.

Rog -- Perhaps the top four things I think a beat writer needs to do are (in order):

. Be able to put out a quick story under extreme deadline pressure. This is especially important for the internet, but can be critical for newspapers as well.

. Be able to come up with interesting stories behind the scene (feature articles).

. Be able express reasonable opinions and inferences without appearing to be speculative or opinionated.

. Make every word efficient, since space is so limited these days. (This applies more to newspapers than the internet.)

To be honest, not being a Raiders fan myself, I don't read all that much of Steve. But I have seen him write seeming volumes after a Raiders game in which he deadline had to be strict. He is able to write a game story and a couple of other articles on side topics that come up during the course of the game.

He's a likeable guy, so I suspect he is able to drum up good feature articles. He knows the game, so I suspect he's able to write ideas without being overly opinionated.

What I admire most about his writing is its tightness. When I read his writing, even when I know he is on a tight deadline, I have a hard time finding a way I could say in fewer words what he is saying.

I can tell you, it's a lot easier to write 1000 words about a game than be limited to 200 or 300.

When reading game coverage, look for clever ledes (or leads) to game stories. They certainly aren't the norm, but I really enjoy them when I see them. They're not that easy to come up with.

Take a look at a game story online just a few minutes after the game is over. Some are extremely impressive. Obviously a lot is written right while the game is going on, but what to write and how to tie it together? And how do you pay attention to what is happening while you are writing?

I have noticed a propensity on your part not to give much credit to others. Certainly there are poor-quality workers in 'most any profession. But the more competitive a field is, the less room there is for those who are less than excellent.

Study a field before you are overly critical of it. Sometimes the job is far more difficult than it first appears. You know how they say, walk a mile in a man's shoes? Put yourself in guys' shoes and see how the shoes fit or cause bunions and corns before you get overly critical.

When you're talking about sports writers, there just aren't NEARLY as many of them as there used to be. Most of the crummy ones are gone, and a lot of good ones too.

Many here are all OVER sports officials. Hey, I probably get more upset with bad calls than anyone here. Not only do I hate them because they are missed and affect the game, I hate them because having officiated myself, I seek perfection for them just as I sought it for myself.

But the fact is, there is a human element involved. Slow motion and freeze frames have made it appear as if officials are lousy. The fact is, the job they do is difficult. Calls WILL be missed. On occasion, even calls that aren't all that close will be missed. No matter HOW good the official, it just happens.

Before you get all over an official for missing a call, officiate yourself. You'll never make it to levels where things happen with the speed they happen in major league sports, but even at the high school level there are tough calls -- and calls that are missed, even by the best of 'em.

What I'm saying is that the degree of difficulty in officiating is higher than most can appreciate. I HATE it when an official makes a mistake. But I also know that no matter HOW good an official is, he will miss calls.

You probably say, sure I would miss calls, but those guys are PAID to do it. They should be the best. The thing I don't believe many here understand is that not only would we miss more calls than the paid officials, we would miss MANY more calls than they.

It looks easy when we're watching on TV. On the actual field of play, it's a lot harder.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9363#ixzz2MhTwk3sJ

[donk]

Corkran also wrote an excellent story about the 2009 San Jose Giants, who had such a deep lineup that Thomas Neal began the season batting 9th. Neal was traded to the Indians by the Giants and has played a few games in the majors.

dk...for your info...Neal was released by the Indians and signed by the Yanks...he is camp for ST and is 2 for 9...low average, high slg......and Frandsen continue to eat up that ST pitching....364/.391/.727....and 2 hits today against Dom.Rep.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- I repeat. It is in Bruce Bochy's and the team's interest to feel underappreciated. Certainly can't HURT motivation. As for Bochy's not making his team feel they are underdogs or misfits, of course he's going to make them feel like they are the good team they are.

Boagie- You might be right, however I don't believe it's in the best interest of any business, owner, or boss to have their employees feel underappreciated. Sure, it might encourage them to try harder in the begining, but after a while they deserve their just due. Buster won MVP last year, Timmy's won Cy Youngs, Matt Cain has been a model of consistency and pitched a perfect game, a number of other players have made All-Star appearances but yet they're still labeled as a team of misfits.

You also have to look at it in the standpoint of the players we could get to come here in the future. If east coast and large market teams get more exposure the Giants would be toward the bottom of the list for free agent interest. We already know hitters shy away from here because of the park, the lack of exposure just adds to it. I think that's where Sabean's disagreement with the media bias stems from.

Rog- As fans, why do we care how the Giants are viewed nationally? I can see it if it affects the voting for awards, but the Giants don't seem to be adversely affected in that area.

Boagie- As Giants fans why do we care about who's better between Koufax and Pedro Martinez? There are plenty of things we talk about that we shouldn't care about and it's not about whether I care about it, the disscussion's been about if a bias exists or not.

Overall the Giants not getting the respect they deserve doesn't make me lose any sleep. But Posey being ranked 21st on the list of 100 best players just shouldn't happen.

A Fox broadcast of a Giants vs. Phillies game shouldn't have a Phillies announcer and Mitch Williams (longtime Phillies closer) as the announcers. Honestly, some of these instances do piss me off a little.

Eventhough I thought they did a good job in the NLCS they shouldn't have had Buck and McCarver doing the Giants and Cardinals series. Why not throw Buck and Kuiper out there? Level the scale a little bit. Add the fact that Karros and Pierzynski were the pre-game and post game analysts, Fox had stacked the deck in favor of the Cardinals. Karros and Pierzynki actually looked uncomfortable giving credit to the Giants.

Btw, it should be noted that your argument has shifted from "there is no bias" to "why should we care if there's a bias?" Am I to assume that you might be admitting to a smidge of bias?

I don't think you should disagree with my overall viewpoint here, Rog. It's not that I would be any happier with a west coast bias. I just think the media should be balanced, and players and teams should get their just due.

Remember leading up to the All-Star game when the Giants fans were flooding the ballot boxes?...I was upset. I was even more upset the way Kuiper and Krukow encouraged fans to make other email addresses so they could vote more. Belt and Crawford were actually close to winning. I'm glad the Giants fans made their loyalty known, but if Brandon Belt was the starting 1st baseman for the All-Star game, it would have been embarassment to Giants fans, in my opinion.

[sharksrog]

Boagie- You might be right, however I don't believe it's in the best interest of any business, owner, or boss to have their employees feel underappreciated. Sure, it might encourage them to try harder in the begining, but after a while they deserve their just due. Buster won MVP last year, Timmy's won Cy Youngs, Matt Cain has been a model of consistency and pitched a perfect game, a number of other players have made All-Star appearances but yet they're still labeled as a team of misfits.

Rog -- As long as the players are appreciated by the Giants and paid accordingly, I see no reason for their outside reputation to do anything but motivate them. A well- and fairly-paid team that wins should have the chemistry to withstand outside pressures.

And if they band together to withstand those pressures, it should only make them stronger.

I think how the Giants appreciate, treat and pay their players is far more important than outside influences.

And as you point out, this "overachieving, misfits" outside perception hasn't affected Giants players adversely when it comes to individual honors.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9373#ixzz2Mmpq4UEA

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- As long as the players are appreciated by the Giants and paid accordingly, I see no reason for their outside reputation to do anything but motivate them. A well- and fairly-paid team that wins should have the chemistry to withstand outside pressures.

And if they band together to withstand those pressures, it should only make them stronger.

I think how the Giants appreciate, treat and pay their players is far more important than outside influences.

And as you point out, this "overachieving, misfits" outside perception hasn't affected Giants players adversely when it comes to individual honors.

Boagie- As usual, Rog, you're making wonderful points here! I would agree 100% with all of this IF(!!!) the Giants hadn't won the World Series twice in the last three years. The Giants are no longer the underdogs, they're no longer misfits and they didn't get lucky, this core of players are now two-time World Series champions and in a good position of becoming a dynasty. I don't believe I'm off my rocker by thinking the national sports media should recognize that.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Posey being ranked 21st on the list of 100 best players just shouldn't happen.

Rog -- I thought he would be ranked 3rd, so I was more than a little surprised when he was announced at #21. I think what killed him was his time missed in 2011.

I do know two of the five criteria used were the past three seasons (with an emphasis on 2012) and intangibles (including injuries). Clearly the injury hurt him in each of those two aspects.

That is supported by his #16 ranking after the 2010 season. At that point, Buster hadn't totally proven himself, but he had tremendous potential, was still quite young, and aside from missing a week or so when he suffered a concussion when beaned in San Jose, had been quite healthy.

I don't remember how far he dropped after his 2011 injury, but I'm thinking it was to around 50 or 60. His MVP season in 2012 brought him back to #21.

Al Leiter said that if Buster stays healthy this year, the Giants should win it all. Harold Reynolds said if he had another season like this one, he would be top 5.

I too was surprised by the #21 rating, but when accompanied by the comments of Leiter and Reynolds, I see no lack of respect.

Same with Tim Lincecum, who even after his struggles in both May and August of 2010 (followed by a terrific September and postseason) was ranked #6 after the Giants' World Championship season.

One thing we shouldn't forget is that there are a LOT of really good players. The top 100 make up less than 10% of the players who played in the majors last season. So as a group, they tend to be REALLY good.

If this rating is predicting how good the players will be in the 2013 season, Buster's injury issues should indeed drop him down a bit. He could well be in the top five in performance this season, he could drop back a bit and be in say the #20-#50 range, or he could become injured and not even be in the top 100.

I was surprised by Buster's low ranking. But if one takes into consideration the injury possibility inherent in the position and the fact that Buster has already suffered a devastating injury, it might not be all that far out of whack.

We also might want to take into consideration that Buster's .368 Batting Average on Balls In Play (BABIP) was 29 points higher than his career average. In the 2nd half of the season, his BABIP was off the charts.

I personally expect Buster's average to drop but his power to increase. How the power increase offsets the average shrinkage, along with how Buster continues to develop behind the plate and his continued health, will determine whether Buster deserves a year from now to be considered in the top five going into 2014.

Madison Bumgarner could well move up from his #71, and Brandon Belt and Ryan Vogelsong could join the top 100. A strong rebound from Tim Lincecum could return him there. Hunter Pence and Angel Pagan could join the mix, as could another top-notch season from the aging Marco Scutaro.

If Gary Brown were to suddenly burst on the scene in a big way, he could get there.

If the Giants' players perform, it is likely they will get noticed.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#ixzz2Mmqoccy5

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- The Giants are no longer the underdogs, they're no longer misfits and they didn't get lucky, this core of players are now two-time World Series champions and in a good position of becoming a dynasty. I don't believe I'm off my rocker by thinking the national sports media should recognize that.

Rog -- You're definitely not off your rocker, and the media could recognize the Giants more. But they may recognize them more than you think they do.

I personally pick the Giants to win the NL West, but given how hard it is to repeat, I can understand why others (less intelligent than we are) would predict otherwise.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#ixzz2Mn9rtP6G

[allenreed]

Rog -- You're a good guy, and a lot of the Raiders fans aren't.

Allen- In what way?

I have noticed a propensity on your part not to give much credit to others. Certainly there are poor-quality workers in 'most any profession. But the more competitive a field is, the less room there is for those who are less than excellent.

Allen- I would disagree, especially with journalism today. Maybe with so much space to fill on the internet, the field isn't really that competitive, but there are alot of people in the profession who just aren't very good.
Mostly I read the CCTimes, and they have Kawakami, who really isn't anything special, Monte Poole who has a racial agenda. I couldn't even tell you who writes the stories on the Giants games, they're very ordinary. Marcus Thompson who writes about the Warriors is pretty good.
The analysts on TV are even worse, especially on ESPN. Start with Stephen A. (louder is better) Smith. I guess he feels that if he shouts, people will be more convinced of his expertise.
One guy I do like is Jim Barnett on the Warrior broadcasts. He's for the W's, but he doesn't beat you over the head with it, and he knows basketball six ways to Sunday. he should really be a coach at the HS or college level.

Study a field before you are overly critical of it. Sometimes the job is far more difficult than it first appears. You know how they say, walk a mile in a man's shoes? Put yourself in guys' shoes and see how the shoes fit or cause bunions and corns before you get overly critical.

Allen- What makes you think I haven't? The fact that I don't agree with you?

Many here are all OVER sports officials. Hey, I probably get more upset with bad calls than anyone here. Not only do I hate them because they are missed and affect the game, I hate them because having officiated myself, I seek perfection for them just as I sought it for myself.

Allen- When a league admits that it's officiating is biased, (as the NBA has) they have no beef when their officials are criticized. After giving up on pro basketball for a few years, I've watched more of the Warriors this year because they're having some success and they're a fun team to watch.
The officiating is as horrific as it was when I watched before. Harrison Barnes, a W's rookie, is a good case in point. He almost never gets a call, even though he's often just hammered. By contrast, if Andris Biedrins breathes near a player, he gets called for a foul. I guess they haven't earned fair officiating yet.

You probably say, sure I would miss calls, but those guys are PAID to do it.

Allen- Not only paid, but trained to do it and experienced at it. The pay is not the issue. Obama's paid, and look at the mess he's making.

[Islandboagie]

Study a field before you are overly critical of it. Sometimes the job is far more difficult than it first appears. You know how they say, walk a mile in a man's shoes? Put yourself in guys' shoes and see how the shoes fit or cause bunions and corns before you get overly critical.

Allen- What makes you think I haven't? The fact that I don't agree with you?


Boagie- My uncle, who was a long-time producer of 60 minutes and helped start up CNN, always complains about how the media has gone from reporting the news into propaganda or self-glorification. It's gone from facts to opinions, and interviews into shouting matches. The media outlets have replaced good factual information with ratings and/or sales. It's quite clear to anyone paying attention, TV, radio, newspapers and online news sources have adopted controversy and left out content. Now this isn't the case with everyone, but it's certainly a growing trend.

Let's focus on sports media...

How did Jim Rome become a top sports media personality..was it because of his charming intellectual conversations and his overall knowledge of sports? or did he get fame by intentionally insulting Jim Everett to get a reaction out of him. It worked, and his popularity soared.

Erin Andrews' career took off after getting her nudes posted on the internet. Of course, Erin didn't plan to get her nude pictures posted all over the internet, but now that she's become the main reporter for Fox Sports it's quite clear where network executives stand on controversy over content.

Gary Radnich saw his ratings soar after getting into a heated discussion with Barry Zito. Another instance of a media personality acting like an ass and getting recognized. Gary knows little to nothing about baseball, but his antics have made him into one of the biggest sports media personalities in the Bay Area.

Negative stories sell these days. Whether it's Radnich insulting high paid atheletes, Keith Olbermann calling Bush the devil, or Bill O'reilly screaming at Barney Frank...no matter how entertaining it might be, it's not news.

[allenreed]

Boagie- My uncle, who was a long-time producer of 60 minutes and helped start up CNN, always complains about how the media has gone from reporting the news into propaganda or self-glorification. It's gone from facts to opinions, and interviews into shouting matches. The media outlets have replaced good factual information with ratings and/or sales. It's quite clear to anyone paying attention, TV, radio, newspapers and online news sources have adopted controversy and left out content. Now this isn't the case with everyone, but it's certainly a growing trend.

Allen- This is very well stated, and goes back to what I said before. It's not about news anymore, it's about ratings and of course, money.The bad part of it is that it keeps the populace from being informed. When a media outlet has no scruples or standards (ie: MSNBC) it can lead to people being uninformed or misinformed, and bad decisions are made (ie Obama being re-elected).

Let's focus on sports media...

How did Jim Rome become a top sports media personality..was it because of his charming intellectual conversations and his overall
knowledge of sports? or did he get fame by intentionally insulting Jim Everett to get a reaction out of him. It worked, and his popularity soared.

Allen- Absolutely right. Rome is somewhat knowlegable, but I'd like to buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth. He's really more obnoxious than anything.

Gary Radnich saw his ratings soar after getting into a heated discussion with Barry Zito. Another instance of a media personality acting like an ass and getting recognized. Gary knows little to nothing about baseball, but his antics have made him into one of the biggest sports media personalities in the Bay Area.

Allen- Have to admit that I like Radnich. His show on KNBR is often entertaining and fun to listen to. I remember listening once when he was talking about Zito and Barry called in to the show. They had a good discussion, and I don't remember it being heated at all. Just two people who disagreed having an exchange of ideas.
Radnich has called Zito's contract a huge mitake and said that Barry hasn't earned the money. Is he wrong?

Negative stories sell these days. Whether it's Radnich insulting high paid atheletes, Keith Olbermann calling Bush the devil, or Bill O'reilly screaming at Barney Frank...no matter how entertaining it might be, it's not news. [/quote]

Allen- O'Reilly got into it with Alan Colmes the other night. Not as bad as Frank, but almost. I like O'Reilly, and in both cases, he was right to go off on these guys. Frank should have been arrested for what he did with Fannie Mae, and Colmes is just an idiot.

[sharksrog]

Rog -- You probably say, sure I would miss calls, but those guys are PAID to do it.

Allen- Not only paid, but trained to do it and experienced at it.

Rog -- So a guy is trained, experienced and his risen to the top of his field. If he makes mistakes, the job is likely a very difficult one.

Allen, we could train you and give you 20 years of experience, and it still is almost certain you would miss many more calls than professional officials do. You ask yourself, how hard can it be? But that's because you haven't pursued it enough to understand.

I still get the feeling that in your heart of hearts you believe that there are few aside from you who can do a job as well as it should be done.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9393#ixzz2MsUabfNV

[sfgdood]

Rog -- You probably say, sure I would miss calls, but those guys are PAID to do it.

Allen- Not only paid, but trained to do it and experienced at it.

Rog -- So a guy is trained, experienced and his risen to the top of his field. If he makes mistakes, the job is likely a very difficult one.

Allen, we could train you and give you 20 years of experience, and it still is almost certain you would miss many more calls than professional officials do. You ask yourself, how hard can it be? But that's because you haven't pursued it enough to understand.

Dood - well if it is really that difficult to get the calls right, then it might be time to let computer strike zones call balls and strikes and video replays have a bigger role in the game.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Dood - well if it is really that difficult to get the calls right, then it might be time to let computer strike zones call balls and strikes and video replays have a bigger role in the game.

Rog -- I'm all for it. The only thing I don't like would be slowing the game down too much. But I'm all for getting the call right, and I suspect the technology is there to virtually eliminate umpires.

I think fans would miss the umpires -- or at least being able to talk about the calls the umpires missed. But it wouldn't be a problem for me.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9402#ixzz2MtGRJ9t3

[sfgdood]

Dood - well if it is really that difficult to get the calls right, then it might be time to let computer strike zones call balls and strikes and video replays have a bigger role in the game.

Rog -- I'm all for it. The only thing I don't like would be slowing the game down too much.

Dood - I think it would actually speed up the games because there would be no argument of balls and strikes. You wouldnt get far arguing with a computer. I'm tired of those slob umpires trying to be part of the action anyway. It's time they got brought back down a peg. There should be no umpire safe from being canned for incompetence. Nobody else is free from accountability except the umpires right now.

~Dood

[allenreed]

Allen, we could train you and give you 20 years of experience, and it still is almost certain you would miss many more calls than professional officials do. You ask yourself, how hard can it be? But that's because you haven't pursued it enough to understand.

Allen- Probably. I'd be over 77 years old. But if I started young and got the training, I think i could do it. I'm not sure I get the condescension from you Rog. Do you think you're the only guy smart enough to understand this stuff?

I still get the feeling that in your heart of hearts you believe that there are few aside from you who can do a job as well as it should be done.

Allen- I'm not sure that's it. I think that different sports have different reasons for having poor officiating. In baseball, the guys make calls depending on the who the players involved are, and they hold grudges. Alot of them are just plain lazy. (Hi there Joe West). In football, you have part time officials, many of whom are too old to keep up with the athletes they're officiating. Basketball admits to being biased towards star players and teams.
I think the reason the officiating is so bad is that the officials often don't do the best they can do, and that the leagues don't hold them accountable enough. In the NFL, they simply don't hire the best officials they can, nor do they train them enough. Additionally in football, there are just too many damn rules, and too many of them depend on the official's judgment.

[sharksrog]

Dood - I think it would actually speed up the games because there would be no argument of balls and strikes.

Rog -- There are almost never arguments about balls and strikes. It is cause for immediate ejection.

Electronic "umpires" would speed up the game. Replays slow it down.

By the way, it is stupid to have the refs go "under the hood," to the scorers table or (in the case of umpires) under the stands in order to review calls. Those judgments should be made by officials, whether off-site on on-site, and be made very quickly.

In hockey, all goals are reviewed in the "war room" in Toronto as well as by an on-site official up in essentially the press box. The reviews rarely take much more time than reporting and recording the goal at the scorer's bench does.

Fans seem to like the human element of officiating, but it could be eliminated to a significant degree or even in its entirety should sports decide to do so. I love to officiate, but if the job can be done better and more efficiently electronically, I'm all for it.

As for whether umpires should be exempt from review and possibly firing based on performance, I fully agree with you they shouldn't be. On the other hand, they aren't entirely exempt.

I personally know an umpire who was canned by MLB right before he umpired enough games to earn his pension. He was a AAA umpire who was called up for vacation replacements. He sued and apparently won some type of settlement.

I don't specifically remember seeing the guy umpire, although I must have seen him do so on TV. I did referee basketball with him though, and wasn't particularly impressed. He did a lot to work with amateur umpires though, when he didn't really have to do so.

Should he have been fired when he was? I'm unsure, although the timing wasn't good.

As for officials in other sports, I believe they can usually be fired if they don't cut the mustard. Remember how there were originally two female refs in the NBA? Only Violet Palmer remains.

Years ago I spoke on the phone with NBA referee Joe DeRosa and asked him if the pressure was high to stay in his position. He said something to the effect of "You wouldn't believe it."

I reffed with a guy who reffed in the first women's pro league (right before the WNBA). He said his job was on the line game by game.

I worked with the Pac-10 (now Pac-12) basketball referees. They can be replaced year to year and often are. I have stood right beside the head of the Pac-10 basketball ref when he said was going to have to tell one of the three refs to step up his game. I'm not sure I've seen the guy since.

If umpires can't be fired, they should be able to. Or at least farmed out.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9404#ixzz2MtegYYmS

[allenreed]

Fans seem to like the human element of officiating, but it could be eliminated to a significant degree or even in its entirety should sports decide to do so. I love to officiate, but if the job can be done better and more efficiently electronically, I'm all for it.

Allen- I think it could be done in baseball fairly easily, but not football or basketball. Too many calls call for human judgment (ie holding, pass interference, fouls in hoops).

As for whether umpires should be exempt from review and possibly firing based on performance, I fully agree with you they shouldn't be. On the other hand, they aren't entirely exempt.

Allen- Of course they should be accountable. Very few jobs don't have some kind of performance review. Umpiring shouldn't be any different. I think they should send the umps to the minors when they need to improve, just as they do with players.

I personally know an umpire who was canned by MLB right before he umpired enough games to earn his pension. He was a AAA umpire who was called up for vacation replacements. He sued and apparently won some type of settlement.

Allen- He was probably canned so he wouldn't collect the pension.

As for officials in other sports, I believe they can usually be fired if they don't cut the mustard. Remember how there were originally two female refs in the NBA? Only Violet Palmer remains.

Allen- And she's not very good. She's awfully slow getting up and down the floor, and seems to spend alot of time talking with people on the sidelines.

[Islandboagie]

Allen- I think it could be done in baseball fairly easily, but not football or basketball. Too many calls call for human judgment (ie holding, pass interference, fouls in hoops).

Boagie- There's also a human element that comes into officiating baseball too, like obstruction plays on the basepaths, tags or missed tags..I think that would be hard for a computer to pick up on, therefor it would require instant replay alot. And just the presence of the umpires and their warnings do prevent beanball wars.

I get upset as much as anyone about blown calls and some umpires choosing their pride over getting the call right. There are a few umpires I think should be fired..Gary Darling, Angel Hernandez and probably a few others. But I like the human officiating element.

Did you ever see "The Third Team" on the MLB Network? It looked at the inside of umpiring during the World Series, and how they were as happy to be there as the teams were. Of course, the umpires who make it to the World Series are usually the best ones, but you really got the feeling that their main goal was to get the calls right, and if they blew a call it would bother them more than anyone.

Some umpires don't look at replays, which bothers me, but some go back and look at the plays right after the game to see if they missed calls. I think all umpires should review close plays to see if they missed any, and to see how they could get in a better position to make the right call in the future. If you don't know whether or not you blew the call, how can you get better?

The umpires who don't want to watch, aren't trying to improve, those umpires need to change their ways or be gone from the game.

But, Allen, if you havent watched it you should try to make an effort to do so, it gave me a better perspective on how some umpires really take their job seriously. Those umpires are the same ones who would like to include instant replay. I believe that's the way to go here, add instant replay on close calls used under the umpire's discretion. MLB should then penalize any umpire who opted not to use instant replay when the call turned out wrong.

[sharksrog]

Boagie --Did you ever see "The Third Team" on the MLB Network? It looked at the inside of umpiring during the World Series, and how they were as happy to be there as the teams were. Of course, the umpires who make it to the World Series are usually the best ones, but you really got the feeling that their main goal was to get the calls right, and if they blew a call it would bother them more than anyone.

Rog -- I haven't seen the show, but the way you've described it reinforces some of what has been posted here about officials.

It's a long way from major league baseball, but I have been with Pac-10 (now Pac-12) officials right after Cal games when we went over both good and bad calls. At first there was occasional resistance from the grizzled veteran officials to going over calls via video, but very soon every official was eager to see his calls and hoped he got them right.

Occasionally an official would be defensive, but seldom. For the most part, at least on the surface, they were eager to learn.

One time I recorded what I considered to be a palming violation, even though I knew we weren't going to use it in our review. After we were done reviewing, I ran the clip just for my own benefit. Although we were done, one of the officials was watching over my shoulder.

"That was palming, wasn't it," he said.

Palming is one of two calls I don't think are made enough. The other is in not calling traveling when a player -- usually on the post -- "hops" into his move. The player is supposed to keep a pivot foot until he starts his dribble, but on the "hop," that usually isn't the case.

I have mentioned that I would like to see more cooperation on the field between the baseball umpires, but at least it has improved over the years. And video review is being used more in all sports.

Despite what most here think, almost all officials DO take their work quite seriously. At the upper levels, the officials do a lot of video work and often have to write a report on the videos they are sent of their last game.

Even at the lower levels such as I officiated at, I viewed tape whenever I could and also spent my own money to attend camps to help me improve.

I haven't kept track, but I know I have officiated at least 5000 games, and it's probably more like 6000 -- or more. Back when I first got started, my goal was to officiate two games a day, or 730 games in one year. I wound up at 762.

Looking back, even 6000 is probably too low. I do know I approached 2000 games over a three-year period.

You (broadly, not you, Boagie) don't think I enjoyed officiating and worked hard to improve? At one crazy time, I actually worked five different jobs. Three of them -- not including my full time job -- involved sports.

Now THOSE were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1599&page=1#9427#ixzz2MydZtE5s

[allenreed]

But, Allen, if you havent watched it you should try to make an effort to do so, it gave me a better perspective on how some umpires really take their job seriously. Those umpires are the same ones who would like to include instant replay. I believe that's the way to go here, add instant replay on close calls used under the umpire's discretion. MLB should then penalize any umpire who opted not to use instant replay when the call turned out wrong..

Allen- Actually, I did watch it. I don't believe the umps are bad fellows per se, just that they get a little too secure in their positions and get lazy, then when they're caught in a mistake they try to use bluster and bombast to cover their position. (Hi there again, Mr. West).
The guy who impressed me was the umpire (Jim Joyce?) who blew the call on Armando Gallaraga's perfect game for the Tigers a while back. He seemed genuinely distressed that he blew the call and apologized to the player. I think that showed alot. Not alot of umpires would do that.
Darling and Hernandez are two that should definitely go, along with Joe West, CB Bucknor, Laz Diaz, and Phil Cuzzi.

[sfgdood]

Whether these guys are bad guys or not is irrelevant. Like Allen said, they just aren't held accountable enough and that makes them complacent. Computers should only be used for balls and strikes. Every other call should be made by an on field umpire and backed up vigorously by expanded use of replays, which should be automatically looked at by a "replay umpire" up in the press box.

In response to Rog's statement that there are no arguments over balls and strikes because of the "automatic ejection" rule, you must not watch very many games because even if there are no full blown shouting matches, there is plenty of argument that goes on over balls and strikes that doesn't result in ejection and rightly so. Batters walk out of the box for a long time, catchers hold their mitt still for a long period of time after catching a pitch, pitchers stare an ump down or go for a walk around the mound, coaches yell from the dugout. This happens a lot when a umpire's strike zone is inconsistent. That's what would be nice about a computer generated zone...consistency. That and the computer has no ability to have its zone effected by fan, coach or player pressure.

The bottom line is getting the calls right. The current umpires get it wrong far too often and in many cases with no recourse in overturning their calls because they were the closest to the play. In my world, the replay umpire would review every questionable play immediately and signal down to the crew chief when he needs a few extra seconds to continue reviewing a play. Most games wouldnt be extended that much. The replays would cause more scrutiny to be held on umpires...stats could be compiled on which umpires get their calls overturned most and accountability would be easier and more tangibly seen by the fans.

~Dood