Master Index of Archived Threads


Raissman: Darling slams Zambrano

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 06:01 AM

From Raissman's column in this morning's Daily News: Oh, my Darling Don't look for Victor Zambrano to invite SNY's Ron Darling out for a beer anytime soon. Darling whacked the Mets pitcher, basically accusing him of loafing when he should have been backing up third base Tuesday in the fifth inning of the Mets-Orioles Grapefruit League tilt on SNY. Zambrano's late backup - Xavier Nady's throw from right field went past third - cost the Mets two runs. While watching an isolated replay of Zambrano's reaction, Darling said: "Zambrano's head is down. He's lollygagging over to third base. One of the things you're taught since you're a small kid is if you are a pitcher you bust your rear end to get over there (to backup third). And make sure you are in a position to field the ball." So there. Omigawd! A Mets broadcaster said something mildly critical about a Met. Has the planet stopped rotating yet? Darling should know better, and he will, I'm sure. There's probably a lapse in judgment, a brain freeze, a glaringly bad decision made in every MLB inning (in a context of dozens of exceptionally smart and skilled plays, too, that announcers are sure to point out), but woe betide the announcer who mentions one of them. I hope Darling gets to squeeze out a few more such observations before the Mets deep-freeze him into submission. I hope Darling continues to emulate Tim McCarver's critical commenting style rather than Ed (The Happy Eunuch) Coleman's style of making lame excuses for colossally obvious mistakes, but I'm not hopeful here. Enjoy it while it lasts.

KC Mar 26 2006 07:48 AM

Actually, it's you that has become completely unobjective. Completely. Yes, Coleman has come across over many years as the Mets' butt boy, but he hasn't been an actual broadcaster all that long. Having the MLB package for the last coupla years and watching parts of hundreds of ball games from all over the country we should thank our lucky stars that for the most part the broadcasters for the Mets are among the most objective on the baseball planet.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 08:15 AM

And God bless America.

KC Mar 26 2006 08:32 AM

Go watch a few White Sox games ... get back to us.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 08:43 AM

Is this going to turn into another "Other teams do schmucky things, too, Sal, so don't be telling us about the Mets" thread? If you want to defend Coleman, I'd love to have that discussion. The only time he EVER criticizes a Met is after that Met has left the team. I've never seen such a cowardly hypocrite as him. "Say, Ed, why do you think Willie was having sexual congress with a goat out on the mound?" "Well, I'm not sure he was, Howie. He may have been performing some sort of colonoscopy, maybe some emergency procedure, on the animal. I'm not even sure it was an animal. It may have been a blow-up toy of some sort. Willie has a good sense of humor, Howie, as you know, and there's no way to be sure from this angle what it was." "Couldn't you ask him in the post-game interview?" "Well, sure, I could but right now WIllie may be sensitive, so I'll wait for him to bring up the subject of humping farm animals in public on his own" bbbyyyy until Willlie gets fired and then it's "Willie had his well-known problems sexually assaulting quadripeds during games, and it's probably best for everyone he's gone..." Well-known, maybe, but certainly no thanks to Ed.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 26 2006 08:53 AM

You say that as if sexual congress with a goat is a bad thing. I don't think they'll muzzle anyone for pointing out errors in hustle. Gary always tells it like it is, and Hernandez is just fun to listen to precisely because you don;t know what he might say. I don't have much of an opinion on Darling yet...

KC Mar 26 2006 09:07 AM

It's not going to turn into anything and I don't see how calling Coleman the Mets' butt boy shows any desire to defend him. But, whatever.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 09:59 AM

KC wrote: It's not going to turn into anything and I don't see how calling Coleman the Mets' butt boy shows any desire to defend him. But, whatever. I guess it sounded defensive to me for you to say that he hadn't been an announcer very long. He's been on the air for years now without ever going after a story aggressively--it's like he's on the Mets' P.R. payroll for all the interest he shows in following through on controversy. Meanwhile, Darling's announced a half-dozen games, and already he's way ahead of Coleman in "Uncomfortable Moments Truthfully Examined" on air. And yes, Dickshot, I agree that the Mets' announcing is pretty straightforward, even without McCarver. It just gets mindnumbing when the Eunuch is on the air. I've come to think of his spots as high comic relief, so I don't really mind them very much. There's just so much blather in the in-game comments. When you think of all the time-killing that goes on in baseball, wouldn't you think they could discuss some complicated big picture subjects now and then? By which I mean, I'd love to hear a real discussion of managerial philosophies, or the effect steroids will have on the record books, or changes in the way modern training affects the game,in between the balls and strike calls. I know they often touch on such topics, but it's very bland stuff. I'd love to hear two intelligent guys talking baseball instead of of the vanilla yak-yak-yak that we hear so much of. In fact, sitting in between you two guys at a game, I hear much more intelligent ideas about baseball than I do from listening to some professionals at WPIX or WFAN.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 10:14 AM

For instance, I couldn't care less about most of the pseudo-stats they come up ("Victor Zambrano has hit a batter in every Calendar month going back to August of 2004, except for July and September 2005") but if they would hire a stat-boy to dig up, and do real research that they could discuss, after getting briefedo n its significance from the stats-bioy, that would be interesting. This is a multimillion dollar business they're in, and they spend almost zip preparing a professional product. It's like if I were to go into class without having read the assigned books. I could get away with it, I'm sure, but my students would be rightly pissed off at the lack of effort I'm putting in for their tuition money. And I don't make nearly what the Mets announcers do.

Frayed Knot Mar 26 2006 10:48 AM

Darling should know better, and he will, I'm sure. ... I hope [he] gets to squeeze out a few more such observations before the Mets deep-freeze him into submission. "I agree that the Mets' announcing is pretty straightforward" So which are you arguing here? You imply that the team is likely to put the kibosh on announcers who say bad things 'bout the Mets, that the planet may stop rotating if someone critisizes ... yet admit that the crew somewhow manages to stay pretty straight forward. Sounds like bad kibosh-ing to me. Maybe they should fire the Kibosh coach.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 12:55 PM

I don't know that this is a Mets' problem as much as it's a MLB problem, or maybe just a human nature problem. I appreciate analyses that tell me things that puzzle me. When a bunt defense goes bad, I want an announcer who can explain what went wrong. Did a fielder play out of position? Cover his base too late? Throw to the wrong side of the base? Or was it just a perfect bunt? Too often, Met announcers just say “Safe at first, beat it out,” and that’s it. Duh! I know that. But their job is to tell me why things happened. They’re supposed to be the experts, and too often (mostly because the real explanation would embarrass somebody) they withhold information. McCarver, to his credit, offered real analysis. It sounds like Darling might. Hernandez does sometimes, not always. Seaver sort of hinted he often knew much more than he was saying. Gary Cohen and Howie Rose raise questions more than they supply answers (because they don’t have MLB resumes to support their analyses?) Joe Morgan gives analyses freely, though they’re largely self-contradictory, counter-logical bullshit analyses that don’t stand up to much scrutiny. Coleman, as I say, is often comical in his avoidance of insight—no one could be that obtuse for real, and it’s funny to watch a stupid man pretending to be even stupider than he is. Of Bob Murphy, I will only say De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum, and in Kiner’s case I will extend that to the brain-dead.

Frayed Knot Mar 26 2006 04:09 PM

So, in other words, we should just ignore about 90% of your first few posts in this thread where you went on about how the Mets have an ongoing policy of muzzling contrary views - and about how anything less than full agreement with your view is treated as making excuses for such actions?

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 04:35 PM

Well, I don't know about 90%. I still believe they like having tame broadcasters like Coleman, and that Met ballplayers (not the Mets organization, who don't hire the team's broadcasters) tend not to cooperate with broadcasters who act like journalists and ask questions and make comments that are not vapid puff-jobs. Darling is running a serious risk in criticizing Mets, and I applaud him for doing that. Blandness protects broadcasters from players' enmity, but makes for soporific hours for the fans. I'm not sure where you get that I was ripping the Mets' muzzling policies here. I was just trying to praise Darling's style..

cleonjones11 Mar 26 2006 04:44 PM

KC wrote: Actually, it's you that has become completely unobjective. Completely. Yes, Coleman has come across over many years as the Mets' butt boy, but he hasn't been an actual broadcaster all that long. Having the MLB package for the last coupla years and watching parts of hundreds of ball games from all over the country we should thank our lucky stars that for the most part the broadcasters for the Mets are among the most objective on the baseball planet. Sadly it is you KC...

KC Mar 26 2006 04:47 PM

Fascinating how you drift in and out of coherence.

Frayed Knot Mar 26 2006 04:50 PM

]I'm not sure where you get that I was ripping the Mets' muzzling policies here. - Omigawd! A Mets broadcaster said something mildly critical about a Met. Has the planet stopped rotating yet? - Darling should know better, and he will, I'm sure - I hope Darling gets to squeeze out a few more such observations before the Mets deep-freeze him into submission. - Enjoy it while it lasts. - And God bless America Your argument is almost entirely with Coleman but it starts out being couched in terms where apologists are not only rampant but are dictated by nasty team policy - coupled with your assumption that anyone who questions that must be a kool-aid drinking sychophant. Gee, I have no idea why anyone here would get the idea that your posts have become agenda-driven rants which treat the rest of us as if we're too dumb to tie our own shoes in the morning much less come up with an independant thought.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 06:05 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Your argument is almost entirely with Coleman but it starts out being couched in terms where apologists are not only rampant but are dictated by nasty team policy - coupled with your assumption that anyone who questions that must be a kool-aid drinking sychophant.. Well, if that's your assumption about every post I make, then how in the world could I ever post about anything without your thinking that it's correctly colored by your assumptions? Sometimes I'm hopping mad about Mets' team policies, other times I'm critical of a particular Met official or player, other times I'm just commenting on some play or development with no agenda at all, and once in a blue moon I'm actually pleased (as with Darling here) about something a Met has done. if you're going to assume there's equally virulent anti-Met stuff in every sentence I write here, you'll miss some delicious subtleties of my understated prose style. Take "God Bless America"--do you think my point there was somehow anti-Met? I was trying to point out that KC was bringing up irrelevant objections and couching them in vaguely patriotic language, about as relevant as "God Bless America." I might have written "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" or any meaningless phrases, and you probably would have said, "Well, I don't know what this means, exactly, but it's just got to be something nasty about the Mets organization."

KC Mar 26 2006 06:29 PM

Edgy's the smartest of our whole lot (with respect to wandering into your webs).

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 06:45 PM

Maybe, but I respect those who argue with me much more than I respect people who pretend that I'm not here. He's like the little nerdy kid who closes his eyes and sticks his fingers in the ears to make the other kids "go away." I mean, you're a myopic nutbar sometimes, and even a smart guy like FK over-reacts to what he thinks I'm "implying" but sometimes we make our points to each other. And, despite what FK writes, I'm far from thinking of you all as Koolaid guzzling fools. Some of you sip your Koolaid from tiny shotglasses, heavily watered down, while others live immersed in the stuff. Rotblatt, I believe, hardly touches the stuff anymore, for example, while others of you know when it's you talking and when it's the Koolaid talking. For some reason, probably your loyalty to Edgy, you've been drinking more than usual lately but I can't believe you really like the taste that much. Sometimes I think you're pretending to drink it just to piss me off. Good one, KC. I usually fall for that one.

KC Mar 26 2006 07:17 PM

Well gee, should I ignore you and lose your respect? Or, should I keep getting treated like a piece of crap and have it? I'll let ya know.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 26 2006 08:10 PM

KC wrote: should I keep getting treated like a piece of crap? Dear KC, As every self-respecting girl will tell you, it's an unhealthy relationship if you describe yourself as being treated like a piece of crap. But studies show that, as likely as not, it's the one who's treated poorly, not the one who dishes out the abuse, who often brings the so-called "abuse" upon herself. Be assertive, girl. Tell your guy when he's mistreating you. Stand up and argue back. If you cling for comfort to phrases such as "I keep getting treated like a piece of crap", you may enter the Martyr's Hall of Fame, but is that really what you want? Wouldn't you be happier with a trusting committed relationship in which you feel comfortable and loved? I think you know what you want, dear. Trust your heart. Sincerely, Dear Abby

KC Mar 26 2006 08:26 PM

unbelievable

Matt Murdock, Esq. Mar 27 2006 01:25 AM

bret are there no mirrors in your universe?

Bret Sabermetric Mar 27 2006 06:10 AM

You mean, Am I unaware that telling KC his remark about 'being treated like a piece of crap" sounds kinda whiny and martyrly, which is ironically what KC says I sound like when I make similar remarks? Goose, gander, pot, kettle--take your pick. Or talk baseball. What's unbelievable (to me) is that I'm praising Darling and blasting Coleman, for very specific language they use and (mostly because of what FK thinks I'm "implying") we get off onto this whole tired digressive bullshit again. Get over yourselves, would yuz, already? Give it a freaking rest.

Rockin' Doc Mar 27 2006 07:31 AM

Bret - "Darling should know better, and he will, I'm sure.......I hope Darling gets to squeeze out a few more such observations before the Mets deep-freeze him into submission." In your first post it is clear that you are glad to see Darling telling it like it is rather than glossing over and covering up player mistakes, but statements like the above also make it look as if you are saying the Mets have a particular policy of stifling such candor. So I can see where a person might think it was more of a shot at the Mets management/ownership. I viewed your initial post as a mix of praise for Darlings candor and an indictment of Mets management. Personally, most MLB broadcast teams that I have heard over the years are pretty much "homers". They just differ as to the degree of cheerleading.

KC Mar 27 2006 08:17 AM

Give it a freaking rest? You keep forgetting we're the victims, not you. You give it a rest, just shut the fuck up and stop being so mean towards me. I pay for this place, I try and make it nice, I have a lot of friends here, and whether you want to admit or not calling me girlie man or a myopic nutbar or countless other things is abusive and bullying and most of all unecessary. Thanks in advance, pal.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 27 2006 08:35 AM

KC wrote: You keep forgetting we're the victims, not you. Where's that Jesus avatar when I need it? Look, no one's the freaking victim here, not me and not you. We come here because we have things to say and because this is a community of people who want to read our remarks and want to respond intelligently. i resent the hell out of all of your digressions of my posts into attacks on my character, and all your digressions on my defenses of my character into accusations that I'm making a martyr of myself, and all your hypocritical defenses of your own behavior as martyrly (but that's okay as long as it's not coming from me.) Look, I disagree with you often. Nothing personal there. Instead of asking me "How dare I" say x or y or z, just assume that I dare, okay? Just like everyone here. If you disagree with x or y or z, explain yourself, and we'll have a nice discussion. All these accusations of spinning webs, of devious wordplay--it's ridiculous. You have a problem with the fact that I have words in my sentences, or that they contain ideas that might be subtle? When I write something as straightforward as "the Mets", Rockin' Doc (and FK) jumps to the conclusion that I mean by that simple phrase "the whole Mets organization starting with Joan Payson and ending with this year's batboy" when it makes far more sense to read it as "current Mets players," which is who would give Darling the cold shoulder for making critical remarks about their play. Can I give you a few bucks so I can say "I pay for this place" too, and get to tell people to STFU when I don't like what they say? How much would you like?

KC Mar 27 2006 08:53 AM

Look, in this thread you're saying things like, "In fact, sitting in between you two guys at a game, I hear much more intelligent ideas about baseball" and then later in the day you treat me like your personal Ms. Met bitch slapping toy. I think you could try a little harder to stop throwing that switch in the back of your head that makes you act like, well, a caustic fucktard, everytime you feel like verbally beating up on someone.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 27 2006 10:05 AM

KC wrote: Actually, it's you that has become completely unobjective. Completely. Do you think maybe your response to my original contention--about the Mets' broadcasters, not you, or anyone else here--going off on my defective, deeply flawed, completely unobjective, PCP-snorting self might have helped to get this thread (and so many others) off the rails?

KC Mar 27 2006 10:13 AM

I would hope not, it's a pretty harmless statement. I do feel you have become very unobjective on the subject of the Mets - so sue me. If in reading that sentence you see things like going off on my defective, deeply flawed, completely unobjective, PCP-snorting self rants then I don't know what to tell you.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 27 2006 10:29 AM

I won't sue you, but if you want to turn my every thread into a referendum on my unbalanced stance on all things Mets- and baseball-related, then I'll defend myself. I'd rather not have to. As I've said, I get it that you find me dangerously unbalanced. I've requested informally, and now I do so formally, that you find some automatic way to label all my posts as the work of a Mets-hating, mentally defective caustic fucktard who lies in his every breath and be done with it already, so we can discuss the points I'm making somehow, and you can still get to feel that you've expressed your opinion of me for the benefit of those CPFers who have been in a coma these past few years. Sorry about bullying all you folks. I hate it when one guy gangs ups on a few dozen hostile people and turns them into his bitches, really.

KC Mar 27 2006 10:34 AM

Just can't let anyone have the last word, can ya? (I realize I'm a pot calling the kettle black)

Bret Sabermetric Apr 04 2006 08:30 AM

Fresh stuff from Raissman today: By the time Ryan Zimmerman lined a ball down the left-field line in the top of the eighth, giving Nats third-base coach Tony Beasley enough nerve to wave Alfonso Soriano home, all technical problems were long gone. SNY's replay machine was cranked, providing five consecutive looks at first-base umpire Tim Tschida calling a sliding Soriano out at the plate on Jose Reyes' relay to Paul Lo Duca. By the second replay of this bang-bang job, SNY Mets analyst Keith Hernandez knew what the deal was. "Oh, he (Lo Duca) dropped the ball," Hernandez said. Watching the third and fourth replay, both Hernandez and Cohen, unsure if Soriano even had touched the plate, explained that Lo Duca would have had to tag Soriano a second time for him to actually be out. But on the fifth replay, from another angle, it was clear Soriano's left hand had gotten in under the tag. "He was safe," Hernandez said. "I'm surprised Frank Robinson didn't go out there and have a beef with Tschida." While Cohen and Hernandez played it straight, they lost major points for coming down with a quick case of Metsnesia after Carlos Beltran ended the game by throwing Jose Vidro out on another suspect call at second as Vidro tried stretching a single into a double. "Defense, defense, defense has won this game for the Mets," Hernandez said. "Two fine plays in the field at critical points of the game." And Cohen said: "(Cliff) Floyd and Reyes combine to get Soriano at the plate. And Beltran guns down Vidro." Not quite. Yeah, the Mets defense was tight, but Cohen and Hernandez, if they were dealing in absolute truth, had to report how the Mets also caught a huge break: Tschida calling Soriano - clearly safe - out at the plate. After all, both voices - after seeing replays in the eighth - said Soriano was safe. Did they think all viewers have short-term memories? To try selling the notion that defense ruled and won this game, without mentioning the mega-break the Mets caught, was garbage. Still, both Cohen and Hernandez have well-earned reputations for playing it straight. For those of you who won't read that far, or on whom subtleties are wasted, Raissman's last line (or rather the last line I quoted) doesn't insist that Gary and Keith suck, just that the pressiure to be a homer is constantly there, and sometimes wins out.

Elster88 Apr 04 2006 09:09 AM

Vidro was safe yesterday. An atrocious attempt at a tag by our great second base prodigy. An awkward attempt at alliteration by myself.

Edgy DC Apr 04 2006 09:23 AM

I didn't see any missed tag there. MLBTV tends to cut out a breath after the last play is made, so I didn't get any replays. I hate phantom tags at second. But a poor call doesn't change that quality of the defensive performance. If nothing else, good relays by Floyd and Reyes put them in position to catch that break. A poor decision by the third-base coach to send Soriano and by Soriano to come in head first put the Nats in a position to lose that break. There was also crisp defense at many other points in the game. Hernandez is OK there.

metsmarathon Apr 04 2006 09:26 AM

if phantom steps on second base at the pivot point of a double play merit an out call, then maybe fooling umpires into thinking you've made a play when you really haven't, or mightn't've, surely could also count as good defense. and to my naive ears, its did sound more like sloppy broadcasting moreso than some metnesiastic homerism driven by the heavy hand of the man, tho i too would have ecpected rather to have heard how hte mets got a break. but it was a good play just to get the ball to loduca in time.

Edgy DC Apr 04 2006 09:29 AM

The funny thing is the standards for a tag of a runner or of a base seem illogically lower at second than at any other base.

MFS62 Apr 04 2006 09:33 AM

KC wrote: later in the day you treat me like your personal Ms. Met bitch slapping toy. And you're a sexist, too? :) I'm surprised you didn't get jumped on for that analogy. EDGY, where's that train wreck picture when we need it? Later

Frayed Knot Apr 04 2006 09:38 AM

"For those of you who won't read that far" I didn't. As soon as Raissman started critisizing my guys I stopped reading; I just couldn't handle it. Besides, there's always the short attention span thing.

MFS62 Apr 04 2006 09:40 AM

Had to post a reply to keep the M-E-T-S together Later