The Swamp

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:59 am

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:37 am And, nothing will ever make me pine for Joe Morgan in a booth.

Joe was a dummy when it came to modern analysis (and occasionally a mean-spirited one, from some interviews I've read). BUT, purely as a broadcaster, I loved listening to him.

He wasn't just a dummy. He was proudly ignorant of the analytical aspects to the game. He basically talked himself out of a job.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:55 pm

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:59 am

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:37 am And, nothing will ever make me pine for Joe Morgan in a booth.

Joe was a dummy when it came to modern analysis (and occasionally a mean-spirited one, from some interviews I've read). BUT, purely as a broadcaster, I loved listening to him.

He wasn't just a dummy. He was proudly ignorant of the analytical aspects to the game. He basically talked himself out of a job.

I would agree, if I was the sort of person who liked a broadcast team consisting of a play-by-play man and an analyst. Personally though, although I much prefer analytical, SABR-oriented sports writing, when I watch (or listen to) a game, I tend to like a play-by-play man and an old-timey, whimsical colour man, which Joe very much was. There was just something pleasant about listening to him.

Then again, I quite like the combination of Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler for Jays games, and I'm seemingly very much in the minority on that, too...

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:35 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:55 pm

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:59 am

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:37 am And, nothing will ever make me pine for Joe Morgan in a booth.

Joe was a dummy when it came to modern analysis (and occasionally a mean-spirited one, from some interviews I've read). BUT, purely as a broadcaster, I loved listening to him.

He wasn't just a dummy. He was proudly ignorant of the analytical aspects to the game. He basically talked himself out of a job.

I would agree, if I was the sort of person who liked a broadcast team consisting of a play-by-play man and an analyst. Personally though, although I much prefer analytical, SABR-oriented sports writing, when I watch (or listen to) a game, I tend to like a play-by-play man and an old-timey, whimsical colour man, which Joe very much was. There was just something pleasant about listening to him.

Then again, I quite like the combination of Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler for Jays games, and I'm seemingly very much in the minority on that, too...

Morgan was a lot of fun to listen to, though it was always only a matter of time until he compared what was going on in any particular game to his own experience with the Cincinnati Reds. That's fun to a degree. And I get the whimsy he provides. His problem was when he refused to stay in his lane re: analytics.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:42 pm

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:35 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:55 pm

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:59 am

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:37 am And, nothing will ever make me pine for Joe Morgan in a booth.

Joe was a dummy when it came to modern analysis (and occasionally a mean-spirited one, from some interviews I've read). BUT, purely as a broadcaster, I loved listening to him.

He wasn't just a dummy. He was proudly ignorant of the analytical aspects to the game. He basically talked himself out of a job.

I would agree, if I was the sort of person who liked a broadcast team consisting of a play-by-play man and an analyst. Personally though, although I much prefer analytical, SABR-oriented sports writing, when I watch (or listen to) a game, I tend to like a play-by-play man and an old-timey, whimsical colour man, which Joe very much was. There was just something pleasant about listening to him.

Then again, I quite like the combination of Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler for Jays games, and I'm seemingly very much in the minority on that, too...

Morgan was a lot of fun to listen to, though it was always only a matter of time until he compared what was going on in any particular game to his own experience with the Cincinnati Reds. That's fun to a degree. And I get the whimsy he provides. His problem was when he refused to stay in his lane re: analytics.

Agreed. He should have just known when to hold his tongue.

ETA: And, in fairness, two of those Reds teams were, I think inarguably, among the five best teams ever.

Yep, when I think of whimsical, 3 things always come to mind..

The original Willy Wonka movie
Main Street at Disneyworld
Joe Morgan

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:54 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:28 am From last night's game on ESPN...

Matt Vasgersian: Is there anything more obnoxious than the bachelorette party at the ballpark, by the way?

Jessica Mendoza: Why is it obnoxious?

Vasgersian: Congratulations, by the way, yeah, we're all very happy for you, la la la la.

Mendoza: Why is that obnoxious?

Vasgersian: It's such a "look at me thing." You're sitting behind like the bridal party–"Like, oh my god! We're getting married! Ehhhhh."

Mendoza: Woooow. Kind of harsh.

That was a whole lot of stupidity coming out of both of their mouths. Yes, bringing your bachelorette party to the ballgame is sort of silly, but that's the point of the bachelorette party. Matt Vasgersian taking issue with it on the air is just dumb for many reasons, namely, Jessica Mendoza going to bat for the bachelorettes, baiting him into saying something even dumber. Her #hottake was more annoying than his ignorance.

I don't think Mendoza did anything stupid or wrong. I think you are wrong.

I think if a woman wants to go to a place for entertainment on her bachelorette party then she should go wherever the hell she wants.

What did Mendoza do wrong?

And why are baseball games off-limits for bacherlotte parties, exactly?

More like Matt TheVirgin.

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:35 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:54 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:28 am From last night's game on ESPN...

Matt Vasgersian: Is there anything more obnoxious than the bachelorette party at the ballpark, by the way?

Jessica Mendoza: Why is it obnoxious?

Vasgersian: Congratulations, by the way, yeah, we're all very happy for you, la la la la.

Mendoza: Why is that obnoxious?

Vasgersian: It's such a "look at me thing." You're sitting behind like the bridal party–"Like, oh my god! We're getting married! Ehhhhh."

Mendoza: Woooow. Kind of harsh.

That was a whole lot of stupidity coming out of both of their mouths. Yes, bringing your bachelorette party to the ballgame is sort of silly, but that's the point of the bachelorette party. Matt Vasgersian taking issue with it on the air is just dumb for many reasons, namely, Jessica Mendoza going to bat for the bachelorettes, baiting him into saying something even dumber. Her #hottake was more annoying than his ignorance.

I don't think Mendoza did anything stupid or wrong. I think you are wrong.

Meh. They needed a third voice in the booth to boom a "SHUT UP - the both of you. Matt: they can have their bachelorette party wherever they like. Jessica, stop trying to bait him out of his job. Let's get back to the game here."

"Why is that obnoixous" is not baiting.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:34 pm

sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:35 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:54 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:28 am From last night's game on ESPN...

Matt Vasgersian: Is there anything more obnoxious than the bachelorette party at the ballpark, by the way?

Jessica Mendoza: Why is it obnoxious?

Vasgersian: Congratulations, by the way, yeah, we're all very happy for you, la la la la.

Mendoza: Why is that obnoxious?

Vasgersian: It's such a "look at me thing." You're sitting behind like the bridal party–"Like, oh my god! We're getting married! Ehhhhh."

Mendoza: Woooow. Kind of harsh.

That was a whole lot of stupidity coming out of both of their mouths. Yes, bringing your bachelorette party to the ballgame is sort of silly, but that's the point of the bachelorette party. Matt Vasgersian taking issue with it on the air is just dumb for many reasons, namely, Jessica Mendoza going to bat for the bachelorettes, baiting him into saying something even dumber. Her #hottake was more annoying than his ignorance.

I don't think Mendoza did anything stupid or wrong. I think you are wrong.

Meh. They needed a third voice in the booth to boom a "SHUT UP - the both of you. Matt: they can have their bachelorette party wherever they like. Jessica, stop trying to bait him out of his job. Let's get back to the game here."

Actually, the three voices thing is what bothers me about the new ESPN booth. I've yet to hear the three-man booth that actually worked.

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:40 pm "Why is that obnoixous" is not baiting.

If she only asked the question once, of course it isn't. But she asked the same question again, which is where it became apparent she was baiting him into a response that could get him into trouble...She could've interrupted him and stated why they were free to celebrate one of their friends' pending demise into marriage but for whatever reason, she was more interested in his responses than to set the record straight.

Baiting is not the same thing as calling BS.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:31 pm Baiting is not the same thing as calling BS.

I hate to defend Matt Vasgersian, who is a terrible commentator for any sport he covers, but to be fair, he isn't saying that, like, bachelorette parties should be banned from parks, or don't have a right to be there. He's saying that *he* finds it obnoxious. Which, to paraphrase a movie that is apparently popular around here:

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, [his] opinion, man.

And Mendoza is within her rights to disagree with that. That does not make his opinion "BS," even if you think it's incredibly stupid.

Its also far less confrontational to lead him into his own correction than to spell out why he's being a dipshit.

You seem to be missing the difference between "that bachelorette party" and "bachelorette parties". The former is fine to call out if they present themselves as worthy.

For example: Two old people fall asleep, camera pans, comment is "it would suck to be in their row and have to use the bathroom". That's fine. Same camera pan and "it sucks to sit near old people" is clearly less fine, right?

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:39 pm You seem to be missing the difference between "that bachelorette party" and "bachelorette parties". The former is fine to call out if they present themselves as worthy.

In either case, I would contend that as he phrased, he would just be giving it as his opinion. I didn't see the broadcast, but from the transcript, I presume it was the latter?

Again, you're certainly within your right to say that he's a dick for having that opinion. So what the hell am I talking about, really? I may have lost the thread a bit... ;-)

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:41 pm For example: Two old people fall asleep, camera pans, comment is "it would suck to be in their row and have to use the bathroom". That's fine. Same camera pan and "it sucks to sit near old people" is clearly less fine, right?

Certainly more dickish, yes.

He clearly generalized. Transcript is right above.

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:37 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:31 pm Baiting is not the same thing as calling BS.

I hate to defend Matt Vasgersian, who is a terrible commentator for any sport he covers, but to be fair, he isn't saying that, like, bachelorette parties should be banned from parks, or don't have a right to be there. He's saying that *he* finds it obnoxious. Which, to paraphrase a movie that is apparently popular around here:

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, [his] opinion, man.

And Mendoza is within her rights to disagree with that. That does not make his opinion "BS," even if you think it's incredibly stupid.

It is absolutely bs to air that opinion on the air. You seem to think too much in absolutes.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:02 pm You seem to think too much in absolutes.

Generally, I do. Abstract and absolute. I tend to think it's more intellectually honest and consistent to do so.

Some people have the opinion that black people are less than. While that’s a technically correct definition of an opinion someone can have, it is unquestionably a bad one. The right to have an opinion doesn’t mean that your opinion is not wholly wrong.

And the “a vs. that” party talk above is spot on. To make a sweeping generality is the issue.

Vasgersian is entitled to an opinion sure. He shouldn’t have said it on air and Mendoza was right to call him out.

But keep going trying to explain away. It makes things easier for me going forward to completely disregard your opinions.

Full circle.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:33 pm Some people have the opinion that black people are less than. While that’s a technically correct definition of an opinion someone can have, it is unquestionably a bad one. The right to have an opinion doesn’t mean that your opinion is not wholly wrong.

First, "less than" what? I think you're missing a few words. But in any event, that's a litte different (nuance is our friend). It would be a "nasty" opinion maybe in any case, but it is "unquestionably bad" because it is demonstrably false. It is stupifyingly easy to show that black people are no "less" than anyone else. To me, an opinion is something that is subjective, and cannot be shown true or false. If Vasgersian is saying that these things annoy him, you are entirely entitled to disagree, but that does not mean that he is wrong and you are right, or vice versa. It is a subjective opinion.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:33 pm And the “a vs. that” party talk above is spot on. To make a sweeping generality is the issue.

I agree that making a sweeping generalisation certainly makes one more prone to sounding like a dick. That's fine.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:33 pm Vasgersian is entitled to an opinion sure. He shouldn’t have said it on air and Mendoza was right to call him out.

Vasgersian is entitled to an opinion. He can say it on air at his own peril. Mendoza was entitled to call him out if she disagreed (and obviously she did). That may make her right in your opinion, but it does not make her objectively in the right.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:33 pm But keep going trying to explain away. It makes things easier for me going forward to completely disregard your opinions.

Take it however you like. I have no interest in trying to convince someone who is interested in no opinion but his own.

Worst fisking ever.

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:02 pmWorst fisking ever.

Whatever.

I guess Cleveland lost the trade eh?

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:38 pm Its also far less confrontational to lead him into his own correction than to spell out why he's being a dipshit.

I would have preferred "what about bachelor parties?" as a response, just to see if he would have taken the bait. Could have led to him talking about the tiara or sash that is often worn... and eventually a slow realization and backpedal just before he hung himself on the air.

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:48 am

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:38 pm Its also far less confrontational to lead him into his own correction than to spell out why he's being a dipshit.

I would have preferred "what about bachelor parties?" as a response, just to see if he would have taken the bait. Could have led to him talking about the tiara or sash that is often worn... and eventually a slow realization and backpedal just before he hung himself on the air.

I think the original point (and EnochRoot can correct me if I'm wrong), which I could not agree with more, is that trying to coax a colleague into "[hanging] himself on the air" is a bit of a dick move.

She clearly disagreed with the comment (and honestly I agree with her assessment, but that's neither here nor there). The classy move, IMO, would be to directly confront him and say "that's nonsense" or what have you. Trying to passive-aggressively lead him into saying something that could potentially be harmful to his career is not a better approach; it frankly comes off as vindictive.

RSmith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:23 am

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:48 am

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:38 pm Its also far less confrontational to lead him into his own correction than to spell out why he's being a dipshit.

I would have preferred "what about bachelor parties?" as a response, just to see if he would have taken the bait. Could have led to him talking about the tiara or sash that is often worn... and eventually a slow realization and backpedal just before he hung himself on the air.

I think the original point (and EnochRoot can correct me if I'm wrong), which I could not agree with more, is that trying to coax a colleague into "[hanging] himself on the air" is a bit of a dick move.

She clearly disagreed with the comment (and honestly I agree with her assessment, but that's neither here nor there). The classy move, IMO, would be to directly confront him and say "that's nonsense" or what have you. Trying to passive-aggressively lead him into saying something that could potentially be harmful to his career is not a better approach; it frankly comes off as vindictive.

You pretty much get where I’m coming from. A whole lot of stupid. Vasgerian for being ignorant, Mendoza for being militant.

The way it should’ve played out:

Matt Vasgersian: Is there anything more obnoxious than the bachelorette party at the ballpark, by the way?

Jessica Mendoza: Well, for starters, maybe Joe Madden jumping out of a wedding cake?

Just reply with absurdity until he gets the point.

Could not agree more, though I didn't need the image of a naked Joe Madden seared into my mind... :)

If she was direct it would have been labeled confrontational, if she played along it would have been enabling and if she ignored it on air it would have been failing to act. He created a no win.

mister d wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:20 am If she was direct it would have been labeled confrontational, if she played along it would have been enabling and if she ignored it on air it would have been failing to act. He created a no win.

Eh. A reply of “No less obnoxious than Joe Madden jumping out of a wedding cake” is not enabling the situation. It’s a form of reductio ad absurdum where she might gently remind him that it’s only going to get sillier should he choose to continue down the path.

“Why is that obnoxious?” asked a second time when he didn’t answer it the first time is now “militant” and “vindictive”? Get tha fuck outta here with that bullshit.

mister d wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:20 am If she was direct it would have been labeled confrontational, if she played along it would have been enabling and if she ignored it on air it would have been failing to act. He created a no win.

Why is "confrontational" a bad thing? If you disagree with something someone says, strongly enough that you don't want to just let it slide, then the only appropriate thing, IMO, is to *respectfully* and directly confront that person about that thing.

“Trying to hurt his career”. Congrats fellas on the worst posts I’ve seen in the 13 years I’ve been in the Swamp. Literally embarrassing.

mister d wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:20 am If she was direct it would have been labeled confrontational, if she played along it would have been enabling and if she ignored it on air it would have been failing to act. He created a no win.

No, she would have been called a bitch (or worse).

And fuck his career. He's the shitty person.

Giff wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:50 am “Trying to hurt his career”. Congrats fellas on the worst posts I’ve seen in the 13 years I’ve been in the Swamp. Literally embarrassing.

Oh for fuck's sake dude. It's a baseball broadcast. I didn't tell her to be quiet. I suggested she not vanquish him like it was some zero sum morality play. She's got a career to pay attention to as well, btw.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:59 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:40 pm "Why is that obnoixous" is not baiting.

If she only asked the question once, of course it isn't. But she asked the same question again, which is where it became apparent she was baiting him into a response that could get him into trouble...She could've interrupted him and stated why they were free to celebrate one of their friends' pending demise into marriage but for whatever reason, she was more interested in his responses than to set the record straight.

She gave him the opportunity to say something less stupid. He passed and doubled down.