Re: 2018 MLB Week 1
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:55 pm
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.
It's the sixth version of The Swamp. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.sportsfrog.net/phpbb/
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.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:55 pmHe wasn't just a dummy. He was proudly ignorant of the analytical aspects to the game. He basically talked himself out of a job.
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.RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:35 pmI 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.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:55 pmHe wasn't just a dummy. He was proudly ignorant of the analytical aspects to the game. He basically talked himself out of a job.
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...
Agreed. He should have just known when to hold his tongue.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:42 pmMorgan 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.RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:35 pmI 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.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:55 pmHe wasn't just a dummy. He was proudly ignorant of the analytical aspects to the game. He basically talked himself out of a job.
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...
I don't think Mendoza did anything stupid or wrong. I think you are wrong.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:54 pmThat 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.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.
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."sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:35 pmI don't think Mendoza did anything stupid or wrong. I think you are wrong.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:54 pmThat 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.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.
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.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:34 pmMeh. 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."sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:35 pmI don't think Mendoza did anything stupid or wrong. I think you are wrong.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:54 pmThat 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.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.
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.
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:
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.Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, [his] opinion, man.
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?
RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:37 pmI 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:
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.Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, [his] opinion, man.
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.
I agree that making a sweeping generalisation certainly makes one more prone to sounding like a dick. That's fine.
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.
Take it however you like. I have no interest in trying to convince someone who is interested in no opinion but his own.
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.DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:48 amI 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.
You pretty much get where I’m coming from. A whole lot of stupid. Vasgerian for being ignorant, Mendoza for being militant.RSmith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:23 amI 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.DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:48 amI 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.
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.
Just reply with absurdity until he gets the point.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?
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 "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.
No, she would have been called a bitch (or worse).
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.
She gave him the opportunity to say something less stupid. He passed and doubled down.EnochRoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:59 pmIf 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.