Any coverage that don't have Jeannie(clueless) Zelasko & Joe( I'm more interested in what Hollywood celebrity is at the game than the game itself) Buck is 10 times better in my book. They may be boring & not great to look at but at least Brenly & Tony Gwynn know about the game of baseball. The problem with many of you is that u are already in the mindset that the only announcers u care about are those who are pretty but clueless & announcerrs who only hype the stars & celebritites that are at the game & making the game secondary.
2007-10-06 07:41:32 · 8 answers · asked by Scooter_loves_his_dad 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
hanks for reminding me about Ripken. Another one who knows about baseball. Fox only has people who look like they need to go to a modeling agency instead of being real reporters.
2007-10-06 07:53:01 · update #1
Thanks i mean.
2007-10-06 07:53:22 · update #2
Definitely, excellent observation. I have to turn off the sound when Fox is on, they have no concept of the meaning of the American pastime.
2007-10-06 08:40:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Brenley did a fine job with the Cubs, when it's okay for him to be partial, but the team of him, Gwynn, and Chip Carey seem to be lacking the understanding that people in more than one market are watching these games. It's not a huge problem for me to hear them go on and on about the Yankees, because the entire media squad has overlooked the Indians all year..Tribe fas are used to it already...but seriously....this is the postseason. Have some professional tact and don't have the broadcast pandering to the larger population base....especialy when it looks like they're on their way out of the playoffs.
2007-10-06 07:48:44 · answer #2 · answered by seven_deep303 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the announcers are good but the camera work is bad. Viewers could not tell what was happening during Sizemore's triple and during game 1 of the Red Sox game, they were late coming back from commercial and viewers missed several 1st pitches including a 1st pitch that was hit and fielded superbly by Mike Lowell. There are more examples that I cannot recall at this moment.
2007-10-06 07:58:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best part about the TBS coverage is that I don't have to listen to Tim McCarver. He is the worst in Faber history. Joe Buck is awful, but not nearly as bad as McCarver. I really like that TBS is using current and former players who are knowledgeable and articulate (i.e. not McCarver). Cal Ripken is pretty good in the studio and so is Frank Thomas. It was particularly interesting to hear Thomas talk about what it's like to face Fausto Carmona.
2007-10-06 07:57:08 · answer #4 · answered by Mycroft Holmes 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the announcers for the other series games are pretty good, but man, the announcers for the Sox vs Angels are AWFUL and that side guy announcer on the field, man, someone shut his mike off!!
2007-10-06 07:50:09 · answer #5 · answered by lkycharmz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not enjoying them, it's like when you watch the games on fox, you have to mute the tv. I wish Remdawg could announce the sox games, he doesn't sound like he's reading trivia found on some website. The endless chattering of tbs ... yuk!
2007-10-06 08:34:58 · answer #6 · answered by uhohwhoopsbroken63 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, squirrel is a yankee, don r is a tiger. and i'm happy as heck that mr. gwynn and mr. ripken jr are part of tbs' team.
2007-10-06 07:50:47 · answer #7 · answered by everybody loves 3000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
games are good in studio is very bad, however.
2007-10-06 08:02:38 · answer #8 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋