IlliniKrush

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) I've honestly started to become this way. I still like to play the sport but if it wasn't for the Sox, I don't think I'd watch at all. EDIT: that's actually kind of sad for me to admit because I used to be obsessed with the sport. Hey dude, can you give Justin his computer back? Thanks.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 08:25 PM) Oh boy, Hawk just went after Abbattacola. Please elaborate, I didn't see it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) Ahh yes, I knew this one was coming...so it isn't a matter of being genuine, only pc. This is why I really discount the pc thing. It SHOULD be a matter of being genuine, but what I said still stands. He's held to a much higher standard and has to be smarter because he can reach a lot more people. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 05:33 PM) What did you think of the Chrissy Pronger stuff 4 years ago? Pretty stupid and pointless. There was no outrage over it but most people I know thought it was just dumb. QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 08:34 PM) The point here isn't about how good women are at baseball, it's just whether we should equate all that is wimpy with women. That's the problem with the comment. It's unfair to attribute these things on women. What Hawk said isn't uncommon and I do agree that we're hearing about it because people like to rip on him. With that said, everyone would benefit from thinking twice before making comments like these Any announcer could have said that and people would have noticed. Stone could have said it, and I still would have thought the same thing. QUOTE (balfanman @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 09:43 PM) IMHO, that's not what he's saying at all. He did not say that women "athletes" were afraid of contact etc., he's saying that women in general are not as tough as men....generally. Female athletes are a very small percentage of the overall female population. I'm in my mid 50's and probably 98% of the women I know would have nothing to do with a collision. I find absolutely nothing wrong with what Hawk said and in my opinion the P. C. people are way over the line here, as they are on most issues. The non-PC crowd is the one being way over the line at this point trying to defend it and making stretches comparing it to uses of other words, the wussification of America, etc. If you can't see something wrong with his comment, so be it. There doesn't need to be outrage (and as was pointed out, there really isn't outrage here), or whatever the hell you want to call it, but it was wrong, and shouldn't have been said. None of us wrote whatever article was posted. I didn't even comment on it. He could have made his point about 100 different ways, he just chose the way that wasn't appropriate. That's all. I don't know what he said tonight, but I'd be interested to hear it.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 02:06 PM) Lol at all the faux outrage. We've all been guilty of saying stupid and insensitive things in our lives. And quite frankly, it can be very hard to break these bad habits. I have absolutely zero problem with homosexuality and try my best to avoid use potentially offensive words, but I do slip up from time to time and use the word "gay" out of context (calling something lame). I've even done this in front of gay people I know. They have never scorned me for it, they have never judged me for it. They know I'm not a hateful person and understand it's nothing more than a bad childhood habit showing its ugly face. I see absolutely no reason to crucify Hawk over this comment, and I think those doing so must foolishly believe they've never said some stupid or insensitive s*** in their lives. The problem is that Hawk is held to a much higher standard than you or I, and has a microphone in his hand to reach at this point, millions of people. You have to be a lot more careful in those situations.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) You just equated Urban Meyer to a "dickface" in the college football thread And?

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 10:55 AM) I don't want the pitchforks brought out for Hawk. I want him to recognize it was a stupid thing to say and not say it again. That's it. If he's suspended a game I'd like that because I've enjoyed every game he's not been on this year more than when he's been on, but I don't think it is vital. I'm glad he's being shamed for it, and I'm glad it once again brings out those who feel so oppressed that they can't say whatever they'd like...on tv...without consequence. This point is just so hard for people to understand. You don't have to be outraged. But you can certainly disagree with what he said, and realize that he shouldn't be saying things like that when he's an announcer for a major league team, and a large part of the fan base is female. Simply saying "well it's always been this way and that's why it's OK" doesn't make it OK. Now you've got people comparing it to calling someone a "f**" etc. So if Hawk did that tonight, would that be OK too because that's how certain people talk? There are ways to disagree with a call and describe your feelings on air without saying what he said. That's all he has to learn how to do in that situation.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 15, 2014 -> 12:08 PM) Never a bad time, he's a dickface, but he can coach. = Urban Meyer

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 11:49 PM) TWTW is just another way of saying someone "refuses to lose." It's been said countless times about guys like Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson ( or fill in the blank) as a way to illustrate that they had something that set them apart from everyone else. Something that made them "winners." I'm not sure why Hawk gets so much heat for TWTW. It's not exactly a new idea. I'm no longer much of a Hawk fan, but I don't think this latest controversy is really much. I'm more offended/embarrassed by the over the top homerism. His evaluations of the Sox are largely useless as a result of trying to sell the product. I'd welcome a little more honesty in that area. You're missing the point - it's how it came up, in his absolute dismissal of advanced statistics and the role they play in evaluating players and baseball strategy. Here's why he's an idiot and got rightly flamed for it: And yes, his homerism is well over the top, but apparently that's why people think he's a great broadcaster. "Because he's a fan!"

I'd lean towards yes, maybe? I guess I'm with Rowand. Clearly wouldn't be as passionate, and I'm guessing my interest level would go down every year. Going to be hard to get as attached to a team I probably couldn't watch as much and probably attend zero games. Plus the biggest thing is they don't have "Chicago" there anymore. If I moved out of state that would be tough and would present similar issues, but that would be me moving, not the team, so I think it's a lot different. I think I'd feel like we got divorced.

QUOTE (LDF @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 09:16 PM) the baseball bosses will never improve the speed of the game and with that, I am sure they are trying to find way to increase it. reason, every 10 minutes there is a series of 3-5 mins of commercials $$$$$. or in case of base ball increase the between the innings. $$$$ will always win There are actually no more commercials in a game unless there are pitching changes. If an inning takes 3 minutes or 40, there's still 2 sets of commercials. That's it. $$$ will only win if the ratings are there. And national broadcasts and WS broadcasts are way down.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 04:28 PM) I've watched more games that Hawk has called than probably 95% of people that post here, trust me. I've watched probably 80-90% of our games since 1983 or so. I know, I know...we kids and young adults always know so much more than our stupid elders... Do you think that your generation is the first to think they knew everything? Honestly? Can't you tell by now that basically every generation grows up thinking they know everything, only to realize as they grow older just how smart their parents and grandparents really were? I know I am coming off like some old fart here, but honestly, have some respect for people that have done things you haven't. Have some respect for a guy that played the game at an incredibly high level for many years. Have some respect for a guy that was a GM, turned down managerial jobs, and has been a broadcaster for 35 years. That certainly is not to say that 100% of what the guy says is correct. We all know it isn't. But c'mon...it usually turns out that people that have come before us aren't nearly as dumb as we once thought they were. He does know just a little bit about the game. Quite trying to mix up my words. I didn't say Hawk knows nothing about baseball. He just says the same thing over and over and over again, and a lot of times it's either incorrect, or he has to stretch something to make it a weird, larger point. "Tell you what Stoney, no one knows this game." What in the f*** are you talking about? "First rule of baseball is catch the baseball." Is it? Says who? That's his defense for anyone that can't hit for s***, aka Gordon Beckham. He simply is stuck in his ways, and some of them are absolutely ignorant, like his unwillingness to try to understand new stats or his bulls*** TWTW. This isn't an example of "hey, your parents were right about something," it's an old man being crazy at this point in time. Just because you played the game doesn't mean you know everything about the game, and it sure as hell doesn't make you a good broadcaster. I don't really learn anything NEW about the game from Hawk. Not anymore. It's catch phrases and old stories. I genuinely learn things from Stone while listening to the game. Sometimes even Farmer or DJ. Hawk is just full of absolute nonsense at this point. Oh, and please don't ever use his GM days as proof he knows something. He obviously knows something about baseball, but at this point he's just too far gone.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) Golf is getting hit with the same criticisms. Baseball and golf are not going to die. And we shouldn't be making huge changes to games that have been around for 2+ centuries so that the latest generation of teenagers can get their fat asses off the couch. Well, again, it's not just "kids." But they are indeed the future fans of the game, and changing pace of play is good for everyone.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 04:14 PM) All I can say is watch the other games. You'll quickly find out that the vast majority of other team's broadcasters are dreadfully dull to watch. Yes, I agree, it would be nice if Hawk would be willing to repeat less of his "You show me a hitter who can't be jammed and I'll show you a bad hitter" nonsense. But at the same time, he does actually provide wisdom and experience from time to time. If you don't appreciate it, fine...but some people do. There are people who played this game before you started watching. There were great players that played before 1993. It would actually add some perspective to the game to recognize that. I'm not sure how many of you guys that rip on Hawk ever got a chance to hear Harry Caray call games. Hawk is to you guys what Harry Caray was to me growing up, and Jimmy Piersall to kids a decade or so older than me. When I was younger, we used to die laughing, or cringe, or just shake our heads at the stuff Harry Caray would say. Guy was flat out drinking old styles during the game. He'd say things like "Sosa spelled backwards is Asos" and "Hey Steve, I haven't seen you with any ladies lately." Once he reached a certain age, he was just brutal...but it was hilarious, and it added character to a game that has plenty of time for character to be added. Years later, do you think Cubs fans miss the games his much more professional grandson Skip called, or the ones that Harry called? Who cares if he can't see whether a ball bounced over the wall or not. You have 27 different replays to show you otherwise. You have Steve in there correcting him. And Wimpy...the guy is hilarious, but c'mon...he doesn't know the game any better...in fact, he knows a lot less. All he says is stuff like "Gee Steve, Gordon is really hitting the ball hard lately...watch how he lets the ball get deep on him so he can take it the other way." I mean that gets old after about the 4th time he says it. For as talented as Steve is, and as much as I enjoy listening to him, the games Hawk and Wimpy do are far more entertaining to me than the ones Steve and Wimpy do....but then again, maybe that's just because I grew up listening to the two of them for so many years. You ripped Wimpy for repeating things? How many Sox games do you actually watch that Hawk calls? That's all he does. You learn things from Hawk at this point? No one does. There's a difference between sometimes talking about old players or games and telling the same story 500 times, or making some stupid, incorrect, grandiose point, because he feels like he has to do so. I have watched other games. Not every team. But they are better than Hawk's absolute nonsense for 9 innings.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 03:51 PM) Oh come on...baseball has trouble attracting younger viewers because of the slow pace. It has very little to do with what Hawk, or Vin or other "old men" say or do. God forbid kids actually have to sit down and think a little. Or take something at a little bit of a slower pace than their video games provide. I don't understand why everything needs to revolve around what "kids today want." Maybe the kids of today are wrong? Maybe the kids of today need to wake up and smell the coffee that the real world doesn't always give them exactly what they want RIGHT NOW? I get it, the kids of today determine where the money of tomorrow is spent, and we all need to please them...but it's really not a great lesson to be teaching them. Olbermann had a good piece on this yesterday, you should find it if you can. Kids is one thing, but the game overall is going down in popularity with all age levels. They are going to run into a bigger problem sooner than later. Adapt or die. You have plenty of people on here who think the pace is too slow and hurting the game, and I'm pretty sure all of them aren't 13 years old.

Didn't read the article, but what he said is absolutely wrong. You can dismiss it as being OMG YOU ARE SO SENSITIVE but he talked down to a portion of the Sox fanbase. It's just pointless and stupid. He really needs to go. There's so much adding up at this point. He's flat-out bad at his job. He can't see the game (oh, the ball bounced over the wall?). Everything has to be some grandiose, incorrect point about the game of baseball. He doesn't understand, or dismisses, advanced statistics. Anyone who listened to any of those Wimpy and Stone games know what a non-s***ty broadcast booth can sound like. It was so refreshing to have people call a game, talk about today's game and the sport overall, and leave it at that. It wasn't hard, and every one of those broadcasts was so much better than any Hawk-called game right now. Best suggestion I heard is letting Hawk do home games next year, and that's it. Start to phase out.

QUOTE (Brian @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) Pierce Jones is MLB ready Better stroke then Beckham. How's the glove?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 05:28 PM) Why don't they just do like high schools which have the policy that you must slide into home plate and not try to take out the catcher or jar the ball loose unless you can clearly score standing up without a play? It's not a HS rule that you must slide into any base, including the plate, ever. If you do slide, it must be a legal slide. And no malicious contact with the catcher. QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 05:40 PM) I think the ruling last night was more wrong than the ruling today. That said, the rule needs to change. Just my opinion, but the only thing they should outlaw is a runner "blowing up" a catcher. Get there in time or be out. No, both warranted safe calls. Zero way last night's call should have been an out. "Get there in time or be out" doesn't make sense. You can't have a catcher blocking the plate without the ball if the runner has arrived, you need to call obstruction at some point. Is that "in time?"

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 06:38 PM) When they implemented the rule, I called it stupid and I still do. Instant Replay and this rule change are both awful. You have to have some sort of rule in there for obstruction, otherwise, in theory, a catcher could block the guy for as long as it took to get the ball, and the runner couldn't do anything. It's just poorly written and interpreted. Instant replay is actually pretty good. Perfect? No. But if we went back to the old way of zero replay, people would be flipping out more on these calls that are missed and nothing can happen. We've had what, 40% overturned with an average length of under 2:00? That's a ton. And no, the don't go 50/50 throughout the year on blown calls. Stop the manager stalling - you come out, it's challenged immediately - and we'll be in better shape. Fix the obstruction rule a bit, and it'll be a lot cleaner.

Someone just call Ernie Els and arrange a round. Who shoots a 90 here?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) A lot of communities don't have the space and/or money to have separate facilities for the 9-10 and 11-12 age groups. The 12 year olds are going to have to continue to play on the same fields as the 9-10. Many fields have large dirt infields, and can be adjusted from 60 to 70 pretty easily. It doesn't require different facilities.

QUOTE (BaconOnAStick @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 05:14 PM) What logo is on the Ump's cap? They are MLB's representatives, and they deserve to catch grief for these idiotic rules. Umpires don't write the rule book.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 05:08 PM) It is an actual active crew that looks at replays. I think they should hire few more minor league umpires and have at least one watching each game. If they did that by the time they walked over to put on a head set they should have their answer. You're right, not sure why I said former, I have NHL replay stuck in my head. In reality, there aren't that many reviewable plays each night, it's easy enough to get it done quickly. That's not really the issue.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 04:48 PM) Hawk said he wishes he could cuss and the rule is ridiculous. Also need 4 impartial people in NY and not umpires OK well that's where he's wrong and really stupid. First of all, umpires are impartial. He's implying that they are favoring the Giants there. Second, you're not pulling people off the street to make these calls. You actually need former umpires there for rule interpretations - which that book is bigger than the actual rule book itself. It's whoever the hell came up with the rule and rule interpretation that is at fault. That's in the MLB offices somewhere. It hasn't quite reached this level, but this is reaching "toe in the crease no goal" absurdity from years ago in the NHL. It will absolutely be addressed in the offseason. The rule itself has to be there for obstruction, but it should be a lot easier to call than this.

MLB is embarrassing themselves with this rule and interpretation. In high school baseball, I can tell you that it's not obstruction in the slightest. Easily had the ball before a slide was even starting. If it can't be obstruction in high school baseball, there's no way it could be so in MLB. He was not scoring, or even close to scoring, if Flowers wasn't there. That's not blocking the pathway. Here's the part of the rule: "Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher, without possession of the ball, blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe." Had ball, didn't block pathway before having the ball - or at least to the point where he had to slide or deviate. How far do you take this? Guy rounds third, and you're blocking the pathway at that point, out by 40 feet...well, you were blocking the pathway at some given point. They've gone so safe on this rule due to not wanting collisions. This isn't hard. You use the high school rule for obstruction. It's either a badly written rule, they are instructed to have terrible interpretation, or both. Flowers foot in the pathway had zero effect on that play. Had he been starting his slide or mid-slide and he still didn't have the ball but had a foot there, then you call the obstruction. That was just brutal.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Aug 10, 2014 -> 08:19 PM) It's not about LLWS players vs. average players, it's about average 11-12 year old players vs. average 9-10 year old players. 11 and 12 year olds are a little bigger, a little stronger, and the pitching is substantially better. They should be on a bigger field than the 9 and 10 year olds. Absolutely. I've umped all those age levels. 12 year olds playing on 60' is an absolute joke. Normal travel leagues around here play 70'. These are obviously travel-level games in the LLWS. The difference between a 9 year old (even a 10 year old) and a 12 year old is gigantic. In 3 years they play at 90' for HS, yet they are at 60' 3 years before that? Doesn't make any sense. Even outside the LLWS, you're only going to make the transition much tougher for kids.