Has anyone else been a little annoyed with the constant discussion of this new 42 game theory?

 

Hawk says every team will automatically win 60 and lose 60 games. It's what you do with the other 42 games that matter.

 

I guess it makes a little sense, but hearing them discuss which games fall into the wins, into the losses, and into these 42 is getting tiresome already. I've got a feeling we are going to be hearing about this all year.

As is usually the case with hawk.. he'll beat that horse until it's bloody and battered beyond identificaton..

As is usually the case with hawk.. he'll beat that horse until it's bloody and battered beyond identificaton.. 

 

hawk's old fashioned like that.

we need more men like hawk.

He's been saying that for years. And it's true, for the most part. Let's hope the 16 wins is in the 42 column!!!

Has anyone else been a little annoyed with the constant discussion of this new 42 game theory?

 

Hawk says every team will automatically win 60 and lose 60 games. It's what you do with the other 42 games that matter.

 

I guess it makes a little sense, but hearing them discuss which games fall into the wins, into the losses, and into these 42 is getting tiresome already. I've got a feeling we are going to be hearing about this all year.

 

Well, like you said, he is right (unless you're the '03 Tigers). Hawk has done stuff like this for years. I've just learned to get past his repetitive ramblings and enjoy his quirks. I'd prefer to have a more objective announcer, but I've grown to appreciate how much he loves the Sox.

 

That's just my take though.

I love the way Hawk cheers for the Sox. Since I personnally know zero Sox fans, its like having a friend to watch it with. I love the Hawkeroo.

 

 

The one new Hawkism that I don't really like is, "that mirror is gonna like him in the morning". I could be wrong but it seems that he has just started that this year.

The thing that annoys me about it is that it doesn't work that way. He claims the games they aren't supposed to win are those 42, but that's not the way baseball works. I always thought of that statement about the other 42 being similar to a Yogism. It's true in a sense of the statement and is clever, but completely misses the point.

Agree with Dan

Hawk has alot of dead air to fill (since DJ lacks thoughts in general, and pertinent thoughts in particular). Let's give him a break on the repetitiveness of some of his statements.

Hawk has alot of dead air to fill (since DJ lacks thoughts in general, and pertinent thoughts in particular).  Let's give him a break on the repetitiveness of some of his statements.

 

 

Hey, at least they're better than Len Kasper and Bob Brenly.. :sleep :sleep :sleep

Almost every team is gonna win the sixty and lose sixty like he says, but I don't know that there is any way to determine when a game, win or loss counts as one of the sixty or one of the 42. Eitherway, I like listening to Hawk, even if he does get repetitive and made fun of.

Hawk has alot of dead air to fill (since DJ lacks thoughts in general, and pertinent thoughts in particular).  Let's give him a break on the repetitiveness of some of his statements.

What the hell are you talking about, UH OH, byebye

What the hell are you talking about, UH OH, byebye

I like "Uh oh, Bye bye" WAAAYYYYYY more than when DJ chimes in on Hawk's HR call. The simultaneous "YESSSS!" sickens me.

Agree with Dan

Agree with Chisoxfn agreeing with Dan.

The thing that annoys me about it is that it doesn't work that way. He claims the games they aren't supposed to win are those 42, but that's not the way baseball works. I always thought of that statement about the other 42 being similar to a Yogism. It's true in a sense of the statement and is clever, but completely misses the point.

 

Exactly. Hawk is right in a sense of when you're looking at the season as whole. But when you try to apply the theory to a single game, you're left with nothing.

The way I look at it is this..You play 162 games, its how you play in those that determine how you do in a season.

 

It is a tough job being a baseball announcer. 162 games a year (closer to 180 this year because of spring training) and each game almost lasts 3 hours. That's close to 540 hours (over 22 days) behind the mic. Give him a break every once in a while.

That's the absolute dumbest & worst theory I've ever heard. I wish he would just shut up about it. Many teams have gone a season without losing 60 games. Many teams have gone a season without having 42 come from behind or close wins. Hawk let it go.

 

If you need to count the wins do it by month. A playoff team needs to avg 16 wins a month. Any less & your hoping for others to lose to make it. But 96 wins should get you in. Every win over 16 in a month gives you a +1. That's insurance against tough schedules that might prevent you from getting 16 wins in a month.

 

The remaining wins for Apr will come in handy when we face that tough schedule in Aug.

If you go by that I'd say we already have a few in the win column. And I can only think of 1 in the loss column for sure.

Hawk likes to KILL everything way too much. We all know how he killed "Strecth!" last season. I'm also sick and tired of:

 

"Aaron! Aaron! He can't make the play."

Isn't that a variation of the old Tommy Lasorda you win a third, you lose a third, and what you do with the final third is what matters?

Hawk likes to KILL everything way too much. We all know how he killed "Strecth!" last season. I'm also sick and tired of:

 

"Aaron! Aaron! He can't make the play."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"STRETCH!!!"

 

"... and Kotsay makes the grab in shallow center field."

Isn't that a variation of the old Tommy Lasorda you win a third, you lose a third, and what you do with the final third is what matters?

 

Bill Veeck wrote that in "Veeck as in Wreck" before I ever heard of Tommy Lasorda

Bill Veeck wrote that in "Veeck as in Wreck" before I ever heard of Tommy Lasorda

 

That's where I heard it. More times than not the theory holds water. I'm sure some anal stat freak is researching it at this very moment.. :rolly

That's where I heard it. More times than not the theory holds water. I'm sure some anal stat freak is researching it at this very moment..  :rolly

 

 

Laughing here. But, no comment.

Bill Veeck wrote that in "Veeck as in Wreck" before I ever heard of Tommy Lasorda

 

Maybe that's it. I don't know why Lasorda came to mind...