ESPN is a joke

[texaskdog]

Somehow since one guy decided it was the lingo they all had to

[thenetwork]

Somehow since one guy decided it was the lingo they all had to

And BOOM goes the dynamite!

[Pete from Boston]

Chris, there are no New York Baseball Giants anymore.

No, but there is a team whose corporate name is New York Football Giants, Inc.

[triplemultiplex]

Looks like you can blame Hall of Fame pitcher Dennis Eckersley for the term "walk-off".

Although the concept of a game-ending home run is as old as baseball, the adjective "walk-off" attained widespread use only in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The first known usage of the word in print appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 21, 1988, Section D, Page 1. Chronicle writer Lowell Cohn wrote an article headlined "What the Eck?" about Oakland reliever Dennis Eckersley's unusual way of speaking: "For a translation, I go in search of Eckersley. I also want to know why he calls short home runs 'street pieces,' and home runs that come in the last at-bat of a game 'walkoff pieces' ..." Although the term originally was coined with a negative connotation, in reference to the pitcher (who must "walk off" the field with his head hung in shame), it has come to acquire a more celebratory connotation, for the batter who circles the bases with pride with the adulation of the home crowd.

This according to the Oracle at Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk-off_home_run

To me the term implies a no-doubt-about-it home run in the bottom of the 9th to win the game, such that the fielders begin walking off the field before the ball even lands.

[hotdogPi]

I thought a "walk-off" was just simply when the game ends during the bottom of the 9th (after the bottom of the 9th begins, but before there are 3 outs), and that any run scored that puts the home team in the lead will do it. Does it actually have to be a home run?

[jeffandnicole]

I thought a "walk-off" was just simply when the game ends during the bottom of the 9th (after the bottom of the 9th begins, but before there are 3 outs), and that any run scored that puts the home team in the lead will do it. Does it actually have to be a home run?

Nope - it can be anything.  A walk-off walk, as stupid as it sounds, has been said.  http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2487461/

And a walk-off wild pitch?  Yeah...it really doesn't even make sense, because the batter didn't have anything to do with it, other than not throwing his bat at the poorly thrown ball: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2013/09/29/henderson-alvarez-marlins-no-hitter/2891883/

[jp the roadgeek]

Seen walk off balks, hit batsmen, and grand slam singles.

[Pete from Boston]

How about a walk-off on Rule 7.05(i), which awards "One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia"?

(This rule will always be followed, in my mind, by Cecil Adams's followup line, "That is, if they can stop laughing long enough.")

[mgk920]

How about a walk-off on Rule 7.05(i), which awards "One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia"?

(This rule will always be followed, in my mind, by Cecil Adams's followup line, "That is, if they can stop laughing long enough.")

On a similar note, about a week ago, the first batter in a game (I forget offhand the teams) strikes out, the ball misses the catcher and goes back almost to the backstop.  Batter takes off for first, the catcher finds, retrieves the ball and throws it into the right field corner (oops!  ), allowing the batter to keep running, ending up at third (*CLOSE* to scoring, too!).  Yep, a dropped third-strike and a two-base error on the catcher.

Ya gotta complete the strikeout!



I also remember reading in the annals of a World Series game from the late 1940s or early 1950s where there were 2 out in the top of the 9th when a game-winning third strike eluded the catcher, allowing the batter to reach first.  With a renewed lease on life in that game, the road team then proceeded to score four runs, winning the game over their totally shell-shocked home team opponent.  IIRC, the road team then went on win the Series.

Mike

[texaskdog]

Made it through several WCWS putting up with Mowins.

Granted she follows it but it's like if Gilbert Gottfried was the foremost NFL expert.  Even if he knows his stuff no one could tolerate his voice.

If you go to a game you don't have commentary nor would you likely want it.  Yet on TV they think someone needs to CONSTANTLY talk.  Occassionally you get a commentator who talks less than half the time, it's so nice! Apparently we, the viewing audience, is too stupid to know what is going on.  I'd love to have the crowd noise but generally it's better to turn the sound off.

[Pete from Boston]

How about a walk-off on Rule 7.05(i), which awards "One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia"?

(This rule will always be followed, in my mind, by Cecil Adams's followup line, "That is, if they can stop laughing long enough.")

On a similar note, about a week ago, the first batter in a game (I forget offhand the teams) strikes out, the ball misses the catcher and goes back almost to the backstop.  Batter takes off for first, the catcher finds, retrieves the ball and throws it into the right field corner (oops!  ), allowing the batter to keep running, ending up at third (*CLOSE* to scoring, too!).  Yep, a dropped third-strike and a two-base error on the catcher.

Ya gotta complete the strikeout!



I also remember reading in the annals of a World Series game from the late 1940s or early 1950s where there were 2 out in the top of the 9th when a game-winning third strike eluded the catcher, allowing the batter to reach first.  With a renewed lease on life in that game, the road team then proceeded to score four runs, winning the game over their totally shell-shocked home team opponent.  IIRC, the road team then went on win the Series.

Mike

Thanks to Joey Votto's accomplishment the other night, now I'm eager to see the three-ball walk-off.  Of course, unlike Votto's walk, at least one person on the field might notice a walk-off walk on three balls.

[texaskdog]

So the winning run is at second base, with two outs, three and two to Mookie Wilson. [A] little roller up along first... behind the bag! It gets through Buckner! Here comes Knight, and the Mets win it!

Scully then remained silent for more than three minutes, letting the pictures and the crowd noise tell the story. Scully resumed with:

If one picture is worth a thousand words, you have seen about a million words, but more than that, you have seen an absolutely bizarre finish to Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. The Mets are not only alive, they are well, and they will play the Red Sox in Game 7 tomorrow!


(how many commentators could remain silent for 3 minutes?)

[mgk920]

So the winning run is at second base, with two outs, three and two to Mookie Wilson. [A] little roller up along first... behind the bag! It gets through Buckner! Here comes Knight, and the Mets win it!

Scully then remained silent for more than three minutes, letting the pictures and the crowd noise tell the story. Scully resumed with:

If one picture is worth a thousand words, you have seen about a million words, but more than that, you have seen an absolutely bizarre finish to Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. The Mets are not only alive, they are well, and they will play the Red Sox in Game 7 tomorrow!


(how many commentators could remain silent for 3 minutes?)

Lesson here:
Keep as few as possible - and preferably zero - ex Cubs on your roster!  Buckner was the only ex Cub in that entire World Series.

Almost prophetically, several weeks earlier, John Chancellor did a piece on just that subject - 'The Cub Factor' - in a commentary on the NBC network TV news.  I'd love to see a replay of that.

Mike

[texaskdog]

I used to kind of like the Cubs until Bartman.  I watched that too, I guess the SS had a good defense to not become the next Buckner this time.  At least Boston blamed the player (and it certainly wasn't all his fault).

[Bruce]

Holy fuck there is a lot of soccer-hate here.

Yes, MLS is not that popular in America, but it has a respectable base to build on. The league is only 20 years old and has made great strides and will continue to grow thanks to their very conservative business model (few risks, single-entity, not afraid to rebrand unsuccessful teams, building soccer-only stadiums close to downtowns and public transit instead of suburbs). MLS is going to remain primarily a local sport (those in MLS markets will care more for MLS than people living elsewhere, especially overseas with superior leagues) and that's just fine. Doesn't seem to bother the 60,000 Seattleites who show up to the Portland matches every year.

Soccer might be boring to some people and that's just fine. It's a sport that feeds off of a long periods of anticipation and building up to a goalscoring chance, with an identifiable rhythm. Some 0-0 draws (ties) can actually be quite entertaining.

Also, ESPN has been spot-on with their coverage of the FIFA scandal. Bob Ley and Jeremy Schapp are absolutely killing it.

[texaskdog]

This year I tried to figure out what I hate about soccer and it's a few things but mainly one thing.  Little offense.  The field needs to be half the size.  Indoor soccer was fun!  Americans need 11-10 games not 0-0 ties.  If Hockey rinks were twice the size no one would watch it.  Americans don't like 0-0 anything.

[Bruce]

Saying that Americans "need" high-scoring games is kind of an insult to Americans as a whole.

The growing number of Americans who are just fine watching soccer as it is is testament that Americans don't need anything more out of soccer. Just more exposure and more local lower-league teams.

In its early days, MLS attempted to appease American audiences by changing all sorts of rules (no ties, instead decided by a series of 35-yard penalty shootouts; countdown clocks that would stop for breaks; etc.) but changed them after they saw that they were alienating fans who wanted soccer as it was promised to them, not an Americanized version. Besides, it made it harder to take MLS seriously and it interfered with international play (which has become very lucrative in the form of summer friendlies).

[texaskdog]

I'm not blaming soccer so much.  Basketball got more interesting with the 3 point shot.  Football with the 2 point conversion and a wider passing game. Baseball got really boring and they made some changes this year to speed it up.  I'm sure most of my fellow Americans would first be confused at the clock that didn't count down. 

[english si]

Indoor soccer was fun!

I sort of agree. Smaller games with fewer people per side are more fun to play and are fun to watch.

However you do change the dynamics - less skill required, scoring more scrappy and random (like Ice Hockey - which is pretty low scoring).

Last kickabout I did (3-a-side, very small pitch), in about 45 minutes I score 9 for my team (more than anyone on the 'pitch'), despite being the worst player on the pitch, spending time in goal, etc. We lost 20-19, but on a larger pitch (even just with twice the goal-goal distance - ie about 10 yards) then there was no way I was either scoring so many (maybe 1 or 2) or my team getting within a goal (20-15 would have been about right). With more room, then the player who played for serious youth teams would have had room to apply his quality, I would struggle to get the scrappy goals I got as the keeper would be able to see the ball easier/have more time to react/etc).

Americans need 11-10 games not 0-0 ties.

America's pastime of Baseball ought to be something like Twenty20 Cricket then. Why have a 4-hour 11-4 game (the highest scoring in the 2104 'World' Series), when you can have a 3-hour 144-145 game (the lowest scoring 2015 NatWest t20 Blast game so far this season - excepting the one that got stopped for rain)?

[hotdogPi]

Why have a 4-hour 11-4 game (the highest scoring in the 2104 'World' Series),

The World Series will probably include the whole world by 2104.

[texaskdog]

Hockey is too low scoring, but the puck often goes from one side of the rink to the other in a few seconds.  In soccer most of the time the ball is nowhere near either goal.  There is a happy medium, much like I think NFL needs more scoring so I thought I'd like Arena football but they go too far the other way. 

[triplemultiplex]

I heard an interesting theory about why Americans are "meh" on futbol.  It's not necessarily the low scoring.  Football only seems higher-scoring because you get six points for one touchdown.  So a score of 21-7 is really just 3-1.  We pad the score.

No, Americans don't like soccer because "we" didn't invent it.

"We" invented (or rather changed an existing sport into) baseball.
"We" invented (or rather changed an existing sport into) American Football.
"We" in the New World, invented basketball (sup, Canada?).

They all came out of the same era where the United States is still carving out its own identity on the international stage.

I chalk it up to plain ol' nationalism.  We don't care about "your" sport, we've got our own sport that we invented and we are super into and we will export to the regions of the world over which we hold influence.

[Brandon]

This year I tried to figure out what I hate about soccer and it's a few things but mainly one thing.  Little offense.  The field needs to be half the size.  Indoor soccer was fun!  Americans need 11-10 games not 0-0 ties.  If Hockey rinks were twice the size no one would watch it.  Americans don't like 0-0 anything.

Actually, ask a hockey fan what they don't like about soccer, and it's not the score.  It's large field size that causes what appears to be slow play, and the lack of checking.  My personal thoughts on how to improve soccer:

1. Allow checking.
2. Penalties should be served by the player in a box to the side.
3. Shrink the field size.
4. Modify the offsides so that the ball must cross a "blue line" before the players, but players can be ahead of the ball after that.
5. Cut the number of players to five plus the goaltender.
6. Move the net away from the edge of the playing field a la hockey or lacrosse.
7. Add boards.

Now that would be interesting soccer.

[Pete from Boston]

One thing that might help is if MLS and its fans weren't so bent on aping the affectations of other countries.  This includes referring to the uniform as a "kit," the field as a "pitch," nonsensical team names like DC United (united from what?) Real Salt Lake, and yes, "fútbol" used when not speaking Spanish.  These are all very cute, but the non-watching market has adequate words already, and has local traditions and symbols that could be embraced to greater effect.

Real Salt Lake–I mean, really, what's next, Inter Phoenix?

[Bruce]

One thing that might help is if MLS and its fans weren't so bent on aping the affectations of other countries.  This includes referring to the uniform as a "kit," the field as a "pitch," nonsensical team names like DC United (united from what?) Real Salt Lake, and yes, "fútbol" used when not speaking Spanish.  These are all very cute, but the non-watching market has adequate words already, and has local traditions and symbols that could be embraced to greater effect.

Real Salt Lake–I mean, really, what's next, Inter Phoenix?

DC's name is referencing the federal government, while also referencing European clubs. Traditionally, the "united" name is reserved for teams that form out of the merger of teams.

Real Salt Lake is a total mistake and the league knows it. It's too soon to propose a total rebrand, but I'd love to see it changed to something else.

There's no happy medium for MLS team names...either it's too European (FC suffix, United/Real/City FC) or too American (mascots, animals, natural disasters [Fire and Quakes]). The Cascadia trio (Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers) have great names that reference the local environment (Sounders for the Puget Sound, Whitecaps for the nearby mountains as well as the surrounding water, Timbers for the logging industry).

Also, allowing for more physicality in soccer would be a mistake. The only body protection a player has is their shin guards, everything is fair game to be broken, bruised or torn.