Maybe they could try this on Joe Morgan for a few innings

October 15, 2007 8:19 PM

Tim McCarver and Joe Buck were unusually quiet during tonight's broadcast of the Red Sox-Indians game. Does anyone know if there was a specific reason for this?

The entire broadcast was light on commentary and really let the game speak for itself. It was very refreshing. Was this just a fluke? Did I imagine it? Please help.

posted by MidAtlantic to sports, hobbies, & recreation (23 comments total)

They're thinking about how much the TV ratings will tank if it's a Indians vs Rockies World Series.
posted by ALongDecember at 8:42 PM on October 15, 2007 [8 favorites]

It probably has to do with the fact that there has been a recent movement lately in most baseball broadcasting, that if it’s national broadcast to not show favoritism to any side because it can get you into trouble.

Tim McCarver and Joe Buck typically show a heavy favoritism to one side over another. I see this lot in Red Sox Vs. Yankees. They tend to favor the Yankees. ALongDecember probably wasn’t wrong with his/her comment, if they wanted to show favoritism…they would have backed the Sox cause of the fact the Sox have a bigger fan base and there for better for ratings to favor them, but the fact they were down might have left them speechless. Back the Indians and you have to hope they win or else you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about as a sports analyst and you turn your back on the wider fan base of the Sox.

So in the end I think they just did it so they don’t look wrong or they are trying to not show as much favoritism this time around.
posted by JustAGuy at 9:53 PM on October 15, 2007

The game seemed to move along pretty quickly--one half of an inning was two minutes--so maybe they didn't have to fill time.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:53 PM on October 15, 2007

I agree that it was weird.

I do think that McCarver and Buck are loath to say anything positive about the Red Sox, in general. Maybe they shot all their canned topics to talk about on the long game Saturday?

Tonight it seemed like the only sentence they had written on their legal pad of "things to riff on" was whether Francona would bring back Josh Beckett on short rest. Despite Francona saying a dozen times that he won't. Freaking 45 minutes worth of discussion about this, and then returning to it at every possible chance. "Well, Francona has said that he won't, but you have to admit it's a theoretical possibility. And that Josh Beckett, he had such a good game that one time. You really have to think, with a performer like that, 30 years ago there wouldn't have been a question about this. I'd like to take us over to our analyst Timmy Pooperston. Timmy, are you hearing anything about this question of whether they'll bring Beckett back on short rest?" "Well, Joe, he's said that he won't, but of course it's still a theoretical possibility. Beckett is a major league pitcher, and as you know, plays the game of baseball. So anything is possible. It's October!" "Yes, Timmy. So why do you think people are so enthusiastic about this rumor that Francona will bring Beckett back?" ... etc. Gaaaaargh.

(Did I mention I hate them?)
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:09 PM on October 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

LobsterMitten
Thank you, I thought I was the only one astonished by that.

*long camera shot on Beckett*

"There is the Red Sox's main man Josh Beckett... who is not slated to pitch Game 4..."

*camera remains on Beckett, awkward silence*
posted by themadjuggler at 10:37 PM on October 15, 2007

(derail) Silent Tim McCarver is the only tolerable Tim McCarver. We have no choice of which broadcast team for a particular game to listen to during the regular season on mlb.tv or NASN (outside of the US) and I could not stand listening to that dude when it was a FOX broadcast. I hope it continues! I hope they retire him! I hope FOX loses their baseball contract! Ugh!
posted by derMax at 11:33 PM on October 15, 2007

Joe Buck is a good play-by-play guy, IMHO, but he needs a different color commentator. McCarver is painful to listen to. Get Buck an intelligent analyst and I think wonderful things would happen.

/wishes NBC was back in the baseball business. Their broadcasts were top notch.
posted by azpenguin at 12:35 AM on October 16, 2007

Ya know with digital TV couldn't they do an audio subchannel with the field and crowd, but no announcers?

For most games this would be a big improvement.
posted by aerotive at 2:52 AM on October 16, 2007

You weren't imagining it; I was wondering the same thing. McCarver is awful, of course, so I'm nthing the "good silence" part of this response.

Maybe they read their press and were shamed into silence.
posted by rokusan at 2:53 AM on October 16, 2007

Personally I think that anything you can do to make "Master of the Obvious" Tim McCarver quiet is a good thing. Joe Buck is A-OK though.
posted by sanka at 4:30 AM on October 16, 2007

The less Buck and McCarver speak, the better, IMHO. Buck, especially, is the main reason I try to avoid baseball on Fox, if I can. It's his delivery, I think. For some reason, he manages to make every little event on field sound like a breaking scandal or something.
And McCarver...well...he's just a buffoon, constantly stating the obvious.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:53 AM on October 16, 2007

In my view..
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:55 AM on October 16, 2007

I think, when you get down to the last couple of outs in a game, it's much better to let the drama of the game carry things than talk and talk and talk. We can see how desperate the Sox are to make something happen, we don't need Buck or McCarver reminding us about that 15 times for every at bat. So, at least for that part of the game, I thought it was probably deliberate, and a good thing.
posted by dseaton at 5:30 AM on October 16, 2007

<TimMcCarver>Do you know that when you walk the leadoff hitter that he'll score about 70% of the time?</TimMcCarver>

Watched plenty of Tim McCarver as a Mets fan....if he could ratchet back the ObviousMeter for a second, it'd be awesome. I think he's intelligent and thoughtful, but repeats the same tired stats over and over. He could just sit quiet for a larger portion of the game and it'd be enjoyable.
posted by EastCoastBias at 6:04 AM on October 16, 2007

aerotive
Brilliant idea. I would love to have the option to turn off the announcers with boxing as well.
posted by nineRED at 6:54 AM on October 16, 2007

I actually think McCarver is a lot better than he used to be. I can't remember where I read this suggestion, but somebody recommended putting Joe Buck on the cover of Madden next year. I'd support that.
posted by PFL at 6:59 AM on October 16, 2007

Going back to the top of this thread, ALongDecember probably has it dead right. Fox TV executives are all considering seppuku over the ratings disaster that a World Series with the Rockies and the Indians would be. The only bright spot is that the Rox will probably sweep in 4 games and cut it short.

Buck and McCarver are faced with the prospect of talking to themselves for the four games.
posted by worker_bee at 7:08 AM on October 16, 2007

I think he's intelligent and thoughtful, but repeats the same tired stats over and over.

I have to agree with that. The homespun, folksy obvious "wisdom" goes over the top, but stop and listen to what he has to say about the catcher's thought process, player tendencies, etc. From last night alone:

1. How to handle signals for a pitcher with more than 4 pitches.
2. How Mike Lowell's first hit wouldn't have been possible for the early-career Mike Lowell, who was a dead-pull hitter.
3. How Cleveland could win by simply managing around the Sox 3-4-5 hitters. Obvious but true, even with Tek's HR.
posted by yerfatma at 7:41 AM on October 16, 2007

I hate Tim McCarver and Joe Buck more than Hitler hated Jews.
posted by LilBucner at 9:54 AM on October 16, 2007

rokusan, that's a very satisfying link. Today, the first entry in the search for McCarver is this; I copy it here as an advertisement for that site.

Several of you sent in this bizarro-world pearl of wisdom from my close friend Tim McCarver during today's Fox broadcast:

"We had our friends at Stats, Inc. check and see whether more multi-run innings came with a lead off homer or a lead off walk. You would think that a lead off walk would lead to more big innings than a lead off home run. Not true. A lead off home run, this year, has lead to more multi-run innings than lead off walks. It's against conventional thinking."

It's against conventional thinking. Really.

In my mind, conventional thinking on this subject goes like this: if the first hitter in the inning scores one run all by himself, it's more likely that his team will score two+ runs that inning than if he does not. Because in that situation, in order to achieve a multiple-run inning, the team has only to score one additional run. Instead of two runs. See how that works?

McCarver has been obsessed with this subject before. Do a search for him on this very blog, and you will find some real gems.

I like to imagine the guy at Stats, Inc. who had to field that call.

McCarver: So, basically, we want to know which situation leads to more multiple-run innings. A lead-off home run, or a lead-off walk.

Chet, Over at Scouts Inc.: ...Who is this?

McCarver: Timothy Chadwick McCarver, sir, at your service.

Chet: And you want to know whether a team is more likely to score two runs in an inning --

McCarver: Correct.

Chet: -- if the lead-off guy homers, as opposed to walking?

McCarver: Correct.

Chet: It's if he homers.

McCarver: How did you research that so fast? I didn't even hear typing.

Chet: Okay. Hang on. (Sound of obviously fast and nonsensical typing for two seconds) Yup, there it is. It's if he homers.

McCarver: I'll be the son of a monkey's uncle! That goes against conventional thinking!

Chet: I don't think you know what those words mean.

posted by LobsterMitten at 10:22 AM on October 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I never minded Buck and McCarver as much as Thom Brennaman, who did the NL play-by-play before TBS got it.

And I never minded them as much as Fox's coverage of baseball in general, with the loud whooshing of the graphics, incredibly obnoxious opening sequences, and constant plugging of their own primetime shows (like showing actors in the crowd). Or the plugging of shows in the opening sequences. Jeanne Zalasko bugs me too. Unfortunately, I believe Fox has the rights to the postseason for a few more long years.

After one game, I had this inexplicable urge to see Transformers, now available on DVD...
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:38 AM on October 16, 2007

Yeah, running the same ads 47 times per game is a terrible idea. I still remember some hack tv show they were promoting in 2003? 2004? ("But her father is the district attorney!") This time around, for us internet viewers anyway, it's that freaking Last Season movie. ("You have no idea what you're up against." "This school is all the town has!")
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:08 AM on October 16, 2007

"But her father is the district attorney!"

Ha, I remember becoming quite familiar with that one. Whatever it was, I remember it not lasting long. I think it was supposed to be fairly "edgy" though.

But I'm sure that goes for all networks and all sports. There were quite a few ads that I'd keep seeing during the Stanley Cup finals ("Yeah, put it in the zone!")

But Fox is a little more pervasive in their methods of promoting their own shows during the actual game.

There was a collection of excerpts in the USA Today of various reviews of TBS's first-year coverage, and one said how refreshingly low-tech and straightforward theirs was, and concluded that perhaps they just didn't know any better yet.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 11:57 AM on October 17, 2007