Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Hey, Anonymous Commenter Who Defended Ron Darling Earlier Today, Check this Out:

After being asked during the Yankees/Twins game to pick a winner in the Cardinals/Dodgers series, Ron said the Dodgers had a lot of question marks. Among them:

Clayton Kershaw, a guy at 22 years old, I believe,

He's 21, not that it matters.

you've got to find out if he's a guy who's ready to... to...

Ready to what? OUT WITH IT, BUMBLEFUCK.

take the antlers, and go, and have a great series!

Watch out Vin Scully, you've got competition in the "best in the announcing business" category. Take those antlers, Clayton. Take those antlers, and go, and have a great series. If I'm a Dodger fan I'm thinking it's more important that Randy Wolf grabs the bull by the horns, but that's just me.

29 comments:

Tonus said...

Grab those antlers by the balls, Clayton!!!

Darling suffers from McCarver's Syndrome. He talks too much and that leads to him saying stuff that just sounds silly. Like his bit about the importance of what he defined as "shutdown innings" or a pitcher's ERA in the half-inning after his team scores a run. I may be crazy, but I'm guessing that his ERA after innings when his team doesn't score is probably just as important.

Analysts in the booth really need to talk less often and make more concise points. A lot of the time it sounds as if they're making things up just to have something to say.

Martin said...

Bumblefuck is just terrible. I'd been lucky enough to never hear him till the last two Twins games, and now my ears hurt and my brain is sore. He's like Lewis Black's bit about how dumb things you hear eventually give you an aneurysm. I can only think that he and Chip are paired up so as to limit the damage to one broadcast for bumblefucketry.

Jarrett said...

and have a great series!

Game 1 Starter: Randy Wolf
Games 2-5 Starter: Clayton Kershaw

Also, I think "if he's so fucking great why is he calling games on TBS" is going to be a great label over the next couple of weeks. There was a Dick Stockton rant here, but it's off topic for now.

Anonymous said...

Vin Scully! AHAHAHAHA!!!!


Here's you: The hitter looked bad on the first two pitches

Here's me: Yeah, but he got a hit in a big spot in a big game, who gives a shit how he looked on the first two pitches. It was a good at-bat.

Here's you: But, but, those first two pitc--

Here's me: You don't play sports, do you


VIN SCULLY! HAHAHAHA!!!!

AJ said...

Did you actually watch the game? He got a big hit? By whos standard...yours? To me that was an error on Polanco, he decided to try and touch the bag before getting the ball. But of course you already knew that, since you play sports.

I'm either guessing you did not watch the game, or you are actually Darling himself. There was so much dead air on that broadcast I thought my sound was broke. And if you are Darling, please pick up your "best color guy in the business" button from the lost and found at Chuck E Cheese's.

Chris W said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris W said...

I don't remember back in my sports-playing days (OMG credibility!) that my coach would congratulate me for hitting a slow chopper that an infielder misplayed.

"Hey Chris, way to hope the other team made a mistake after looking like a chump on the first two pitches! You're really stroking it up there!"
--my coach? Maybe? I don't remember him ever saying this.

Does that mean it was a "bad" at bat? Probably not. Any way on, right? But a great at bat? No, really, anonymous...keep going.

Rich said...

Anon,

That's not at all what you said and even if it did "you don't play sports do you?" is not a valid response to anything. Oh and I did play sports. Baseball even. A slow chopper up the middle is not a great AB. It led to a great result, but that doesn't make the AB itself great, because, as pointed out already, it only became a good result due to someone else making a mistake.

I guess that's how the Twins roll though, instead of waiting for the 3 run HR they wait for the two base error.

Anonymous said...

Take those antlers and go! Keep fucking that chicken!

Chris W said...

oh snap this shit is poppin' OFF

Andy said...

All I can say is, if I heard either of them talking about "playing the game the right way" one more time, I would have billed TBS for my new TV to replace the smashed one that I'd just been watching.

pnoles said...

I....I can't believe I actually have to explain to someone that hitting a weak bouncer is NOT good. Tolbert did not have a good at-bat. He had a very, very lucky at-bat. Do you....do you think Tolbert had some sort of control over where that ball went within like 20 feet? absolutely not. That at-bat was the equivalent of striking oil with a metal detector, or something that makes an equivalently little amount of sense.

Anonymous said...

This conversation is fucking RIDICULOUS. Who cares if he got lucky? The result of that play was to save the Twins 6 month season with one swing. God forbid an announcer get excited in that moment instead of ripping the guy for hitting a weak grounder and getting lucky. OMG Polanco misplayed the ball, so therefore the result of the AB is negated! What an asshole Tolbert is to get lucky and keep the Twins season alive! The guy had two strikes in the most important half inning of the Twins season, and the end result of the AB was a tie score. Luck is a part of sports, shit happens. The Pats were lucky to have the tuck rule happen, does that mean it wasn't a good win for them?

You guys never seem to take into consideration when ripping these guys apart is they have to make this comments on plays as they happen. It's a lot easier to sit there for a minute and think, man, that Ron Darling is such a fucktard than it is for him to have to make a comment that will convey the moment to millions of Americans, 80% of whom are probably casual baseball fans who don't spend a single second thinking about the context of the commentary. Is baseball announcing stupid most of the time? It sure is, but shit, most people are stupid.

rich said...

"Who cares if he got lucky?"

When someone praises the guy for having a good AB, something that requires SKILL to do, I do.

"God forbid an announcer get excited in that moment..."

Excited? Yes, that's fine, but again to praise the guy for having a good AB when it was by all logic not, goes beyond 'excitement' and ends up in the realm of asinine comments.

"OMG Polanco misplayed the ball"

Right, I think we all agree there.

"so therefore the result of the AB is negated!"

No, but it does make it NOT A GOOD AB. You even said it was because he got lucky. Had Polanco handled the ball cleanly and thrown Tolbert out, would it have been a good AB? No. So why does Tolbert get credit for something that he, in fact, had very little to do with. The entire reason you could even classify it as a 'good' AB is because Polanco made a mistake. That doesn't make Tolbert's play good, it makes Polanco's play bad. Understand?

"The Pats were lucky to have the tuck rule happen, do that mean it wasn't a good win for them?"

There's also a difference b/w being 'lucky' about a rule that's written down and lucky when someone makes an error when they usually don't. However, I'll play your game. No, it doesn't make it a 'bad' win. It just means that you can't say that the play was a good one for Tom Brady.

Had the announcer said "OMG that was a phenomenal pass attempt by Brady" you certainly wouldn't say that the announcer was just excited in the moment.

"You guys never seem to take into consideration...."

Ya, they have a JOB where they do this kind of stuff on a daily basis. Heaven forbid we expect them to not suck at that job.

I'll agree: it's hard to call a game as it's happening; however, just because something is hard doesn't mean you're immune from an ass ripping when you suck at that hard task.

Quantum Mechanics is hard, but had the first atomic bomb destroyed 50% of the continental US you think people wouldn't sit around saying "what a bunch of fucking idiots"?

To summarize:

Darling said something incredibly stupid. He was called out on it. You took offense to it and despite an entire blog devoted to ripping people who suck at their jobs (sometimes just on one instance) you ignore all of the others to defend Darling. You seem to not have a problem with a blog whose 'mission' is to get a sportswriter fired, but you have a problem that they called out an announcer for saying something stupid?

Methinks you have a personal stake in this.

AJ said...

Anon - "It sure is, but shit, most people are stupid."

Yep, and you are proving that every time you post.

slwg said...

In partial defense of Anonymous, it is more valid to criticize a writer/columnist for inane comments, since they have time to get it right and editors to presumably steer them away from stupidity. An announcer is doing it on the fly and when they speak there is no turning back. Having said that, gushning over a misplayed bouncer is pretty weak, adn the "take the antlers" statement is truly beyond weird.

Andrew said...

@AJ - excellent reply. Your internet insult has dragged my self esteem to an all time low. Thanks so much for your input. Were you as smart as you would like to think, you'd notice the vastly different tone and writing style of my post and conclude that I am not the same person as the prior anonymous in these threads. That's second level thinking though, and not as easy as your thoroughly hilarious one liner, so I'll let that slide.

@rich - I suppose that my implication that we can use Machiavellian logic for a sporting event is a bit of a stretch, but I think there are much more egregious errors made during a standard broadcast than the Darling comment that I've now spent 30 minutes I'll never get back debating with you.

The quantum physics allegory is a terrible one by the way. To compare making judgements on a real time statement to a theoretical result of a project that took a decade to develop is pretty foolish, no?

I've been reading this blog long enough to get what their goal is, but I appreciate your analysis. "Methinks" I have no personal stake in the discussion, I'd just rather play devil's advocate than heap on a guy for a shaky comment on one of the most important plays of the season.

Have a lovely day.

Chris W said...

Well....that was....something...

Jack M said...

Let's just agree that the "great at bat" comment, while objectively wrong, isn't even in the top 20 worst commentary gaffes of the post season...so far.

Andrew said...

That I will definitely agree to. I don't think blogger.com would have the space available for the material you could write in a week for a Fire Chip Caray blog.

Adam said...

Ron Darling Guy must be a Mets fan.

Just because a broadcaster has to say things on the fly doesn't mean he gets a pass. Part of his job is to not mess up, even if it is on the fly. If he says stupid shit then... TBS should find somebody who doesn't.

The more interesting question is: Why do you think he should even get a pass for saying it even if it is on fly? Anybody who is not a moron relying on anecdotal bullshit should have realized after the first two pitches that the at-bat was not going well for Tolbert. I could see your point if he had simply misspoke; but mistaking the outcome of an event is not a slip of the tongue.

Andrew said...

"Ron Darling Guy." Wow. The comedic genius that haunts these threads needs to be tapped for an HBO special.

I'd love for you to point me in the direction of one broadcaster who meets the lofty criteria you've just laid out of never making a mistake. Even the mighty Scully says dumb shit, and usually at least once a broadcast.

My issue is that there is no mistake about the outcome. The outcome was the ball got through the infield and saved the Twins season. So how is he mistaking the OUTCOME? Perhaps you disagree with his wording, but the outcome of the at bat was certainly great, no? Again, it depends on looking at things from an end justifying the means point of view or just being uber literal, which is the way most of you are viewing it. I see your point on that. I'll choose to look at it differently and we can agree to disagree, and end this before my brain melts from reading any more pathetic attempts at humor in reply to my comments.

Go Twins!

Adam said...

Hey Andrew - Ever heard of the concept of nicknaming somebody because of something he does and not as an attempt at humor? I think you are trying to hard.

Did I ever say any broadcaster was flawless? That's rediculous because it's impossible. I will however assert that Darling makes a lot more mistakes than he should and that is one reason why he sucks at his job. He also sucks because he uses meaningless phrases and malapropisms and demonstrates he does not have a good understanding of what is going on in a baseball game.

I think you're still looking at it the wrong way. The outcome of the at-bat was good for the Twins because Polanco fucked up not because it was a great at-bat for Tolbert. So yes, he did mistake the outcome of an event. Would you say that in the 9th inning yesterday that James Loney had a great at-bat? The Dodgers won because of that at-bat, but it was not a great at-bat by Loney. See?

Let's say that same the same exact result happened but in a meaningless low A game and you were scouting Tolbert. Would you give a favorable report to Tolbert just because he got a game tying hit or would you recognize that his at bat was weak and he simply got lucky?

It seems like maybe you think we are saying the Twins got lucky to win that game and thus we are insulting your team. We're just saying Ron Darling is a terrible broadcaster.

Chris W said...

The bottom line for me is that Ron Darling has an extremely awkward way of talking.

I generally like a guy like Harold Reynolds, despite his awkward way of talking, because he's funny and generally pretty spot-on with his takes, telling me stuff I didn't already know.

I don't hate Darling, but certainly, I don't find his knowledge or wit to be all that exciting--certainly not enough to overcome his kind of marble-mouthed way of giving his takes.

I'll take him over Buck/McCarver though (only if he leaves Chip behind)

Martin said...

Ron Darling-- "He's at a good pitch count" Guy was at 40 pitches after 2 innings. That's not a good pitch count.

-- "Good ball to strike ratio."
15 balls, 25 strikes. That's not good. It's not bad. It's mediocre.

This isn't filling airtime, this is being oblivious to what's going on around you because you're too busy trying to say something cool, or profound, and instead, you're just King Bumblefuck.

Rich said...

The quantum physics allegory is a terrible one by the way. To compare making judgements on a real time statement to a theoretical result of a project that took a decade to develop is pretty foolish, no?

____

Okay for someone who likes to use big words there Andrew you really should work on your reading comprehension.

That example was to highlight the fact that while something may be hard, you still take flak when you screw up.

Also, we're heaping on him BECAUSE it was the one of the most important plays of the season. When you almost destroy the sheer excitement of a season changing play by making people shake their heads in disbelief, then you've done a piss poor job.

Also, no one is attacking the OUTCOME, they're attacking the fact that while the outcome was good, the AB itself was not. Again, the only reason the outcome was good was because Polanco screwed up, not because Tolbert did anything special, but that's not the picture painted by Darling.

Elliot said...

Why has Ron Darling been posting so much lately?

pnoles said...

I'm just shocked that I didn't realize this before.

"You guys never seem to take into consideration when ripping these guys apart is they have to make this comments on plays as they happen."

WTFZOMGYOUSERIOUS!??!?! They don't have a notecard pre-written up for every possible iteration of each baseball at-bat? I take it all back. Ron Darling, you are absolved of saying all forms of stupid shit, because you don't have time to prepare. I'm sorry for misjudging you. Here's a hundred thousand dollars.

I think the (over)re-reaction here was more severe than the reaction. I was watching the game. Ron Darling said something to compliment Matt Tolbert on an at-bat during which he looked miserably lost. I said to myself, chuckling, "Whoa, what a stupid comment!" I then decided to log in to this blog I write for where we make fun of bad sports journalism and type it down, thinking that others may find it funny as well. I hardly recall nominating Darling for "Worst Color Guy Ever".

Anonymous said...

Vin Scully!!!!