Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that the New York Mets are the worst franchise in baseball.
Image your team’s staff ace is Mark Maroth, the league leader in losses (21), earned runs allowed (123), and home runs allowed (34). Image your team’s number two starter is Jeremy Bonderman, second in the major leagues in losses (19), and second in the American League in wild pitches (12). Imagine your team’s first baseman/cleanup hitter is Carlos Pena who leads the American League in errors at his position (13), hit a robust .248 with an impressive 50 RBI. Image your team’s number three hitter – the player who gets the most at bats during a season, outfielder Dmitri Young, is fifth in the American League in strikeouts (130).
If your team was the 2003 Detroit Tigers, you do not have to use your imagination. They lost an epically bad 119 games that season. They managed to break their old record of losing 104 games in a season in 1952. A tough year all around and terrible top to bottom. An ideal example of the worst franchise of a particular season.
If the Detroit Tigers are the poster team for bad franchises, the 2009 New York Mets are not the worst franchise in the 2009 season.
It is nice is that I do not have to rehash the litany of injuries the New York Mets have suffered this season. Loyal Homer did that accurately. The amount of hitting the Mets have lost is extremely high. They lost their table setting speedster in shortstop Jose Reyes, their cleanup hitting slugger in center fielder Carlos Beltran, and their RBI/home run producer in first baseman Carlos Delgado. They lost their prize offseason acquisition, closer Francisco Rodriguez, for nearly a month, too.
Sure, the Mets stink this year, but injuries have the most to do with that. Losing that kind of production will cripple any team. Injuries have nothing to do with how the organization is run either on the field or in the front office. It is a reflection of bad luck… bad luck on a grand scale for these hapless Mets.
It is impossible to argue that general manager Omar Minaya has avoided controversy this season. The tumult within the upper echelons of the organization is obvious when Tony Bernazard, Vice President of Development, was recently fired for what amounts to conduct detrimental to the organization. If the public is hearing about an issue in the front office, it is easy to say that the front office is out of control. However, Minaya apologized for his own actions, and promptly fired the individual who also made the organization look bad (in his own unique style). Is it the best front office in baseball, in performance or organization? Clearly it is not. But, it is not the worst, either.
In fact, it is possible to make an argument for the San Diego Padres, the Pittsburgh Pirates, and the Washington Nationals as the worst franchise in baseball. The Mets have managed 53 wins this season – 13 better than Washington, seven better than Pittsburgh (who traded away every good player they have any may not win another game this year), and four better than San Diego who constantly invent new ways to stink (and should have more losses if their division was not so bad).
It is easy to blame the manager, the players, and the front office. But a keen look reveals the real issue – injuries. The Mets do not have the worst record in baseball (there are nine worse teams than them). They did not trade away every good player to hamstring them for the coming seasons, either. Sure, the Mets stink. But the worst? No way.
Posted by Sports Geek 
The What Makes A Better In-Game Analyst Debate – The Verdict
August 6, 2009Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument that a trained broadcaster with no playing experience is better, and Loyal Homer’s argument that a former player with no formal broadcasting experience is better.
History can often serve as the best teacher.
In a question like the one discussed by Sports Geek and Loyal Homer, where separate qualities are compared to evaluate which makes for a better result, there will be both positive and negative examples for each side. While those examples serve as evidence for specific incidents of success or failure, it is also important not to lose sight of the larger picture.
There is no set formula for steps which must be followed in order to become a successful broadcaster. The traits that make one person a successful broadcaster could very well ruin another broadcaster’s career. The most important factor that makes a broadcaster “successful” – regardless of their background – is that they sound comfortable and intelligent when they speak. I contest that whenever a broadcaster is perceived as being poor in their role, it is because they lack the appearance of comfort or intelligence with regard to the topic.
As I read the arguments by both Loyal Homer and Sports Geek, the question I kept asking myself was… “What background type would generally make someone appear to be more comfortable and knowledgeable in what they were discussing?”
To put it differently, I approached this as one of those ‘Street-Smarts’ vs. ‘Book-Smarts’ debates.
In order to answer that question, I looked again at the examples provided on both sides of the debate.
Sports Geek provided several examples of in-game analysts who have failed for BOTH sides (citing Joe Theismann and Joe Morgan as former players, and Dennis Miller and Steve Phillips as non-athletes). When the pressure was on to highlight the non-players who were successful in their role, though, the only example provided was Tony Kornheiser. Even Kornheiser as a positive example can be challenged to some degree because he has not sustained that success. He spent two years in the booth and has since been replaced. Regardless of the reason for his replacement, there is no long term evidence of success.
Loyal Homer, on the other hand, brought up Don Sutton and Troy Aikman – both of whom have made successful transitions into broadcasting as in-game analysts. Other names, like Bob Griese and Phil Simms, also come to mind as former athletes who became very successful and well-regarded as in-game analysts.
To quote Sports Geek (who gave us that permission), “The traits of a good sports analyst are not exclusive to those with playing experience.” That is a very true statement. However, history has proven that those with previous playing experience seem to have a greater likelihood for success as in-game analysts for broadcasting. After reading Loyal Homer’s argument, I am led to believe that the former athlete’s ability to speak from a perspective of “been there, done that” when providing in-game analysis gives credibility to their statements, making them appear more comfortable and knowledgeable (on average) than their non-playing counterparts.
Winner – Loyal Homer