I like Gammons best. I think the heat Gammons takes should be directed at Buster Onley. I think he makes up the most stuff. Kurkjan is also great. He is like a slightly less old Gammons in my eyes. They are both extremely knowledgable. The bold predictions and rumor inciting are just part of the ESPN gig. I liked Harold as far as the personality he brought. Kruks sucks. Ship him out. Steve Phillips I want to fight in a darkened ally for a number of reasons. Ravech is a mediator. Thats all hes good for. Tino is a little goofy but he is a Yankee legend and thus gets two .
Oh and did anyone mention Orestes Destrada? He is better than I thought initially. Not the best but still good.
Give me the real journalists any day: Gammons, Kurkjian, Olney. Ravech does a fantastic job as a host with all the idiots he is forced to work with, though I sometimes get the feeling that his soul is slowly dying inside while he listens to Kruk speak.
Most of the players just come off as dumb. Everyone makes a big deal out of the insight that comes with playing the game, but what do they have, really? They can recite by rote exactly what their coaches told them to do twenty years ago, and they can tell stories about former players. Give me a man that has done some real research and can form a coherent sentence.
The exception to the "former players" rule is Orel. He knows quite a bit about pitching that the average player does not. He communicates well, and he comes off as very intelligent, which is a rarity on TV these days.
Apollo wrote:Most of the players just come off as dumb. Everyone makes a big deal out of the insight that comes with playing the game, but what do they have, really? They can recite by rote exactly what their coaches told them to do twenty years ago, and they can tell stories about former players. Give me a man that has done some real research and can form a coherent sentence.
Amen brother.
If you insist on having a player on the show, who did more than stare into to his beer bottle as a player.
Example: Schilling would would fit better on BBTN than David Wells. Wells might be more charasmatic than Schilling (or at least as much so as kruk), but he has never put the same effort into studying the game.
I think Don Mattingly would be good on BBTN. Of course it all depends on how dull he is. But the man knows his stuff and wouldn't need to cover it up by trying to entertain everyone.
I voted for Kruk b/c he makes me laugh and he entertains when he's on TV. True, most of the stuff he says is idiotic, but you're supposed to say idiotic stuff when you're an idiot.
I mean most of us here in the cafe have our own in depth opinions of players b/c we've all done some serious research. We like the on-air personalities that tend to agree with the research we've done ourselves and dislike those whose analysis disagrees with our own.
I like the analysis that Olney, Kurkijian and Gammons do and think they are by far the most knowledgable about the game and business part of baseball. And I think Ravech does a good job hosting.
As for the former players, I thought HR had the best combo of personality and actual analysis. But Kruk is still the most entertaining and that's why I voted for him.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by cobbs87 » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:41 am 
