Jon Miller and Joe Morgan

[Cronos]

I like Miller, good voice, good grasp of the right amount of emotion to put in the right situation(the one beef I have with John Rooney is that his voice often starts to rise in intensity too early and makes every lazy fly ball sound like it's going to be a homerun). I don't think I need to touch any more upon Joe Morgan's ineptitude.

What's funny is that Morgan did something last night that I've never seen him do before: put emotion into his calling of the game. When Rolen ground into that ludicrous double play, he was almost laughing in a piteous way going "Oh, nooo...oh nooo..." which is basically what I was doing before throwing a loose shoe at the wall after the play was turned. It seems that he's not the robot he usually sounds like. I just thought it was interesting and kind of out of character for him.

[heyzeus]

What's awesome is that on other boards, Mets fans are carping about a pro-Cardinals bias from Miller and Morgan. Some claim that when Valentin turned that DP on Rolen, Morgan exclaimed "oh no!"

So my point is, I guess, you can project onto announcers whatever bias you want. But when someone says that statistics aren't useful, that's when you know you've got a bad analyst.

[jim]

What's awesome is that on other boards, Mets fans are carping about a pro-Cardinals bias from Miller and Morgan. Some claim that when Valentin turned that DP on Rolen, Morgan exclaimed "oh no!"

So my point is, I guess, you can project onto announcers whatever bias you want. But when someone says that statistics aren't useful, that's when you know you've got a bad analyst.

I don't know if I agree with that. You know he doesn't believe that, because he is always talking about ERA's, batting average, stolen base percentage, etc... I distinctly remember him applauding Reyes' SB%, saying that 3 out of 4 is what to shoot for but he is almost 4 out of 5. Those are statistics.

I think he is either trying to make a point, or he is saying it to mean that you can't just judge a team/player solely on numbers. I think he is trying to distance himself from the pure SABR point of view. His focus is on the plays being made by the player on the field, and in my opinion really doesn't get enough credit for his knowledge of the game.

I understand not liking him, and you may want a more statistical friendly announcer, but it doesn't necessarily make him bad in general. I can tolerate different styles, I like the NESN guys who are very stats oriented, I like Mike Shannon who is lucky to get a syntatically valid sentence out his mouth 2-3 times per night, but I'm not so crazy about Joe Buck and his polish who seems more suited to a broadcast with a barrage of electronic sound affects to compliment his style.

[Third Strike]

What's awesome is that on other boards, Mets fans are carping about a pro-Cardinals bias from Miller and Morgan. Some claim that when Valentin turned that DP on Rolen, Morgan exclaimed "oh no!"

So my point is, I guess, you can project onto announcers whatever bias you want. But when someone says that statistics aren't useful, that's when you know you've got a bad analyst.

I thought I heard that too. However, the next inning he over-compensated for it by blowing the Mets, and continuing to talk about what a great play it was.... Anybody else notice that the top of the 8th inning was the designated "we offer our condolences" inning? Jocketty's father in law, and some other guy I...

[Centreville]

i was about ready to turn it on john and mike.
all of this new york talk gets old after a while.

remember last year playoffs?

Genie Zelasko after Game 7. Classic NYC slurpage. I remember it, but I was just too happy to care!

Yeah. I taped that game. She was so surprised that the Cardinals won the pennant, talked about the Mets most of the time, and preceded to mention how depleted the Cards were going to be against the Tigers..