30 in 30 ... kinda funny part

by dejackso on Mar 20, 2009 8:20 AM EDT Comment 20 comments

Did anyone watch the 30 clubs in 30 days special on the royals last night (MLB Network)?

They interviewed Farnsworth about the bullpen and he listed of the players that would help... I'm going to paraphrase it here. (I put one quotation cause this isn't exact)

'...me, Cruz, Mahay, Bale when he's healthy, Waetcher, Gobbl...err...it should be good"

It made me laugh anyway...he sounded awkward through the interview and never even mentioned any doomsday devices.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I did see that...

and I immediately wondered when exactly they taped the interview with him.

I thought the funniest part was towards then end, when Mitch Williams predicted that the Royals were going to finish over .500…but still finish 5th in the division. I suppose it’s possible, but if I could bet my next paycheck on “If Royals win at least 82 games, they will not finish last in the division,” I would. Has any division ever had a season where EVERY team finished over .500? I’m guessing no.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Mar 20, 2009 11:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Every team in the AL Central over .500

Mitch Williams is an idiot.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 20, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

especially these days

with the schedules concentrated heavily inside divisions. Of course, he’s a ballplayer. Probably never had a math or stats class.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 20, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Per John Hart:

“Cruz and Farnsworth give them a bridge that they never had for Soria.”

Not exactly true. A rare misstep by an otherwise informative analyst.

Per Mitch Williams:

“Guillen is a good player because he shows up, he goes out there and plays every day…he backs up what he talks about, and he puts up good numbers.”

FAIL!

Get treated. Royally.

by Royals Nation on Mar 20, 2009 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My God

I actually feel embarrassed for him.

The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.

by kcbottom9th on Mar 20, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to be fair...he wasnt the only idiot on the broadcast...

whats funny about the bridge comment is that like 10 mins before that they showed a stat saying that nunez and ramirez combined for 120 innings of 2.78 era ball

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Mar 20, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think somewhat

for all these pieces, just like a local newspaper reporter, they’re trying to make the stories mostly positive. They could have certainly criticized the hell out the Royals just like we’ve done on here and “they” (national reporters) have done for years and years. But, they mostly didn’t and it’s nice to hear some positive opinions about the Royals.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 20, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's the basis for all MLB Network programming

If they criticized the front offices, certain players, owners, etc. – it would most certainly be not only frowned upon by MLB, but they might face serious repercussions, either as analysts or as a network as a whole.

When have they directly criticized a current front office decision? “I can’t believe Dayton Moore is dumb enough to…._.” It isn’t really their style. It’s why MLB Network contains pretty informative coverage, but not necessarily analysis, if that makes any sense. I understand their limitations, though. Consulting outside sources (blogs, notably) is the best remedy for that itch. Just my two cents.

Get treated. Royally.

by Royals Nation on Mar 21, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If a sports media outlet can't or won't say "I think that was a bad move," they they aren't worth much.

It’s not like they are providing news that a dozen other outlets aren’t reporting. So the same news with ultra-soft, non-critical analysis and what is MLB Network good for? Showing classic games? Woohoo?

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 21, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

they basically said the Padres suck without saying it

closest i can remember.

Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.

by doublestix on Mar 21, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They really need a show with stat guys

This show is just so bland. There are no real opinions here, just mindless conventional wisdom talk and its pretty clear these guys don’t know the Royals really well when they spend a good five minutes talking about Sidney Ponson. I was completely underwhelmed and bored by this program. At least give us someone who can say something interesting.

To improve this, they should really have a prolonged interview with a Royals beat writer who knows the team. Knock Dick Kaegel and Bob Dutton if you will, but at least they know the team. Have someone from Baseball Prospectus give their take with stats to back it up. Have a hook where some unique aspect of the Royals leads to a larger discussion on baseball strategy in general, such as bullpen usage, or players shifting positions like Teahen, or the mysterious career spike of Aviles. Sprinkle in some player interviews (which I find completely boring, but oh well). Wrap it up with an in-depth look back at the Royals 1985 ballclub. Bing bang boom, that show is 1000x times more interesting than the show that bored me to death Thursday.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 21, 2009 4:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That would make it better

But they, like ESPN, are playing to the least common denominator. And that might be best for their ratings. Making a show smarter isn’t necessarily the best way to get more people to watch.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 21, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh and the All-Time Royals team?

Completely ridiculous. I can give them a pass for Sweeney over Mayberry at 1B, although I think Mayberry is superior, but they put Beltran in RF? Amos Otis on the bench? And Bo Jackson, the most overrated player in Royals history in LF?

No, you put Willie Wilson in LF, A.O. in CF, and Danny Tartabull in RF. They were the best at their positions in Royals history. Carlos and Johnny Damon are on the bench and Bo is nowhere to be found.

Also, Mike MacFarlane replaces John Wathan as backup catcher.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Mar 21, 2009 4:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I had similar thoughts on that BS. I liked Bo a lot. But, for entertainment value and pure potential. He was always exciting and wish that he would have had a long career to develop. But, by baseball skills and production, he shouldn’t be on that list. He is the most incredible true athlete ever on the team though. Who’s next? I don’t know, probably Willie Wilson.

I think for Damon and Beltran, they were ranking them based on their career overall instead of with the Royals which is an incorrect methodology for that segment.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Mar 21, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All the Bo Jackson stuff was silly and annoying

I liked their montage of great moments in Royals history, except for the fact that about half of them were Bo Jackson moments. He was a very gift athlete. He did some impressive things. But he’s really just a mildly interesting footnote in Royals history. While his feats of strength were impressive, they were of no real importance.

The immoderate moderator

by NYRoyal on Mar 21, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs