world series game 1 telecast analysis

what a game last night huh? before the start of this series, i thought for sure that the cardinals would win at least two games, but now i'm not so sure. boston's lineup is just as relentless as st. louis'. anyways, i thought that instead of providing you with actual sports analysis, i'll break down the telecast of the game for you. i figure that there are plenty of places you can get game analysis. but only the ragin' asian can provide insight on all of the little things about the experience of watching sports on television.

1) julian tavarez is easily the ugliest player in the world series.

2) at the top of the third and the bottom of the third, they actually interviewed the managers in the dugout. i guess it's a good effort by fox to provide insight, but it just doesn't translate in baseball, especially after only three innings. they might as well have done the interview before the game. what exactly were they looking for besides the generic, "there's a lot of baseball left to play" quote, which by the way they got from terry francona. really, what kind of insight can francona provide us on ortiz's homer?

3) speaking of ortiz, there was a red sox fan sign that fox showed between innings. it read, "it's not in the cards" with a big picture of the face cards of a deck of cards with a pictures of ortiz, manny, schilling, and pedro as the faces. at this point, it's a pretty good sign. in fact, the lettering was professionaly done, so you know they put some money into this sign. however, at the bottom was a little tribute to ortiz that read "whose your papi?" "whose" of couse, being the interrogative pronoun that asks who the object of the question belongs to. i.e. whose line is it anyway? the correct word of course, would have been "who's", the contraction for who is. if it were me, i would be really pissed off that i had a very expensive sign ruined by my poor usage. plus i thought that new england was supposed to be one of the most educated parts of the country. now this guy has shown everyone in the nation that it isn't.

4) what's the deal with larussa's glasses? does anyone think that tinted lenses look good? how much of a hassle is it to have a regular set of glasses and then another set of prescription sunglasses. especially for the manager of a professional sports franchise? goofy.

5) throughout the telecast, fox would show a graphic of the world series logo accompanied by cgi graphics of fireworks exploding around the logo to promo the next world series telecast. this was accompanied by not a single sound of a burst to draw attention to the promo. instead, it was accompanied by the sound effects of fireworks playing for the entire duration of the graphic being on the screen. i thought that it was super annoying, especially since i couldn't hear what the announcers were saying.

6) the fox announcers, joe buck and tim mccarver were actually ok last night. i've gone on record as saying that mccarver is terrible, but there was nothing too annoying about them last night. which i attribute to the fact that the yankees, whose balls this broadcast team is especially fond of licking (notice the correct usage of the word "whose" in the last clause), are not in the series. see? everything about baseball is better when the yankees lose.

7) last night was another example why the "sounds of the game" segment doesn't work. fox decided to mic up boston's hitting instructor. the worst was when they replayed the sounds of the game when bellhorn hit the go ahead homer. this is an exact transcript of what he said: "yeah! yeah! (dramatic pause) yeah!" the problem with this segment is that they never air what we really want to hear that would give us insight into the game that we wouldn't have known otherwise. for example last night what would have been really interesting to hear is what was said to tavarez after he gave up that home run. the same thing in football. i don't want to hear ray lewis trying to encourage his teammates on the sidelines. i want to hear him at the line of scrimmage telling the opposing quarterback that he's going to rip his head of and sh*t down the hole.

8) it's strange to me that the play of the game was sponsored by a children's movie. the canon sureshot play of the game, i understand. the polar express play of the game, i don't.

9) does so taguchi look like shortround from indiana jones and the temple of doom or what? hey lady, you call him dr. jones!


Bob said...

i almost forgot, but luckily watching the game tonight reminded me. the little yellow aol guy throwing a pitch as a transition graphic: extremely unstable.

Bob said...

ok, a few more things and then that's it for this post, i promise.

1) chris myers has had some work done. he looks like that creepy hitman that tried to kill john cusack in gross point blank.

2) i find myself feeling good in the cheesiest of ways whenever they talk to really really old people in the bleachers. that old lady that they showed tonight (game 2) was a hoot in that white-bread kind of way.

Anonymous said...

hey bob-

an on-the-go genius manager like larussa is exactly the type of guy for whom transition lenses were invented.