PDA

View Full Version : Hawk Harrelson Broadcast Level


Hitmen77
04-29-2011, 08:59 PM
The Cell's broadcast booth has been named in honor of Hawk Harrelson. They showed the plaque on CSN tonight just as they went to the 1st commercial break before the game.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110429&content_id=18395668&notebook_id=18402932&vkey=notebook_cws&c_id=cws

fisk4ever
04-29-2011, 09:08 PM
A lovely parting gift?

Daver
04-29-2011, 09:19 PM
A lovely parting gift?

One can only hope.

DirtySox
04-29-2011, 10:12 PM
Puke.

soltrain21
04-29-2011, 10:17 PM
A lovely parting gift?

If only we were so lucky.

Quentin08
04-29-2011, 10:24 PM
Crossing fingers!

BainesHOF
04-30-2011, 12:22 AM
It's a well-deserved honor for Hawk.

Unfortunately, Hawk has become pretty much unlistenable. With the team going bad, he's creating far too much tension. A Sox broadcast is the opposite of enjoyable these days. Plus Hawk's B.S. is off the charts now to the point of being insulting.

Dibbs
04-30-2011, 12:57 AM
It's a well-deserved honor for Hawk.

Unfortunately, Hawk has become pretty much unlistenable. With the team going bad, he's creating far too much tension. A Sox broadcast is the opposite of enjoyable these days. Plus Hawk's B.S. is off the charts now to the point of being insulting.

I agree. I have always been a big fan of Hawk, but now he is impossible to listen to. He puts me in such a bad mood that I have not watched more than six innings of any game on TV this year. I haven't even watched an inning in at least half of their games. Maybe it is because the Bulls are so much fun right now that I don't care, but this is all a first for me. Maybe he deserves this honor, but I think his broadcasting days should be coming to an end.

Dan H
04-30-2011, 04:16 AM
It's a well-deserved honor for Hawk.

Unfortunately, Hawk has become pretty much unlistenable. With the team going bad, he's creating far too much tension. A Sox broadcast is the opposite of enjoyable these days. Plus Hawk's B.S. is off the charts now to the point of being insulting.

I agree and wish that Hawk would sometimes just let the game speak for itself. Either he is trying to tell us that someone "just missed it" or he sinks into a manic depression when the team is playing poorly. He deserves the recognition because he has been part of the franchise for so long. But right now he is just another symbol of what is wrong.

Noneck
04-30-2011, 08:33 AM
I sure hope no future broadcaster reaches Harrelsons current level.

KingXerxes
04-30-2011, 09:31 AM
My question isn't so much about Ken Harrelson (I think my opinion of him has been made clear over the years), but is about an irreconcilable difference that I keep noticing on the radio side.

Almost all of my listening (and watching) is done with the radio broadcast playing, and, in the radio broadcast, Ed Farmer will constantly talk about the "pre-game meeting" or "the situational pre-game meeting".

:farmer

"Well here we go, bases loaded, one out and Derrick Lee coming to bat.........now this is where the pre-game meeting really serves to the pitchers benefit........right now Danks is trying to curve Lee low and off the outside corner in order to get him to rap into a double play blah blah blah blah......."

Now - if Farmer is right, we're all being told that, prior to the game, Cooper sits with the pitching staff, and goes through the Baltimore roster in order to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition that day. I personally don't believe that the meetings are of the "brain surgery" nature that Farmer tries to make them out to be, but I'll allow for the fact that some dialog takes place between the coaching staff and the players on an everyday basis before a game.

Assuming that the pitchers have such a meeting (and, again this is Farmer's assertion not mine), it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to think that the hitters will, as well, have such a meeting (presumably with Walker).

So let's fast forward to the post-game show with Chris Rongey (sp?). I have nothing but empathy for Rongey, because these are not easy shows to do when the team is playing poorly. That being said, however, Rongey has his heels dug in with callers who suggest that a change of staff is in order due to the team's lackluster performance so far. He will constantly answer these queries with a statement along the lines of "Coaches don't make a lick of difference in the performance of a player on the field. Coaches don't swing the bat, coaches don't pitch, coaches don't catch the ball blah blah blah........"

Therefore, we have two radio broadcasters with completely opposite takes on the role of coaches. Farmer would have us believe that coaches, and pregame preparation, are a completely vital area of the game and will pay potentially handsome dividends (i.e. Wins), while Rongey basically casts aside the effect of the coaches as being insignificant at best in determining the outcome of a game.

What say you?

Dan H
04-30-2011, 09:51 AM
King Xerdes - Rongey is an organization man. He cannot go along with a caller who states that a coach or manager should be fired for many reasons. He will simply commit professional suicide doing that. And the White Sox organization will never want to give the impression that they cave in to fan sentiment when making such a move. So Rongey will either defend the coaching staff or say their effect is minimal to resist this sentiment.

Harrelson is the same way. He looks at himself as a team salesman as well as announcer. That is why he uses the term "he just missed it" so much. Announcers are homers and that is no surprise. That is why Steve Stone is no longer with the Cubs. He wasn't a big enough homer. And being a homer is one reason Harrelson has stayed in his job for so long.

tstrike2000
04-30-2011, 09:54 AM
I'm surprised in Hawk's honor they didn't name the booth "The Ron Gardenhire Love Shack."

SI1020
04-30-2011, 09:56 AM
My question isn't so much about Ken Harrelson (I think my opinion of him has been made clear over the years), but is about an irreconcilable difference that I keep noticing on the radio side.

Almost all of my listening (and watching) is done with the radio broadcast playing, and, in the radio broadcast, Ed Farmer will constantly talk about the "pre-game meeting" or "the situational pre-game meeting".

:farmer

"Well here we go, bases loaded, one out and Derrick Lee coming to bat.........now this is where the pre-game meeting really serves to the pitchers benefit........right now Danks is trying to curve Lee low and off the outside corner in order to get him to rap into a double play blah blah blah blah......."

Now - if Farmer is right, we're all being told that, prior to the game, Cooper sits with the pitching staff, and goes through the Baltimore roster in order to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition that day. I personally don't believe that the meetings are of the "brain surgery" nature that Farmer tries to make them out to be, but I'll allow for the fact that some dialog takes place between the coaching staff and the players on an everyday basis before a game.

Assuming that the pitchers have such a meeting (and, again this is Farmer's assertion not mine), it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to think that the hitters will, as well, have such a meeting (presumably with Walker).

So let's fast forward to the post-game show with Chris Rongey (sp?). I have nothing but empathy for Rongey, because these are not easy shows to do when the team is playing poorly. That being said, however, Rongey has his heels dug in with callers who suggest that a change of staff is in order due to the team's lackluster performance so far. He will constantly answer these queries with a statement along the lines of "Coaches don't make a lick of difference in the performance of a player on the field. Coaches don't swing the bat, coaches don't pitch, coaches don't catch the ball blah blah blah........"

Therefore, we have two radio broadcasters with completely opposite takes on the role of coaches. Farmer would have us believe that coaches, and pregame preparation, are a completely vital area of the game and will pay potentially handsome dividends (i.e. Wins), while Rongey basically casts aside the effect of the coaches as being insignificant at best in determining the outcome of a game.

What say you? If these meetings are in fact taking place then the message sure isn't getting through, is it? As far as the "coaches don't make a difference" thing, it's to the point now where it makes me want to scream. Save the money and let the players coach themselves.

KingXerxes
04-30-2011, 10:01 AM
King Xerdes - Rongey is an organization man. He cannot go along with a caller who states that a coach or manager should be fired for many reasons. He will simply commit professional suicide doing that. And the White Sox organization will never want to give the impression that they cave in to fan sentiment when making such a move. So Rongey will either defend the coaching staff or say their effect is minimal to resist this sentiment.

Harrelson is the same way. He looks at himself as a team salesman as well as announcer. That is why he uses the term "he just missed it" so much. Announcers are homers and that is no surprise. That is why Steve Stone is no longer with the Cubs. He wasn't a big enough homer. And being a homer is one reason Harrelson has stayed in his job for so long.

Trust me Dan H - I fully realize that all broadcasters are "homers" (some more than others, and none being a bigger homer than Harrelson), but I guess my question was more along the lines of:

Do you accept Farmer's take that coaches are important (not necessarily to the extent Farmer does though - see below), or Rongey's opinion that they are not that important at all?

:farmer

"Well we're about to start the game with our opening pitch..........in the pre-game meeting this was discussed...........yes it was.........and I'm sure - looking at the positioning of Juan Pierre as he shades slightly toward the line that our opening pitch will be something offspeed and inside........this is what players do before the game..........they pour through the statistical tendancies of the opposing hitters and signal to the rest of the defense what's coming next."

:DJ

"And there's ball one - a fastball that was off the plate outside, and we're underway."

BainesHOF
04-30-2011, 11:17 AM
The postgame show has become a waste of time, unless you enjoy the comedic value on both ends of the line.

jdm2662
04-30-2011, 12:23 PM
Sadly, the only way I see Hawk leaving the booth is the same way Ron Santo left it. As much as I want Hawk gone, I'm certainly not going to wish that on him. I don't have a problem with a homer announcer, but you still have to be professional and do your job. Also, one that stops insulting my intelligence would be nice, too. The whole world isn't against the Sox despite what Hawk tells everyone. The only time he seems to blame the team is when they make fielding gaffles.

downstairs
04-30-2011, 01:29 PM
Sadly, the only way I see Hawk leaving the booth is the same way Ron Santo left it. As much as I want Hawk gone, I'm certainly not going to wish that on him. I don't have a problem with a homer announcer, but you still have to be professional and do your job. Also, one that stops insulting my intelligence would be nice, too. The whole world isn't against the Sox despite what Hawk tells everyone. The only time he seems to blame the team is when they make fielding gaffles.

Yep. He's got the job for life.

ewokpelts
05-02-2011, 11:36 AM
the jacket jerry was wearing was nice.

Ranger
05-03-2011, 12:32 AM
My question isn't so much about Ken Harrelson (I think my opinion of him has been made clear over the years), but is about an irreconcilable difference that I keep noticing on the radio side.

Almost all of my listening (and watching) is done with the radio broadcast playing, and, in the radio broadcast, Ed Farmer will constantly talk about the "pre-game meeting" or "the situational pre-game meeting".

:farmer

"Well here we go, bases loaded, one out and Derrick Lee coming to bat.........now this is where the pre-game meeting really serves to the pitchers benefit........right now Danks is trying to curve Lee low and off the outside corner in order to get him to rap into a double play blah blah blah blah......."

Now - if Farmer is right, we're all being told that, prior to the game, Cooper sits with the pitching staff, and goes through the Baltimore roster in order to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition that day. I personally don't believe that the meetings are of the "brain surgery" nature that Farmer tries to make them out to be, but I'll allow for the fact that some dialog takes place between the coaching staff and the players on an everyday basis before a game.

Assuming that the pitchers have such a meeting (and, again this is Farmer's assertion not mine), it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to think that the hitters will, as well, have such a meeting (presumably with Walker).

So let's fast forward to the post-game show with Chris Rongey (sp?). I have nothing but empathy for Rongey, because these are not easy shows to do when the team is playing poorly. That being said, however, Rongey has his heels dug in with callers who suggest that a change of staff is in order due to the team's lackluster performance so far. He will constantly answer these queries with a statement along the lines of "Coaches don't make a lick of difference in the performance of a player on the field. Coaches don't swing the bat, coaches don't pitch, coaches don't catch the ball blah blah blah........"

Therefore, we have two radio broadcasters with completely opposite takes on the role of coaches. Farmer would have us believe that coaches, and pregame preparation, are a completely vital area of the game and will pay potentially handsome dividends (i.e. Wins), while Rongey basically casts aside the effect of the coaches as being insignificant at best in determining the outcome of a game.

What say you?

These really aren't opposing views, actually.

There is a pregame meeting with the starter and the catcher for that day. It's basically a briefing. They discuss tendencies and such. Pretty much exactly what you would expect from a scouting report discussion.

Now, this is where the players come in. After a coach gives the appropriate scouting report information, it's all on the player to use it (or pay attention to it). All teams, by the way, have access to pretty much the same information in terms of scouting reports. There aren't a ton of secrets out there and there isn't much scouting information that one team has over another.

The above is true of both hitters' and pitchers' scouting reports. (Although, the hitters are more on-their-own when it comes to the scouting reports because each hitter decides how much information they want. Some guys want the information card, some guys don't. Some guys want to watch a ton of video, others don't want to watch any because they feel more comfortable reacting to what's being thrown at them and don't like to be overloaded with information. When it comes to the starting pitcher though, the meetings are pretty standard.) But once the scouting reports are given, there isn't anything a coach is going to do to make the player execute. Player bears 95% responsibility.

Though baseball is a team game, each play begins one-on-one. If you can show to me that it's some coach's fault that a hitter can't recognize a fastball from a slider in the heat of an at-bat, I'll gladly listen.

King Xerdes - Rongey is an organization man. He cannot go along with a caller who states that a coach or manager should be fired for many reasons. He will simply commit professional suicide doing that. And the White Sox organization will never want to give the impression that they cave in to fan sentiment when making such a move. So Rongey will either defend the coaching staff or say their effect is minimal to resist this sentiment.

Harrelson is the same way. He looks at himself as a team salesman as well as announcer. That is why he uses the term "he just missed it" so much. Announcers are homers and that is no surprise. That is why Steve Stone is no longer with the Cubs. He wasn't a big enough homer. And being a homer is one reason Harrelson has stayed in his job for so long.

I love Hawk, but I'm not Hawk. I don't see all things the way he does. It also would not be "career suicide" for me to suggest a change might be necessary. I just really, in all sincere honesty, don't think it would make damn bit of difference.

In regard to your Steve Stone thoughts: If you believed the White Sox were only interested in broadcasters that were homers, wouldn't it make very little sense for them to hire Stone? I mean, if he was let go by the Cubs for not being a homer, why would the Sox bring in somebody that isn't a homer? It's not like Stone's criticisms were a secret. His departure and reasons for the departure were very, very public. I don't think you see the contradiction in your thought.

The postgame show has become a waste of time, unless you enjoy the comedic value on both ends of the line.

Please. You've never liked what I've done from the very beginning because you rarely agree with me, don't act like it's some new thing for you. Couldn't really care less, though.

On the postgame show, I don't say things that aren't accurate. Any source of "comedy" you're getting is from the reality that I say things that are true with which you don't agree. That isn't my fault.

SI1020
05-03-2011, 08:38 AM
I
In regard to your Steve Stone thoughts: If you believed the White Sox were only interested in broadcasters that were homers, wouldn't it make very little sense for them to hire Stone? I mean, if he was let go by the Cubs for not being a homer, why would the Sox bring in somebody that isn't a homer? It's not like Stone's criticisms were a secret. His departure and reasons for the departure were very, very public. I don't think you see the contradiction in your thought.
You do what you have to do to survive. When Harry Caray switched over to the Cubs, he toned it down considerably compared to his time with the Cardinals and White Sox. "I'm a Bud man and a Cub fan" were more than just words to a commercial. It's possible something similar is happening with Stone. Older fans know Reinsdorf loathed Harry Caray and Jimmy Piersall, and that he likes his media team to operate within certain parameters.

krispoulin
05-04-2011, 07:36 PM
One of the few great things about not living in Chicago anymore is that, via MLB.TV, I can watch Sox games and not have to listen to Harrelson or watch it with the tv muted. I have the option to watch the other teams' broadcasts and always choose that. I tried to watch a couple games with the Sox's broadcast going, but only got through an inning or so before something Harrelson said raised my stress level off the chart.

I'm all for honoring someone who has been such a representative of the Sox, but given his total lack of ability to call a ball game in any intelligent way, maybe they should have just named one of the concession stands after him. "Homer Hawk's Hamburgers", maybe?

Fenway
05-04-2011, 07:56 PM
I heard that Hawk tried to use the 1967 Red Sox as a pep talk for the White Sox today....:?:

I didn't hear it but a couple of Boston writers did at TD Garden did and said he was babbling like an idiot.

Noneck
05-04-2011, 08:03 PM
I heard that Hawk tried to use the 1967 Red Sox as a pep talk for the White Sox today....:?:

I didn't hear it but a couple of Boston writers did at TD Garden did and said he was babbling like an idiot.

He was saying that current Sox team is better than the 67 boston team. If thats the case and they dont compete this year, everyone should be booted from the chairman on down.

It is truly embarrassing listening to this carnival barker, I wish he would end his career where is heart is and with the kind of fans that deserve him.

KingXerxes
05-04-2011, 08:11 PM
These really aren't opposing views, actually.

There is a pregame meeting with the starter and the catcher for that day. It's basically a briefing. They discuss tendencies and such. Pretty much exactly what you would expect from a scouting report discussion.

Now, this is where the players come in. After a coach gives the appropriate scouting report information, it's all on the player to use it (or pay attention to it).

Ranger - I appreciate your feedback (as well as your ability to continue to host the postgame shows), but in my opinion it's only 50% of the story.

While I think everybody understands the pre-game meeting (although not to the brain surgery level that Farmer typically lays it out as being), you also say that it's up to the players to use it or not.

Not let's say - for arguments sake - that there are players who are not using it, or if not using it they're playing a game like it's the first time they've ever stepped onto a baseball field (they don't cover first on a bunt, or they get picked off after getting the first hit in over a game etc.). Isn't it then up to the coaches to say "Hey - This guy's head isn't in the game."? Then isn't also an imperative that the manager sit his butt down until he "gets his head in the game".

I refuse to believe that managers and coaching staffs have as little to do with outcomes as you say on your shows. Environment counts. Take the most energetic and customer friendly person in the world, and give him a job in the DMV. After a year of two, the DMV's environment will grind this guy down to a mere shadow of his former self. Now take a baseball team where sloppy play and mental errors go without comment or consequence. Sooner or later, even the most professional baseball players in the world will sink (to a certain extent) to the level of their environment.

The manager sets the tone. He doesn't pitch, hit or field- but he sets the mental (and intangible) tone for the entire roster, and his importance can't be over rated.

All major league rosters are within a hair's breadth of each other in regards to talent. The worst team in major league baseball will win 60 games, and the best will win 100 games. Every single variable that a team has in its control (including the attitude of the organization) needs to be utilized to the team's favor in order to acheive success.

We can all make arguments as to whether Guillen and his staff are doing a good job or not, but I believe it's incredibly wrong to say that they do not matter.

Fenway
05-04-2011, 08:11 PM
He was saying that current Sox team is better than the 67 boston team. If thats the case and they dont compete this year, everyone should be booted from the chairman on down.

It is truly embarrassing listening to this carnival barker, I wish he would end his career where is heart is and with the kind of fans that deserve him.

Shudders at the thought of Hawk and Remy on TV :?:

Fenway
05-04-2011, 08:17 PM
How big a role does Joey Cora have as bench coach? Is he a yes man to Ozzie or is someone who will argue a point. Torre needed Zimmer at NYY, Francona had Brad Mills and so on.

Noneck
05-04-2011, 08:19 PM
Shudders at the thought of Hawk and Remy on TV :?:

It would be heaven for your fans, two different red sox eras and players could be talked about and drooled about during games.

SI1020
05-04-2011, 08:31 PM
I refuse to believe that managers and coaching staffs have as little to do with outcomes as you say on your shows. Environment counts. Take the most energetic and customer friendly person in the world, and give him a job in the DMV. After a year of two, the DMV's environment will grind this guy down to a mere shadow of his former self. Now take a baseball team where sloppy play and mental errors go without comment or consequence. Sooner or later, even the most professional baseball players in the world will sink (to a certain extent) to the level of their environment.

The manager sets the tone. He doesn't pitch, hit or field- but he sets the mental (and intangible) tone for the entire roster, and his importance can't be over rated.

All major league rosters are within a hair's breadth of each other in regards to talent. The worst team in major league baseball will win 60 games, and the best will win 100 games. Every single variable that a team has in its control (including the attitude of the organization) needs to be utilized to the team's favor in order to acheive success.

We can all make arguments as to whether Guillen and his staff are doing a good job or not, but I believe it's incredibly wrong to say that they do not matter. I've been trying to convey this for the longest time, but if the eloquence of King Xerxes doesn't serve to get the point across, then I sure don't know what will. I wish I'd thought of that DMV analogy, but again this is one of the better reasons I spend time here. To read and learn a little along the way.

fisk4ever
05-04-2011, 08:38 PM
At the major league level, how much work is done on fundamentals or technique during the season? For example, wouldn't one of the coaches reinforce the need to cover a base, etc?