Originally Posted by shingo10
When it comes to credibility as far as announcers go I'm going to believe the guy that batted behind a Triple Crown winner, was an all star (before fans voted), and finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1968 over a guy who never picked up a bat but has a good voice.
Hawk does know baseball but he isn't willing to consider sabermetrics because he is still stuck in a different era of baseball. I think its okay and actually refreshing.
Well that's your loss then. Plenty of good analysts/writers out there covering every sport that haven't ever played in the big leagues in any of them. I don't use the word "hate" often but I hate this idea where if you didn't make it to the big time, there's no way your word is more credible than someone who did or you are less "worthy" or "deserving" to comment on that particular sport. There are tons of ex-athletes that are just bad when it comes to actually having to analyze their sport or talk about it or have a hand in running it. Tons of examples. Too many to list.
Also, how being stuck in the past is considered "refreshing" is beyond me.