View Full Version : Francesa

10-24-2011, 08:08 AM
Can't decide how to feel about this guy. I think his sports knowledge and insight are impressive but his arrogance can be intolerable. I think he pushed to hard in his Reavis interview last week. Francesa, yea or nay?

10-24-2011, 08:30 AM
You seem to notice this guy amidst a sea of boring sports talk babblers, so he must be doing something right.

10-24-2011, 08:39 AM
^^ definitely. I mention what he does right -- plenty of knowledge and insight, more than the other babblers -- but so full of himself. He badgered Reavis on the phone last week practically demanding that Reavis admit Francesa was right about a play in the last Jets game. (Reavis disagreed, with some justification, and then a Jets P.R. guy told Reavis to hang up.

10-24-2011, 08:52 AM
I don't know. Usually "knowledgable guys" are ignored. Its the arrogant loud mouth types people like.

Think about it this way, do most people like to listen to Chris Berman and Howard Cosell or George Wil and Ken Burns?

My favorite sports guy is Pat Hughs (play-by-play man on Chicago Cubs radio).

10-24-2011, 08:56 AM
Cosell was both -- knowledgeable and a jerk.

10-24-2011, 09:03 AM
See, and I would rather listen to old boxing broadcasts with Don Dumphy than Cosell. Cosell makes himself "part of" the fight. Dumphy did what a good sports broadcaster should do IMO. He was never the focus. Acted as more of an objective observer adding knowledgeable insight in a mostly subdued sort of way.


Its the same problem I have with Joe Buck. He used to be really good IMO, but now he makes himself too much of a focus. Can't stand that.

10-24-2011, 10:15 AM
Fair point, although baseball, unlike boxing, can be so slow and tedious that I don't mind if the broadcaster is over the top; there's so much dead time to fill.

10-24-2011, 11:09 AM
Fair point, although baseball, unlike boxing, can be so slow and tedious that I don't mind if the broadcaster is over the top; there's so much dead time to fill.

Oddly enough, this really isn't true.

I'm watching the world series via DVR. Apart from jumping through the commercials, the only other things I can really jump through are pitching changes toward the end of the game (which is just more commercials) and the time between outs (typically 30 seconds, so perfect).

The time between pitches is the same thing as the time between serves in tennis or snaps in football. And most fans of these sports aren't complaining about that. It's just part of the game.

So in the same way I don't like chatty tennis commentators, I don't like chatty baseball commentators much either, unless they are giving useful analysis. And for the most part the Buck / McCarver team do a pretty good job. Just once in a while Buck wants to highlight himself, but really he's not bad.

Football commentators on the other hand are ridiculous IMO.

10-24-2011, 11:51 AM
Funny that you mention George Will -- his "Men At Work" is the best baseball book I've ever read, and he says that far from there being too much down time during a baseball game, there almost isn't enough time between pitches to consider everything that has to be considered.

10-24-2011, 12:01 PM
Radio broadcasts are better for baseballl IMO. Except for the odd spectacular play, I don't need to see a game to enjoy it. And the analysis is normally on a higher level because they know that anyone that would actually listen to a game is probably a fairly sophisticated fan and wants to know all the nuances.

George Wil knows a lot about baseball and is a pleasure to listen to / read.