Comments on: Yankee Panky: Coney Baloney?

By: ms october

ms october — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:22:21 +0000

[19] who is going to smell friday night coming now?

yeah i’ll repeat once more i am very disappointed as i really enjoyed coney.

i noticed his appearances dropped off after he testified this summer – i hope that is not a part of this.
i can definitely see him getting in a heated argument though.

he obviously has a lot of passion about the mlbpa, so i hope he enjoys his time there and does some good things for the players and the game.

i was hoping if he left the booth he would serve as a pitching consultant, but that might have led to friction too – though i think he would have been great with the pitchers.

and yeah definitely on board with kenny for the main pbp guy.

By: Diane Firstman

Diane Firstman — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:25:42 +0000

[19]

mlb.com (or was it fox or tbs) allowed you to watch from different angles during the playoffs …

By: Just Fair

Just Fair — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:47:57 +0000

I loved Cone in the booth. Too bad.
[16,17] I’d like to see a camera be able to show the entire field during the pitch. Not always. But at leat once in awhile. At least for replays. That’s what’s great about being at the game obviously. : )

By: 51cq24

51cq24 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:47:28 +0000

i love cone and was at his perfect game and hate that he’s leaving.

i do like the sny announcers (actually just darling really), but i think it’s overblown how free they are to speak their minds compared to their yes counterparts. in part i think that’s because the yes announcers have much fewer opportunities to criticize the players on the field, and in part because criticism of the players or manager is really what we’re talking about here, since no one gets away with criticizing ownership or the front office.

[9] i do think it’s pretty absurd that people complain that all yankee classics are yankee victories. what yankee fan would want to see a yankee loss in an otherwise “classic” (ie important) game?

speaking of that, i finally got the world series dvd, and was extremely disappointed. whoever directed it must not know much about baseball. so many of the angles were terrible. what’s with all the close-up shots of the hitter’s upper body during a big at bat?

By: Sliced Bread

Sliced Bread — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:35:54 +0000

[15] cool.
[16] yeah, I’d love to call the shots among the game cameras, and replays etc. but until that technology is availble, I’d be happy to watch a game feed directed by a director (they almost alwyas know which cameras to call) – but with the field miked up to pick up the natural sounds of the game, even if it’s just a mic near home plate.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:28:52 +0000

[13] To be honest, not really…at least not unless I had complete control over the camera. While at a game, I am constantly looking around and observing, but if restricted to a few camera angles, I think I would feel a void.

[14] That’s another story…if the announcers are telling you how great the team is, then it would be a turn off, but I can’t think of many, if any, instances of that.

By: vockins

vockins — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:27:47 +0000

[8] The mlb condensed game app for the iPhone is announcer free. Not exactly what you are looking for, but it’s something.

By: RagingTartabull

RagingTartabull — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:20:34 +0000

[12] You don’t need announcers hammering you with negativity, but you don’t need them blowing sunshine with the team on its way to being 30 games under .500 either.

It isn’t easy to strike a happy medium, but good broadcasters find a way. The task just becomes harder when you’re a defacto team employee.

By: Sliced Bread

Sliced Bread — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:19:22 +0000

[11] I agree a good announcer can be a draw, and but sometimes wouldn’t you just rather watch a baseball game with natural sound than listen to announcers?
Going to a game would always be my preference, but I dont have the time or the money to do that more than a few times a year with my family.
I’d love to sit with my sons in front of a big screen, listening to the sounds of the game and the Stadium (paying a fraction of the price for food and beverages — and NOTHING for parking).
As long as you can clearly see the action (and replays when necessary) a baseball game is more than interesting enough to me without narration.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:14:11 +0000

[10] The Knicks are an extreme example, but even then, do fans really need Mike Breen going off every night to understand how bad the team is? The fans still watching a team like that are diehards and know what is going on. I know when I watched the Yankees in 1990 (and I watched or listened to just about every game) I didn’t need a reminder about how bad the team was.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:11:28 +0000

[8] I think a good announcer makes a difference. Al Michaels comes to mind…he is the main reason I watch Sunday night football. Without him in the booth, I’d probably have watched 1 or 2 games. I also go out of my way to watch Dodger and SF Giant games because I enjoy their broadcasts, and with Endberg returning to SD, will try to catch more Padres games this season.

Speaking of announces, it was sad to see that Rory Marcus passed away. The Angels had just promoted him to full time pbp (letting Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc go in the process) and I thought he did a great job work with Mark Gubiza.

By: RagingTartabull

RagingTartabull — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:09:00 +0000

[9] thats well and good, and I agree with you that for the most part it isn’t a problem. I don’t really need to see game 7 vs Arizona on Yankee Classics and hear Ken Singleton complain about payroll disparity during a game against the Royals.

However, we watch a good team…we have this luxury. It’s when the team is leaving something to be desired and broadcasters are being instructed from on-high to “accentuate the positive” that it becomes problematic. Basically I’m describing any MSG Knicks broadcast from the past 8 years.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:03:47 +0000

[7] Personally, I really don’t think it’s a problem. I don’t need YES to be a critical source. I want to see the Yankees win every classic and I want to watch games without having to listen to broadcasters be too negative. The RSNs role, IMHO, is to provide a high level of access to the team as well as a greater variety of team-focused content.

By: Sliced Bread

Sliced Bread — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:02:00 +0000

I would pay big money for a TV feed with no announcers. Throw in a choice of cameras and I’d happily pay more.

By: RagingTartabull

RagingTartabull — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:59:09 +0000

[6] you’re right about those incidents, but thats the problem with team-owned RSN’s. They’re a great source of info and entertainment for the fans, but they basically amount to state run media. It’s true of SNY, YES, NESN…all of them.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:56:31 +0000

[3] [5] I agree that the SNY booth is stronger, but I am not so sure how free they are to “speak their minds”. Specifically, I recall an issue surrounding treatment of Willie Randolph before his firing, not bringing up the Bernezard issue with Omar and Keith being asked to back off critical comments about the team quitting.

By: RagingTartabull

RagingTartabull — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:51:48 +0000

My personal favorite YES booth has been Singleton/Kay/Cone. I understand the complaints about Kay, but I have a bit of a soft spot for him and I think it is valuable to have a non-jock presence in the booth.

I’m really gonna miss Cone, but maybe this could mean more O’Neill? Paulie’s shown some Scooter-like tendencies in his limited time in the booth and could really grow into something.

I agree with Alex though, being objective about things one has to admit that one area where the Mets have the Yankees beat by a mile is in the broadcast teams. Cohen can be annoying, but he knows his stuff…Darling and Keith are just fun.

By: Sliced Bread

Sliced Bread — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:43:22 +0000

[2] I agree. I liked Cone and Kaat a lot, but I’m a viewer who tends to tune-out the announcers when the game is underway. I tune in when I want analysis or clarification of a certain play, or if someone’s telling a story I’m interested in — but mostly I watch the games with the audio low. I tended to keep the audio up for Kaat and Singleton games because they had such a great rapport, knew when to let the game speak for itself.

My first choice for replacing Cone would be Willie Randolph. That’s a guy I’d love to listen to for hours. Kenny could probably get some great stuff out of Willie.

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:38:12 +0000

I like Singy too. But I think Cone was a guy who spoke his mind and his insights went beyond the usual canned commentary. He was probably too “out-spoken” for the conservative YES approach. I think SNY has YES beat in this regard–their booth, no matter what you think of them, has far more leeway to call it like they see it without fear of being scolded by their bosses.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:33:51 +0000

I liked Kaat, but really didn’t notice a void. Similarly, while I enjoyed Cone, I don’t think he was indispensable (he was ok with Kay, but excellent with Kenny). The only person whom I would genuinely be sad to see leave YES is Singleton. It’s a pipe dream, but I wish the Yankees would make Singleton the primary play-by-play man and jetison Kay.