Baseball announcer grammar rant

[Oeditpus Rex]

When saying who's on deck, "Ellis would be next."

(Note: There was only one out.)

I don't get it. He "would be" next if the stadium doesn't explode or something? :shrug:

I've been hearing this a lot for the past few seasons. One of its greatest mispractitioners is the Giants'/ESPN's Jon Miller, who's probably the most erudite announcer out there.

[wildhorses]

1. what a dumbass!!

:hi:

[_testify_]

2. Right now

You are my mortal enemy.

That aside, firejoemorgan.com is a great look at the horrific world of sportswriting/analysis.

[Oeditpus Rex]

4. I think this one's far more relevant

Shut Up Tim McCarver

[Reverend_Smitty]

5. Amen to that...

Tim McCarver sucks big donkey balls!

[Twillig]

37. McCarver is going to Hell for propagating the saying:

"Out Over The Plate."

Many pitches are over the plate. Strikes are out over the plate. Unhittable pitches are over the plate.

Of course, "Out Over The Plate," is only used for Home runs.

Even if the batter golfed a pitch off his big left toe into the left field bleachers, here comes McCarver or some wannabe-McCarver with "He got the ball OOTP!"

Boo: Tim McCarver.

HOORAY: Deion Sanders!

[_testify_]

18. Thanks - I hadn't seen that.

I will ask Beltran and the boys to make it merciful on you. :)

[Reverend_Smitty]

7. dude, did you hear about El Duque?

He hurt his calf in warm-ups and his start tomorrow is uncertain...just one more obstacle we have to overcome, still I'm confident in my team

[_testify_]

17. Yes. I wept.

My solace is two-fold:

A: I think John Maine (if he starts) will be great under pressure,

and

B: Now you KNOW Omar is going to get us some starting pitching in the off-season. No more 40+ club.

[Reverend_Smitty]

20. In a perfect world...

Zito or Willis perhaps? But now we must focus on the task at hand. It seems to me that the baseball gods are determined to make the Mets the perennial underdogs...nevermind we had the best record in the NL, something had to go wrong to put us at a disadvantage. But since I AM a Mets fan and have been for life, I never lose the faith, I will ALWAYS believe and think as well that John Maine will step up and wow people tomorrow. He's shown flashes of greatness in the past and hopefully tomorrow will be one of those great days

[Broken_Hero]

28. good grief...I didnt' know there was a site

to fire joe morgan...and I dislike him as a commentator big TIME! He reminds me of a really bad Madden.

[Left Is Write]

3. That would be silly.

[Mutley]

6. He's able to be next, too.

:hide:

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. He Would be able to be next

if the stadium doesn't have the ability to explode.

:P

[Mutley]

10. He Definitely would be able to be next

esPecially if the stadium implodes instead of EXplodes.

:D

[Reverend_Smitty]

9. The stadium might explode...or implode...

IF Frank Thomas keeps spanking the cover off the ball, so far he's the difference in this game

[Oeditpus Rex]

11. Yeah... but he sucks, y'know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5691048#5691953

[Reverend_Smitty]

12. lol I guess I missed the memo

:rofl:

[Shakespeare]

14. Heeeeeehee...he owned Santana today.

Love that Big Hurt.

[vickitulsa]

13. Wait a minute.

You're expecting good grammar from sports announcers?

Have you lost your mind? ;) :hi: :scared:

My complaint about those who complain about sports announcers who can't seem to break bad speaking habits or especially the ones whose grammar and punctuation are somewhat messed up is, why on earth would anyone expect a sports announcer to know and use good grammar and have a general understanding of and great skill with syntax?

If accuracy and skill on these counts were a prerequisite for sports announcers, we probably wouldn't have very many of them, right?

Of course, now THAT is a proposition that might appeal to a lot of fans out there, come to think of it.

Sports WRITERS, OTOH, might more appropriately be judged on their English Comp 101 skills. They are paid to write, so they should know how to do that reasonably well. The teevee and radio announcers, though, are oftentimes just guys who were good at or at least somewhat well known in sports at one time, and as a general rule I don't expect athletes to be disciplined English profs when they're working games.

Personal preference in sports announcers is also another area altogether. Sometimes I think folks who reeeelly don't like certain sports announcers are just reacting to some personal quibbles or instinctive dislike for particular personalities.

A couple of guys in the teeny weeny Sports section of DU were complaining the other day about John Madden. Kinda hard to see how they concluded he's a complete ass and an obviously odious announcer when most of football fandom clearly loves the guy.

Hell, even I like John Madden! I didn't like him when he first began announcing, because he talked too loud(ly) and seemed to always be trying to coach us fans like we were players. But he soon learned not to yell at us, and his technical explanations of and insights about football have helped educate me about the game quite a lot over the years.

Now I find that I actually WANT Madden to get out his Telestrater and draw me some x's and o's and explain a busted play that just happened! (Now there's a great sports term illustrating how good grammar and sports don't often make the best bedfellows! "Busted" play? English teachers must groan every time they hear that -- if they ever do.) :rofl:

Now I'll have to check out those sites to which you guys linked, to see just what it is about Joe Morgan and Tim McCarver that grates on some people's last nerve. :D

[Oeditpus Rex]

15. This isn't about 'bad speaking habits'

so much as speech affectations. I'd have absolutely no problem with a reincarnation of Dizzy Dean with such home-spun descriptions as "He slud into third and they throwed him out." That's just a guy being real, as are Giants' announcers Mike Krukow and Duane Kuiper, both former players, and I really enjoy listening to them. They're not just "real," they're good.

But phrases such as "would be next" and "the A's were able to..." aren't speech patterns, they're affectations. Someone taught those guys to say 'em, at least in the sense that they picked them up from other announcers or whatever.

When I was a sportswriter, I was at a high school football game one night and I asked a local teevee sports dude why he and others use phrases such as "The Vikings would come back in the third quarter" when talking about a game that had already been played. He hemmed and hawed a bit as if he knew it was wrong and said, "Well, in broadcast school they teach you to use action words."

Oh.

And then I think about guys like Vin Scully and Ernie Harwell and Harry Caray and Jack Buck, who never went to broadcast school.

My conclusion is that teevee and radio are seriously fucked up. And so are broadcast schools.

[vickitulsa]

21. Never thought of it that way!

:)

And I had no idea they actually TEACH them to use "action words" or any other clearly stoopid jargon. I did figure there were just terms in the various games that are inherently bad grammatically, and that they become buzzwords of the sport, whatever it is, because the players AND announcers pick them up from each other.

Actually, I had no idea there were sportscasting SCHOOLS, for that matter -- shows how out of the loop *I* am! :rofl:

So you are (or were) a sportswriter, eh? Cool. My family was so sports crazy, I used to think as a child that those ball games on the teevee were life-or-death matters for me to worry about!

Seriously, it was always a game in one sport or another that we were eagerly waiting for, or watching, or bemoaning or bragging about after it was over. Sometimes my brother and dad would get so mad at each other when they were pulling for different teams, I thought they were gonna come to blows! Even Mom and Dad would fight fiercely about games and teams ... and afterward hardly speak to each other for days.

And people wonder why I'm weird.... :blush:


I well remember all those guys you named, too, and especially loved good ol' Harry Caray -- and Dizzy Dean, who almost made "slud" an accepted word! Mom and I were Yankees fans back in the days of Mick and Yogi and Clete Boyer and Moose Scowron and Whitey Ford and Roger Maris and.... Man, those were the days!

Now I can't stand the Yankees, but it's not because of the players, it's because of the owner and the fans. I like Joe Torre and respect most of the current players. But the fans are the most disloyal to their own team of any I know; and they are the most abusive I've ever heard anywhere, sometimes to the point of violence (as in throwing batteries at the other team's outfielders). And Steinbrenner ... well, surely I don't have to explain why I don't like HIM! :rofl:

The sad part of it all for me is, I've never even been to a major league game. :cry: I used to say it was one of the two things I'd hoped to do before I die -- the other being to spend some time in Alaska. I did the latter, in 1974 and '75. Still have only been to Tulsa Drillers games, but at least I got to see a lot of Mike Lamb that way!

[Oeditpus Rex]

22. It's okay

:hug:

I've been to more than 500 minor league games and only about half a dozen major league games. And I've never been to Dodger Stadium. :cry:

I'd much rather go to a minor league game, though. It's fun when you see the guys in the show years later and think, "I knew him when he was just a kid."

Like Omar Vizquel. :thumbsup:

[WindRavenX]

16. Jon Miller and Joe Buck are the WORST ANNOUNCERS

Thankfully, tonight, I shall utilize the power of the mute button tonight.

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. Joe Buck, yes

His dad oughta come back to life and spank the kid. Or gag him with duct tape. Or send him to accounting school.

But, Miller? Maybe he's different on ESPN. On Giants games, he's damned entertaining with his impersonations and stuff. Dude does a spot-freakin'-ON Vin Scully. :thumbsup:

But he does the "would be next" thing, and I don't like his home run call; he always sounds... surprised.

[Broken_Hero]

30. I agree with Joe Buck, I can't stand him either....nt

[WannaBeGrumpy]

23. IDIOT doesn't even pay attention!!!

Gosh! I was told yesterday that I should be an announcer! which would be hilarious because I would be noticing the dumbest things like the color of the lady in the 4th row's hat! I think announcers need to pass a test or something!

[leftofthedial]

24. he shoulda slud

[Oeditpus Rex]

25. If he'da slud

they wouldna throwed him out.

:P

[cspanlovr]

26. Was there a man on base? If so, it would be correct.

[Oeditpus Rex]

27. Why?

:shrug:

[sir_captain]

29. Because of the possibility of a double play

in which case the guy who *would* have been up next--is not

[Oeditpus Rex]

32. I ain't buyin' it

And I'll tell you why.

Runner on first, less than two out.* Ground ball to short; shortstop dishes to the second baseman for the force, then throws wildly to first.

No error on the throw. Why? You don't assume the double play.

If it's a scoring rule, why isn't it an announcing rule?




*"Fewer than two out" would've been proper grammar in that case, but that's baseball jargon for ya.

[sir_captain]

33. Well, purely in terms of the grammar

it makes it correct--the sentence simply isn't finished. "Batter X would be next "

No doubt it's an awkward and dumb construction and Jon Miller is an idiot, but I think he is technically gramatically ok here.

And actually, there can be an error on that play if the runner is able to advance to second. Your scenario comes into play much more often in a situation where the middle infielder bobbles the first throw and never gets off the second one.

[Oeditpus Rex]

39. That Would be an error

Because you can assume the force-out.

And, yes, if the runner (that is, the batter) goes to second, an error must be charged. But that isn't the play I was talking about.

Miller et al probably are, technically, correct in this usage. But I studied journalism, not English, and the bottom line in journalism is to be clear — whereas "by-the-book" English can be vague.

I would also point out, with apparent snark, that the runner being "able to" go to second doesn't tell me if he did.

:P

[sir_captain]

43. Heh....but now you are changing the criteria

I never said it was clear. ;-)

[Oeditpus Rex]

44. But isn't that the Point?

:shrug:

[sir_captain]

45. Well, actually, now that I look back at your OP

it's actually kind of unclear (ironically--and yes, I know that I am not using that word properly) whether you were saying that Miller is not gramatically correct or if he is just unclear.

[petronius]

31. I'm ashamed of you for asking that question...

As another option, can't a hitter be pulled back even if he's gone to the on-deck circle? So perhaps the announces mean to say that "he will be next if not replaced..."

However, given the ubiquitousness of poor grammar these days, I'm sure they're just idiots...

[Oeditpus Rex]

34. The only situation in which that would logically apply

would be with the pitcher due to bat when it's after the fifth inning and a pinch-hitter can be assumed. Even then, it makes much more sense to say, "It'll be Martin, Betemit and the pitcher's spot," and then wait to see who comes out to the on-deck circle.

It's kind of like saying during the pre-game show, "It's a great day for baseball, unless it rains."



Edit: Typo. :banghead:

[petronius]

38. "Unless it rains" LOL

That's kind of like: "the key to winning will be getting more points than the opponent!" or "The ________ would be glad to get a win in this game!"

[MrCoffee]

35. Are there 2 outs?

[GOPisEvil]

36. This phrase ONLY makes sense when 2 are out.

The theory being that if the current batter reaches safely, the on-deck hitter would be next. But, it is an incomplete sentence. It asummes a level of knowledge in the listener.

My favorite thing about Jon Miller: he makes a concerted effort to pronounce Hispanic players' names correctly.

[VelmaD]

40. Don't fucking get me started...

about Tim McCarver and his complete inability to pronounce Ivan Rodriguez's first name correctly. It's not even a hard one. ARGH!!!!!!

[Oeditpus Rex]

41. Precisely

Not just a knowledge of baseball, but it assumes the listener is keeping up with the game and knows there are two out, etc.

With teevee this could be overlooked because there's always the little scoreboard dealie in the corner of the screen. But there's no such animal on radio, and years of experience tells me few people listen attentively to every pitch.

Miller's a damned fine announcer — one of the best working, IMO. It's just this one thing he does that bugs me. And he's not the only one.

[Arkham House]

42. Hey--it's San Francisco...the damned stadium just *might* explode...

...after all--remember the '89 Series...?

[KamaAina]

46. Was there a guy on first?

thus raising the possibility of a DP?

Or, could it be that McCarver is just a jackass? (Yup.)

[Zavulon]

47. That's not only in baseball. Let's focus on the real problems here.

What you describe happens in all walks of life.

- "Who is the former president on the $1 bill?"
- "That would be George Washington."

Besides, how many outs are you talking about when Ellis is on deck? It doesn't sound so bad if there are two outs and Ellis's plate appearance isn't guaranteed for that inning.

Let's switch to football and work on the real problems:

* Announcers reminding us every goddamned time we see a replay that the evidence on the tape MUST BE CONCLUSIVE. Jesus, guys, we fucking got that point years ago.

* The word "football" being thrown in when it isn't necessary, such as "Dante Hall is an all-purpose football player who helps his football team win football games."

* The term "smashmouth football." As if some teams can really be quantified as such without statistics that record hits to the mouth. It's quite possible for a team to lead the league in mouth hits but still have a shitty defense.

* Constant reminders that you can't win when you turn over the ball 3+ times.

I understand your sentiment, but let's pick our battles here :)