Hey Dodgers Fans

1,326,603 Views | 5694 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by ducky23
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

I'm gonna keep posting different calls until chapman_is_gone starts yelling at the kids to get off his lawn





It was an exciting play. And I am happy it was for the Giants.
But the announcers were AWFUL.
I don't want to hear any criticism of Joe Starkey's call of The Play ever again.
Compared to the announcers on this play, Starkey's call was a masterpiece of clarity and eloquence
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

ducky23 said:

I'm gonna keep posting different calls until chapman_is_gone starts yelling at the kids to get off his lawn





It was an exciting play. And I am happy it was for the Giants.
But the announcers were AWFUL.
I don't want to hear any criticism of Joe Starkey's call of The Play ever again.
Compared to the announcers on this play, Starkey's call was a masterpiece of clarity and eloquence
I mean, Kuiper is usually very good. He obviously got something caught in his throat at the wrong moment here.
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

ducky23 said:

I'm gonna keep posting different calls until chapman_is_gone starts yelling at the kids to get off his lawn





It was an exciting play. And I am happy it was for the Giants.
But the announcers were AWFUL.
I don't want to hear any criticism of Joe Starkey's call of The Play ever again.
Compared to the announcers on this play, Starkey's call was a masterpiece of clarity and eloquence
Starkey's call would have been MOSTLY fine if it had been for a TV broadcast, because you don't need a call of clarity. If the game was on TV, the only big problem would have been "the Bears have to get out of bounds." Starkey has said that was stupid, because he recognized that time would have run out by the time they got out of bounds, although I have never heard him admit that it was stupid because IF they wanted to stop the clock for a Hail Mary, they just needed to take a knee right away. Too bad Starkey brain farted on the rules and the situation, but IF it was on TV, it was otherwise OK, it conveyed the emotion of the moment and a viewer could see what was happening.

But Starkey's call wasn't on TV, it was on the radio, where a picture needs to be painted for the audience. To appreciate how bad Starkey's call is, you have to imagine you don't have a video playing, and you don't already know what happened. Well, there was a squib kick, Rodgers must have touched the ball, the band came on the field, and Cal got into the end zone. Laterals? Not one mention until after the play was over and Starkey says the Bears may have made some illegal laterals so The Play might not count. The listener had no picture of the play. Other announcers, both radio and TV, managed to do better at describing it. Starkey's call (again, except for the "out of bounds" part) has been fine since The Play was originally broadcast, it is either accompanied by video of the play or is accompanied by a vision in one's mind of the Play, so we don't need clarity, but for a live radio call? Terrible.

Both Kuiper and the Phillies announcers did OK with their words for a TV broadcast. The viewer doesn't actually need a description to know what is happening, plus neither Kuiper nor the Phillies broadcasters were incomprehensible like Starkey. Kuiper's voice issues did create some problems. He was having voice issues for a couple of nights, he apologized at the start of Monday's game for his voice, at the beginning of Tuesday's game he said he was getting better, Krukow was getting worse, but it still had issues on Tuesday and got worse as the game wore on, he really couldn't handle the load of that call at the end. Also, Kuiper is kind of like Starkey, not that good at describing the action, good at conveying emotion, but with better knowledge of the game than Starkey. Fortunately, baseball is easier than football so for those relatively few times when Kuiper is on the radio and I'm listening, I'm not left as confused as Starkey left me, and most of the time, Kuiper is on TV and it doesn't matter (even if as he has aged he makes more annoying mistakes).

For those listening to the Giants' radio broadcast, however, Fleming's call was really good. I hate to give praise to a Stanford guy, but he pretty well nailed it. You definitely can't say that call was awful, and while an easier call, 1000 times better than Starkey on the Play.

As for ducky23's comment, chapman_is_gone has impressively managed not to chime in with kids get off my lawn since June 25. I kind of like when he chimes in, because he is somehow proclaiming himself to be pretty inept. He often says something like "the owners of the board make us wade through this crap" when, of course, there is no need to ever open the thread. Anyone not interested in the thread need not wade through anything -- don't open it! BearGreg himself started the "OT: Formula 1 Racing" thread on the Insider board, and somehow, I have managed to never open the thread one single time! In spite of the 126 posts over 3 months, I haven't had to wade through anything, because I'm not stupid, but over the years, chapman_is_gone manages to repeatedly establish his inability to do something so simple as to ignore the thread he claims he is not interested in. Amusing.

And by the way, as a post-season pitcher, Vogelsong is cemented forever as better than Kershaw.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GivemTheAxe said:

ducky23 said:

I'm gonna keep posting different calls until chapman_is_gone starts yelling at the kids to get off his lawn





It was an exciting play. And I am happy it was for the Giants.
But the announcers were AWFUL.
I don't want to hear any criticism of Joe Starkey's call of The Play ever again.
Compared to the announcers on this play, Starkey's call was a masterpiece of clarity and eloquence
I mean, Kuiper is usually very good. He obviously got something caught in his throat at the wrong moment here.


Kuips been sick but he's been gutting it out till the all star break. But even when sick, still better than the furdie's call of the Renteria homer



calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

ducky23 said:

I'm gonna keep posting different calls until chapman_is_gone starts yelling at the kids to get off his lawn





It was an exciting play. And I am happy it was for the Giants.
But the announcers were AWFUL.
I don't want to hear any criticism of Joe Starkey's call of The Play ever again.
Compared to the announcers on this play, Starkey's call was a masterpiece of clarity and eloquence
Starkey's call would have been MOSTLY fine if it had been for a TV broadcast, because you don't need a call of clarity. If the game was on TV, the only big problem would have been "the Bears have to get out of bounds." Starkey has said that was stupid, because he recognized that time would have run out by the time they got out of bounds, although I have never heard him admit that it was stupid because IF they wanted to stop the clock for a Hail Mary, they just needed to take a knee right away. Too bad Starkey brain farted on the rules and the situation, but IF it was on TV, it was otherwise OK, it conveyed the emotion of the moment and a viewer could see what was happening.

But Starkey's call wasn't on TV, it was on the radio, where a picture needs to be painted for the audience. To appreciate how bad Starkey's call is, you have to imagine you don't have a video playing, and you don't already know what happened. Well, there was a squib kick, Rodgers must have touched the ball, the band came on the field, and Cal got into the end zone. Laterals? Not one mention until after the play was over and Starkey says the Bears may have made some illegal laterals so The Play might not count. The listener had no picture of the play. Other announcers, both radio and TV, managed to do better at describing it. Starkey's call (again, except for the "out of bounds" part) has been fine since The Play was originally broadcast, it is either accompanied by video of the play or is accompanied by a vision in one's mind of the Play, so we don't need clarity, but for a live radio call? Terrible.

Both Kuiper and the Phillies announcers did OK with their words for a TV broadcast. The viewer doesn't actually need a description to know what is happening, plus neither Kuiper nor the Phillies broadcasters were incomprehensible like Starkey. Kuiper's voice issues did create some problems. He was having voice issues for a couple of nights, he apologized at the start of Monday's game for his voice, at the beginning of Tuesday's game he said he was getting better, Krukow was getting worse, but it still had issues on Tuesday and got worse as the game wore on, he really couldn't handle the load of that call at the end. Also, Kuiper is kind of like Starkey, not that good at describing the action, good at conveying emotion, but with better knowledge of the game than Starkey. Fortunately, baseball is easier than football so for those relatively few times when Kuiper is on the radio and I'm listening, I'm not left as confused as Starkey left me, and most of the time, Kuiper is on TV and it doesn't matter (even if as he has aged he makes more annoying mistakes).

For those listening to the Giants' radio broadcast, however, Fleming's call was really good. I hate to give praise to a Stanford guy, but he pretty well nailed it. You definitely can't say that call was awful, and while an easier call, 1000 times better than Starkey on the Play.

As for ducky23's comment, chapman_is_gone has impressively managed not to chime in with kids get off my lawn since June 25. I kind of like when he chimes in, because he is somehow proclaiming himself to be pretty inept. He often says something like "the owners of the board make us wade through this crap" when, of course, there is no need to ever open the thread. Anyone not interested in the thread need not wade through anything -- don't open it! BearGreg himself started the "OT: Formula 1 Racing" thread on the Insider board, and somehow, I have managed to never open the thread one single time! In spite of the 126 posts over 3 months, I haven't had to wade through anything, because I'm not stupid, but over the years, chapman_is_gone manages to repeatedly establish his inability to do something so simple as to ignore the thread he claims he is not interested in. Amusing.

And by the way, as a post-season pitcher, Vogelsong is cemented forever as better than Kershaw.


I think it is CIG's shtick
bonsallbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It was pretty cool.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


All I ask is that the board's owners and moderators follow the board's own rules and the board's established practices determined over many years. AT THE VERY LEAST, off topic threads are to be labeled "OT." Ideally, they should be moved to the off topic board if they're going to linger like a fart in an elevator. Yet, certain people in power are Giants fans, so they feel it is OK to bend board rules. Whatever. I stand by my stance that you all who post in this thread are rude for making non-Giants and non-Dodgers fans wade past this thread on a daily basis, which adds up to thousands of times over the years.

And SB Gold, the hilarious thing is, none of your fellow peers respects you for the tiresome, repetitive bul l**** that you pull on this board. Many surely consider you a flat-out loser for posting 10+ times every day. Get a life.

DOUCH EBAG FOREVER
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under


Who had 4 hrs and 14 min in the pool?
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under

LOL, I sure did

Go Bears Forever
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I underestimated his limitations, lol.

Go Bears Forever
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under

LOL, I sure did

Go Bears Forever

I mean, you basically put up the Bat Signal for him. He had to show up.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

SBGold said:

ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under

LOL, I sure did

Go Bears Forever

I mean, you basically put up the Bat Signal for him. He had to show up.

Yes, he's drawn to me like a flame. I'll have to meet him sometime to thank him for following my posts.

Go Bears Forever
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

sycasey said:

SBGold said:

ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under

LOL, I sure did

Go Bears Forever

I mean, you basically put up the Bat Signal for him. He had to show up.

Yes, he's drawn to me like a flame. I'll have to meet him sometime to thank him for following my posts.

Go Bears Forever


"Go Bears Forever"? What is that? You know no Cal fan says that, right? Clown…
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

SBGold said:

sycasey said:

SBGold said:

ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under

LOL, I sure did

Go Bears Forever

I mean, you basically put up the Bat Signal for him. He had to show up.

Yes, he's drawn to me like a flame. I'll have to meet him sometime to thank him for following my posts.

Go Bears Forever


"Go Bears Forever"? What is that? You know no Cal fan says that, right? Clown…

ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

SBGold said:

sycasey said:

SBGold said:

ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under

LOL, I sure did

Go Bears Forever

I mean, you basically put up the Bat Signal for him. He had to show up.

Yes, he's drawn to me like a flame. I'll have to meet him sometime to thank him for following my posts.

Go Bears Forever


"Go Bears Forever"? What is that? You know no Cal fan says that, right? Clown…




If that's the evidence, I'm gonna have to agree with chapman here
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

KoreAmBear said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

SBGold said:

sycasey said:

SBGold said:

ducky23 said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


You lost the over/under

LOL, I sure did

Go Bears Forever

I mean, you basically put up the Bat Signal for him. He had to show up.

Yes, he's drawn to me like a flame. I'll have to meet him sometime to thank him for following my posts.

Go Bears Forever


"Go Bears Forever"? What is that? You know no Cal fan says that, right? Clown…




If that's the evidence, I'm gonna have to agree with chapman here

Well we were enamored with that phrase for about a week until he left.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm still enamored with it. Lil Ciggy is such a Cal fan he didn't even know where the reference came from. Sad

Go Bears Forever
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


All I ask is that the board's owners and moderators follow the board's own rules and the board's established practices determined over many years. AT THE VERY LEAST, off topic threads are to be labeled "OT." Ideally, they should be moved to the off topic board if they're going to linger like a fart in an elevator. Yet, certain people in power are Giants fans, so they feel it is OK to bend board rules. Whatever. I stand by my stance that you all who post in this thread are rude for making non-Giants and non-Dodgers fans wade past this thread on a daily basis, which adds up to thousands of times over the years.

And SB Gold, the hilarious thing is, none of your fellow peers respects you for the tiresome, repetitive bul l**** that you pull on this board. Many surely consider you a flat-out loser for posting 10+ times every day. Get a life.

DOUCH EBAG FOREVER

I know I shouldn't love this, but I do, the poster acting like he is so incompetent and so distractable, he can't let a thread title pass by without opening it, acting like the existence of the thread title popping up is a problem of a serious nature and a horrible violation of the board owner's and moderator's own rules that cannot be tolerated. It is hilarious, and I hope for your sake it is just pure schtick and not serious, because if it is serious, you need help.

The Formula 1 thread on the Insider Board (started by BearGreg) has been going on since April, and I haven't opened it. It doesn't bother me, I won't waste a second of my life opening it, but I don't begrudge BearGreg having it. Even if it didn't have "OT" in front of it, my brain works well enough to not be bothered by it. Having to wade past a title really isn't an issue, and if the thread is still around after 13 years like this thread, I'll be ok with that. But the beauty of this thread being on the Growls board is that the moderators don't care if you continue your schtick, if I pulled that on the Insider board with a recurring OT thread, I think the moderators would not tolerate my acting like that.

I get it, this thread gives you something to do. You get to act like the grumpy old man who is so dottering that he doesn't know how to leave a thread title alone even when he knows (or at least claims) he doesn't care about it. For 13 years, this thread has allowed you to play that role. I realize that expressing your appreciation for this thread letting you perform your schtick would be counter to your schtick, but I assume that outside of this board, you are actually grateful for this thread letting you perform your act. And the dottering old fool act is kind of amusing, if predictable at this point.
SBGold
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285 said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

SBGold said:

Ciggy will be back complaining in about a month. Just the nature of the beast.

Go Bears Forever


All I ask is that the board's owners and moderators follow the board's own rules and the board's established practices determined over many years. AT THE VERY LEAST, off topic threads are to be labeled "OT." Ideally, they should be moved to the off topic board if they're going to linger like a fart in an elevator. Yet, certain people in power are Giants fans, so they feel it is OK to bend board rules. Whatever. I stand by my stance that you all who post in this thread are rude for making non-Giants and non-Dodgers fans wade past this thread on a daily basis, which adds up to thousands of times over the years.

And SB Gold, the hilarious thing is, none of your fellow peers respects you for the tiresome, repetitive bul l**** that you pull on this board. Many surely consider you a flat-out loser for posting 10+ times every day. Get a life.

DOUCH EBAG FOREVER

I know I shouldn't love this, but I do, the poster acting like he is so incompetent and so distractable, he can't let a thread title pass by without opening it, acting like the existence of the thread title popping up is a problem of a serious nature and a horrible violation of the board owner's and moderator's own rules that cannot be tolerated. It is hilarious, and I hope for your sake it is just pure schtick and not serious, because if it is serious, you need help.

The Formula 1 thread on the Insider Board (started by BearGreg) has been going on since April, and I haven't opened it. It doesn't bother me, I won't waste a second of my life opening it, but I don't begrudge BearGreg having it. Even if it didn't have "OT" in front of it, my brain works well enough to not be bothered by it. Having to wade past a title really isn't an issue, and if the thread is still around after 13 years like this thread, I'll be ok with that. But the beauty of this thread being on the Growls board is that the moderators don't care if you continue your schtick, if I pulled that on the Insider board with a recurring OT thread, I think the moderators would not tolerate my acting like that.

I get it, this thread gives you something to do. You get to act like the grumpy old man who is so dottering that he doesn't know how to leave a thread title alone even when he knows (or at least claims) he doesn't care about it. For 13 years, this thread has allowed you to play that role. I realize that expressing your appreciation for this thread letting you perform your schtick would be counter to your schtick, but I assume that outside of this board, you are actually grateful for this thread letting you perform your act. And the dottering old fool act is kind of amusing, if predictable at this point.

Exactly. Well stated. I opened the F1 thread and read some things but was not really interested. Fine for others, not for me and it's that ok.

Go Bears Forever

ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have a friend of a friend who actually knows vogelsong. I'll reach out to him to see if i can forward this thread to him. I think vogelsong would get a kick out of the original post and the fact that this thread has lasted 13 years.

I think it's kinda cool that this thread has endured through multiple titles for both teams.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

I have a friend of a friend who actually knows vogelsong. I'll reach out to him to see if i can forward this thread to him. I think vogelsong would get a kick out of the original post and the fact that this thread has lasted 13 years.

I think it's kinda cool that this thread has endured through multiple titles for both teams.


He should be eligible for the HOF, no?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Playing the short bus giants was a solid cure for the dodgers losing streak. Cheers for weak, overrated teams.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

ducky23 said:

I have a friend of a friend who actually knows vogelsong. I'll reach out to him to see if i can forward this thread to him. I think vogelsong would get a kick out of the original post and the fact that this thread has lasted 13 years.

I think it's kinda cool that this thread has endured through multiple titles for both teams.


He should be eligible for the HOF, no?


8 postseason appearances. 3-0. 2.92 ERA. 2 rings. Forever Giant
First Page Refresh
Page 163 of 163
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.