The silly controversy over Jeanne Zelasko

Over the past two days, several places have accused the Dodgers of being patronizing to women by tailoring periodic game broadcasts for them, with former Fox Sports anchor Jeanne Zelasko and ex-Dodger pinch-hitter Mark Sweeney as announcers. 

As part of the mission of these broadcasts, Zelasko would explain aspects of baseball that more experienced fans take for granted. The problem, apparently, is the assumption that women need baseball explained more than men do.

Meanwhile ...

1) No one is forcing women to listen to Zelasko's broadcasts. Vin Scully, Charlie Steiner et. al remain options for all genders.

2) While the broadcasts are a component of the Dodgers' Women's Initiatives Network, there is nothing in the marketing that says that menfolk or boyfolk aren't welcome or can't benefit.  

3) The Dodgers chose Zelasko, a woman, not because of her ignorance, but because they believe her to be an authority on the game.  

4) The Dodgers recently began a regular Sunday afternoon broadcast of home games by teenagers. Was that offensive to children? Or was it just a different approach that might provide some benefit?

It's my suspicion (unverified) that at least a partial motivation behind these broadcasts is to fill in the hole in Zelasko's resume, the one that prevented her from contending for the 2009 backup TV play-by-play slot eventually won by Eric Collins. The Dodgers give Zelasko some experience doing play-by-play, and at the same time provide an alternative that some people might enjoy. 

Perhaps if the Zelasko-Sweeney broadcast weren't under the DodgersWIN umbrella, the tutorial element might come across differently. Still, I think there has been an overreaction in some parts.

I have no stake in Zelasko's calling of the game. If anyone wants to listen to Vin, then listen to Vin. I would never tell you otherwise, and I doubt the Dodgers would either. He was and is the first person I would point my daughter to.   

But in a nutshell, this is an experiment. It might be a cynical and ultimately ineffective ploy to draw female listeners and promote the career of a female broadcaster. But I don't see how it's patronizing, not when it's merely an alternative.   

Update: Lively discussion in the comments below.  A snapshot: The Dodgers' linking this idea to their WIN Network is what makes it potentially offensive, more so than the concept of an instructional broadcast itself (even if the presence of Scully makes such a broadcast seem unnecessary). 

I understand why this could look bad on the surface.  And I realize that it's not for me to tell people who feel offended that they're wrong.  I still believe, however, that it doesn't make sense to assume that the Dodgers, perhaps the most progressive franchise in baseball when it comes to women, don't recognize there are plenty knowledgeable female fans out there. The Dodgers are not trying to piegonhole existing female fans into this broadcast -- they're just seeing if this expands the tent (while at the same time giving Zelasko some air time).

Also, it seems that from those who heard the broadcast, the "Baseball for Dummies" aspect has been overstated.

Photo: MLB on FOX pregame host Jeanne Zelasko.

Comments

[Humma Kavula]

I, for one, am offended. Why is Mark Sweeney still employed by the Dodgers?

Perhaps he can bring his veteran presence to Zelasko's broadcasts by getting the rules of baseball wrong.

[Linkmeister]

Hey! I'm offended that some teams have broadcasts in Spanish! Why can't Selig declare English the official language of baseball?

Some people need to get a life.

[D4P]

"I'm not a big fan of the sacrifice bunt, Jeanne. You just can't afford to give away outs. As you know, you only get two of 'em per inning, so you gotta make every one count."

[jpg]

As long as Kevin Kennedy is not around I'll probably give Jeanne a shot just to see what she has under the announcing hood.

[DL]

I, for one, am offended. Why is Mark Sweeney still employed by the Dodgers?

Nice. That one gets the rarely awarded DL Seal of Approval.

[regfairfield]

I can see getting offended that they made "for women" a synonym for "for people that don't know a thing about baseball".

[hye-per-bowl]

I agree with jon wholeheartedly.

Perhaps the best solution would be to just take it out of the WIN umbrella. Make the broadcast just an alternative on its own.

[blue22]

Sorry Jeanne, but when the Dodgers are on in my house, I get to be the one to condescendingly explain the mundane, obvious aspects of baseball to my family members.

The position is filled.

[CB]

Per the Deadspin quote, it's nice to see that Zelasco is making sure that all the ladies understand crucial baseball terminology like the "sixth hole"

[Jon Weisman]

Regfairfield -

But that's not really what's happening. The Dodgers are not suggesting that this is a broadcast for all women.

[puddle]

I hadn't heard about this until just now, but my wife might actually be interested in the Zelasko broadcasts. She has little baseball knowledge (she tries to show interest because she knows I enjoy it), she finds Vin to be dull and long-winded, and she pulls for women who work in male-dominated fields.

Call me what you will, but I have a hard time listenening to female commentators, perhaps because I'm simply not accustomed to it. Add to that the fact that I would probably enjoy listening to Vin even if he were reading the book of Leviticus, I don't see myself ever switching over to Zelasko-Sweeney, except maybe for a few minutes out of curiosity. But as Jon states, I don't see anything wrong with trying an alternative that might grow baseball's fanbase.

[Tripon]

"3) The Dodgers chose Zelasko, a woman, not because of her ignorance, but because they believe her to be an authority on the game. "

Except the one who chose, Jamie McCourt doesn't have experience choosing announcers, and would be inexperienced herself in what she would consider important qualities of what makes an announcer 'good'.

What makes Zelasko more qualified than any other woman announcer in sports?

I suspect its because she already created a relationship with Jamie McCourt, which proves the old adage true.

Its not what you know, but who you know.

[EMDarrow]

I can see where Mark Sweeney fits in a broadcast for people unfamiliar with baseball. He certainly looked like he was clueless last year.

[Jon Weisman]

Tripon 2:28 p.m.

No argument on that point.

[Humma Kavula]

I will say that I am predisposed to dislike not only Sweeney, but Zelasko, after the latter's truly unfortunate introductions to Fox's World Series broadcasts. King Kaufman has gone over this in detail.

You can go to salon.com and search for Zelasko. Here is one column from 2004 that repeats Zelaskism after excruciating Zelaskism:

http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2004/10/06/wednesday/index1.html

[regfairfield]

Jon, it's not? Everything I've seen has called this a broadcast directed at women. Even Jamie McCourt says Zelasko "as a mother" will "be able to bring a unique perspective to our WIN broadcasts and help spread her love of baseball to fans around the world." That at least implies they're directed at women.

They aren't directly saying "this is a broadcast for women that don't know baseball" but it's really hard to not get that interpretation.

[Hollywood Joe]

My new favorite post of the day

"Sorry Jeanne, but when the Dodgers are on in my house, I get to be the one to condescendingly explain the mundane, obvious aspects of baseball to my family members.

The position is filled."

This is classic - made me guffaw.

I liked it so much I emailed it to some family and friends. You see, um, I have been know to resemble that statement

[Humma Kavula]

On the other hand, I would have paid money to have heard Sweeney give color commentary on Tuesday's game -- the game in which Ryan Church was called out for failing to touch third base.

Money, I'm saying, would have been paid, by me, for that privilege.

[underdog]

As far as women sports announcers go, I actually thought Doris Burke was pretty decent on a couple of NBA broadcasts I heard her on. Though there's a lot of vitriol out there about how horrible she is. Either I'm mistaken, or people are hearing something else, or behaving with some misogyny. (Or all of the above!) At the very least, I think she's quite a bit more knowledgeable about hoops than Zelasko is about baseball, but I still wish the latter the best and will give a listen at some point to see how she's doing.

[bhsportsguy]

Tripon, isn't it a little presumptous to assume that Jeanne Zelasko got the job based on some relationship that you cannot prove.

Isn't it more likely that after Zelasko went after the play-by-play job as mentioned by Jon, the Dodgers wanting to again expose themselves in as many ways they can, offered her this opportunity that would give her play-by-play experience and give the Dodgers some new wrinkle for their finals.

Zelasko has been in the business for several years, starting as the update reporter for XTRA 690, her biggest gig was the host of Fox Baseball for several years as well as other Fox assignments.

And finally, as anyone taken a few minutes to listen to the broadcast, its archived on the website.

She is definitely someone who needs an analyst to fill in at times but at least she shows some personality and presence.

[Trent Rouse]

I'd be curious to listen to the alternative broadcast when the Dodgers are playing road games east of Denver (Lyons and Collins have their good days and bad). But given the option, why would anyone not listen to Vin Scully call a game? He's as much a storyteller as he is a broadcaster, so who cares if you don't understand the infield fly rule?

[Phenomenal Smith]

If you're going to complain about Mark Sweeney not knowing the outs, then you should be prepared to be told that Ryan Church's baserunning gaffe happened on Monday, not Tuesday.

[puddle]

underdog -

I'll agree with you on Doris Burke. I don't prefer her, but she's better than some of her male counterparts, no doubt about that (ahem, Reggie Miller).

Come to think of it, I actually don't really prefer any of the color-commentators this year. Dare I say, it almost makes me miss Bill Walton.

[hye-per-bowl]

refairfield has valid point
"DodgersWIN (Women's Initiatives Network) is a network of initiatives that is designed to reach out to women and bring them closer to the game of baseball and its lifestyles."
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/community/win/index.jsp

It's very obvious that the problem is that it is being marketed under the WIN umbrella.
Just make it stand on its own. I'm sure Dodgers marketing shouldn't have a problem making something like the JR show on sundays.

[GoBears]

One other caution - it would be unfair to hold Zelasko to the Vin Scully standard. I think the fairest expectation is that she will be just as awful, cliche-spewing, and homerish as the vast majority of male announcers. If she's a typical, modern-day talking head, she will be hard to listen to, no matter who you are. Just one of the cacophony for whom the MUTE button was invented. Which is especially bad for radio.

[Harold]

I agree with bhsportsguy.

I find the idea that Jamie McCourt, the highest ranking female in sports, simply hires her girlfriends to do important jobs more offensive than some people find the Dodgers women's broadcast.

In general I think the broadcast concept is slightly half-baked, but the idea behind it to be a good one-- to expand and enhance the already strong relationship between women and baseball. That is one of Jamie McCourt's pet projects and I think it's both forward thinking and a great thing for the Dodgers long-term.

[D4P]

Could the Dodgers blaze more trails by becoming the first team in MLB history to hire a female Special Assistant to the GM...?

[Hollywood Joe]

Do we really care? Does anyone?

I don't have a problem with women broadcasting, but I can't say that I have missed women broadcasting either.

The Dodgers decided to give this a shot, they decided to do this under the WIN brand.

Big deal, either listen to it or don't, but attacking it for any reason seems silly and much to do about so very little.

You would think that someone harmed puppies or something

[Hollywood Joe]

D4P - you are cracking me up today.

I don't know whether I should long for such a discussion or be ever fearful of it

[Jon Weisman]

Regfairfield -

You're missing my emphasis. I'm saying that it's not directed at ALL women.

I can assure you that the Dodgers are not mounting a campaign to steer female listeners away from Vin Scully.

[regfairfield]

From the not Deadspin blog linked above: "It's like Sesame Street, but for adults!"

Previous WIN events: Elmo throws out the first pitch!

Hmmmm....

Even if this has good intentions, marketing this as a dumbed down broadcast for women is incredibly stupid, and I can't believe the McCourts haven't figured out how to do good PR yet. If you can recognize something is offensive within three seconds after hearing about it, you probably shouldn't do it. This is like honoring Black History month by having fried chicken and collard greens on sale.

Really, I think the whole WIN concept is executed horribly but that's another thing.

[Humma Kavula]

Phenomenal @ 2:49 --

Fair enough point, except for one thing:

Ryan Church and Mike Sweeneys are professionals who make mistakes rarely enough that it's high-larious when they do that.

On the other hand, I'm an idiot who doesn't know what day TODAY is, much less which day it was that Ryan Church failed to touch third. Anybody who takes anything I say seriously, well, woe be unto that person.

I mean, seriously: holding me to the same standards as the rest of the human race is just asking for trouble.

[regfairfield]

Jon, I'm not saying it is, but putting it under the WIN initiative certainly suggests that it's more geared towards women than men. This whole thing could have been avoided without that.

[Tripon]

Tripon, isn't it a little presumptous to assume that Jeanne Zelasko got the job based on some relationship that you cannot prove.

--BHsportsguy

Zelasko is also the host of a children's program hosted on Sunday. Yes, I can't prove that the relationship between Zelasko, and Jamie McCourt was the sole reason why Zelasko was hired for two Dodgers related programs. But nobody else can prove on why Zelasko was hired outside of being a 'mother' and bringing a 'mother's perspective to baseball.

But Jamie McCourt is inexperienced in baseball, and in television, and the one person she picks to broadcast for WIN is also the person who was picked to lead the new Sunday program.

Not that I care that much, but just because nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is actually cronyism doesn't mean that it isn't cronyism.

Zelasko admits as such in a previous interview when she wanted the job that Eric Collins had no prior experience announcing, which I guess this helps her address, but I will state this. She wasn't hired because she's the best announcer's the Dodgers could have hired who also happen to be female.

If the Dodgers really wanted somebody experienced, they would have gone in a different direction, they didn't and that is their right. But she still isn't the best person for the job, and I still suspect its because Jamie McCourt is friends with her.

[reader]

what controversy? Zelasko is terrible - there's nothing to debate

[SteelMohawk]

Aren't Joe Buck and Tim McCarver worse to the game of baseball in general? I don't see how you cant make a case that those two are the reason NO-one listens to FOX broadcasters. I guess I shouldn't pile on them, they try their best, but I can't see how having to listen to a woman explain fielders choice or defensive indifference is worse than listening to McCarver make a point, then immediately confirm the exact opposite is true through a rambling dialogue, even if I was a woman.

[Xeifrank]

wow, anyone who complains about this belongs on Bob's list.
vr, Xei

[Jon Weisman]

"Jon, I'm not saying it is, but putting it under the WIN initiative certainly suggests that it's more geared towards women than men. This whole thing could have been avoided without that."

Not arguing that - I even wrote that in my post.

I still feel you're not reading what I'm writing.

[kene]

I listened to Zelasko last night and I have to say she was not bad. The audio quality was not good and Sweeney was a bit annoying. I can't understand why people are putting her down. I know LA has had its fair share of excellent sports broadcasters throughout the years, and Zelasko certainly is not there yet. But she is as good or better than many.

[Jon Weisman]

Lifetime Network billed itself as "television for women" and aired programming that quite frankly seemed geared at the lowest common denominator or thereabouts. Is that offensive? Or is that the television industry simply perceiving a need and acting on it?

I don't know if that analogy completely works, but I think it's in the ballpark. The Zelasko broadcast is not Dodgers for Women. It's Dodgers for Women Who Feel Underserved By The Current Options.

[Jon Weisman]

Check that: "It's Dodgers for Women and Men Who Feel Underserved By The Current Options." Because I think it's perfectly reasonable, based on what I've read, that someone would prefer Zelasko/Sweeney to Steiner/Monday.

[Hollywood Joe]

You know what's great about America is that while we think we vote with our voice we really vote with dollars

If this simulcast is sucessful, people will listen, if people listen businesses will advertise, if businesses advertise this offering will persist

If this simulcast is not successful, if the world is offended, if people just don't listen, then businesses will not advertise and the offering will cease

What isn't great about America is that we have become a country filled with businesses and people that are afraid to do anything. Why? Because we are a people looking to be offended, looking to be outraged, looking to be insulted.

I am sorry, but if this broadcast offends you don't have to listen, no one is saying that women can only listen to Zelasko - it is simply a choice for women and the chance for one woman to get some potentially valuable experience; but if this broadcast offends you, don't make this well intentioned offering, which is part of a larger initiative, a referendum on how the Dodgers view the intelligence of women and don't make it a referendum on the corporate ethics on Jamie McCourts hiring. It would be grossy unfair to do so.

And in case anyone is wondering, Vin Scully was not hired after any national search for the best candidate. Red Barber liked him and talked Branch Rickey into giving him a shot. So there!

[hye-per-bowl]

Lifetime Network billed itself as "television for women" and aired programming that quite frankly seemed geared at the lowest common denominator or thereabouts. Is that offensive? Or is that the television industry simply perceiving a need and acting on it?

It can be both.
I'm very offended by lifetime.

[regfairfield]

Jon, I am totally understanding, I just disagree.

When you have a story titled "Dodgers to begin female-oriented broadcasts tonight" and then talk about their "more instructional nature" it's going to get interpreted badly, even if they aren't saying all women have to listen.

All they had to do was say "Dodgers to begin more instructional broadcasts tonight" and this is a non issue.

Can you find a woman saying this is a good thing? I realize this is a bit of a loaded question since the target audience isn't going to write about baseball on the Internet.

[bhsportsguy]

Not to change topics but I find it pretty amazing that the Dodgers picked up 5.5 games on the Giants in a little over a week.

[jpg]

Reg- As a man I even with caramel kiss hair color I'm not sure you are the best judge of what woman will find offensive. Given that 99.9% of the posters here have balls I don't see how any of them should be deciding what is offensive and what isn't to the other gender.

[K2]

I'd be fine listening to her. And even though I'm a woman who has been watching the Dodgers for over 40 years (get me my cane, sonny), there's usually something new I can learn.

The problem is, any chance I have to listen to Vin Scully I will not pass up for anyone. So if Vin were to retire, then I'd be happy to try her out. Because I'm not impressed with this new boring, generic guy Collins and Buck and McCarver are a joke.

But as long as Vin is around, he's number one. So it's not her I'm rejecting, it's Vin I'm savoring for as long as we have him.

[Xeifrank]

Dodgers are on pace to win the NL West by 21 games.
vr, Xei

[Ton-Ton]

I tuned in the other day and I liked Zelasko as a broadcaster. Sure she needs more experience, but I wouldn't mind her being the future Dodgers broadcaster.

[regfairfield]

It's golden blonde dangnabit.

[Marty Leadman (LAT)]

Whatever it is, I'm offended.

[Jon Weisman]

I think JPG has a fair point. But at the same time, I guess I'd need to see what's so hard about a woman saying, "Well, I obviously don't need to be instructed -- I'll stick with Vin."

I don't really disagree with what Regfairfield is saying all that much. I'm not stupid - I know the Dodgers were targeting women, and I agree this could have been marketed better. But again, I think it's silly to assume that the Dodgers intend this for all women, for women who were already fans of Scully. And I think that point is very relevant.

Just because the Dodgers' bumbling makes this open to misinterpretation doesn't make the broadcasts themselves offensive. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

Really, think about it - the Dodgers are among the least likely franchises to be looking down at women at this stage. Even if this looks bad on the surface, with any kind of reflection does it make sense to conclude "ooh, the Dodgers think women too stupid to follow Vin Scully"?

[bhsportsguy]

Actually, I don't find the broadcasts instructional at all. Its just different.

I listened to some of the broadcast that the teen age boys did a few weeks ago, they were much more into stats and a lot more traditional in terms of detailed pitch by pitch broadcasting. They could be the sons of a Ross Porter broadcast without the drawl.

[Amy]

I don't know, this all does sort of rub me the wrong way. It does smack of condescension to me. I have no doubt it was well-intentioned, but I still have a problem with the execution.

The problem is that even though it isn't necessarily directed at "all women" the fact that it's under the WIN umbrella suggests that women are more likely than men to need the game explained to them. Maybe I have weird friends, but I probably know just as many, maybe more hard-core female baseball fans than male.

I think it's tough to see from the outside, but as a female baseball fan, it is frustrating when people assume I know nothing about baseball or only care about baseball because of a boyfriend or my dad. And I think this feeds into that idea that most women are like that. I understand no one is going to make me listen, and I understand this isn't TECHNICALLY only for women, but I still think the idea that this was a natural part of the team's outreach to female fans is sort of troubling.

[blue22]

The Dodgers are marketing their "Baseball for Dummies" telecast under the Womens Initiative Network brand.

I can see how people would be offended.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Didn't the Lakers once have two feeds for a broadcast with Jeanie Buss hosting one that was supposed to have more of a woman's slant to it?

Numerous NFL teams and bigger college teams have classes or talks targeted at women who want to become better informed about football. Although in the case of my parents, I would have to have sent my dad. I think I need to go find his grave and chisel on it, "Dad, four downs to make 10 yards. Trust me."

[Jon Weisman]

I feel there's a consensus building, then:

Execution: bad
Concept: not so bad

[Eric Enders]

If baseball instruction for the uninitiated is the goal, isn't Vin the perfect person for that anyway? He always makes a point of explaining the aspects of the game that an inexperienced fan might not understand. Dozens of times a game he explains something that you and I already know, but that novice viewers might not. But we don't mind it and it doesn't come off as condescending simply because he does it so well.

The Zelasko broadcast is hardly something to get upset about, but you've gotta admit it's pretty pointless when its stated goal is already being extremely well-served by the existing broadcasts.

It's also odd that they'd hire perhaps the one woman in America who's already demonstrated that she's incapable of doing this particular job. There had to be, oh, roughly 5,000 better female candidates.

[Jon Weisman]

Meanwhile, in some parts of the world, this might be called "two great tastes that taste great together." And others might call it the opposite:

"Irish eye Yankee Stadium game"

http://tinyurl.com/o9l3eh

[kene]

I listened to the broadcast. It was hardly baseball for dummies. I didn't even realize that it was supposed to be instructional until I read that on here. Don't knock it till you try it. And maybe not even then. It takes a while to get used to new broadcasters.

[Jon Weisman]

"If baseball instruction for the uninitiated is the goal, isn't Vin the perfect person for that anyway? He always makes a point of explaining the aspects of the game that an inexperienced fan might not understand. Dozens of times a game he explains something that you and I already know, but that novice viewers might not. But we don't mind it and it doesn't come off as condescending simply because he does it so well."

Yep.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Will Grantland Rice be covering that Notre Dame football game? Will there be a publicity photo of Jimmy Clausen on a horse aftewards? Along with three other guys.

Of course, this would require Charlie Weis to adopt a new offense and make better use of the Notre Dame Shift. But I think Jimmy Clausen will be a surefire #1 pick in the draft if the Irish adopt the single wing.

[Tripon]

And in case anyone is wondering, Vin Scully was not hired after any national search for the best candidate. Red Barber liked him and talked Branch Rickey into giving him a shot. So there!

-- Hollywood Joe
___

Except Red Barber had experience in announcing, and was able to tell what a good announcer is, having spent years in the profession.

Jamie McCourt? Not so much. The problem isn't Zelasko, she's just a byproduct of Jamie McCourt's inexperience. If she works out, its because of McCourt's expertise in hiring the right people, its be in despite of it.

[Rob McMillin]

I can see getting offended that they made "for women" a synonym for "for people that don't know a thing about baseball".

Is there any proof Jamie McCourt does?

[Hollywood Joe]

I knew I shouldn't have let myself get drawn into this discussion.

Nurse, I am ready for my morphine drip!

[Phenomenal Smith]

I believe that Jamie McCourt is never getting free doughnuts at one place in Torrance.

[Rob McMillin]

Nurse, I am ready for my morphine drip!

Nurse, make mine a double!

[blue22]

"I listened to the broadcast. It was hardly baseball for dummies."

Ok, then what's it supposed to be - for the Dodger fan that needs an alternative to Vin? Everything I've read is that it's a more detailed explanation of the basic fundamentals and rules.

Just to be clear, I was specifically using the "for Dummies" like the line of instructional books, not as a pejorative.

[DougS]

[shrugs about the topic of Jon's original post]

It's all about broadening the demographics of the fan base. More fans = more sales = more profits. Makes sense to me.

No different from the Kings offering free hockey skills clinics for women.

If it's really insulting and patronizing, it will backfire and the Dodgers will not realize their ultimate goal. Then they'll try something else.

That's all it is.

[Tripon]

Even friends pay for donuts.

[Marty Leadman (LAT)]

Do the cops pay for donuts?

[Tripon]

Yes.

The only people who don't pay are family members, and even then there's some dumb and hokey ritual that we all have to follow that consist of either

- refusing at first, and then accepting.
- claiming that you already ate, but then saying maybe just one.
- claiming that next time, you will pay but everyone knows that nobody would allow it.
- offering the donuts and taking no for an answer.

[berkowit28]

Did I miss this here? If so, apologies. Rob at 6-4-2 (who just weighed in here a moment ago) links to a report that the Dodgers are provisionally set to play the Yankees at Yankee stadium in 2010 interleague play:

http://tinyurl.com/p8cjxo

[Eric Enders]

I thought it was just Joe Torre who was going to play at Yankee Stadium. I didn't realize the Dodger players were coming along too.

[kene]

"Ok, then what's it supposed to be - for the Dodger fan that needs an alternative to Vin? Everything I've read is that it's a more detailed explanation of the basic fundamentals and rules."Posted by: blue22 | May 21, 2009 at 03:52 PM

Believe it or not blue, some people don't like listening to Vin Scully. I am not one of them, its just that i live in Arizona and we don't get Vin here. So I took advantage of the free broadcast. Maybe I didn't find it so instructional because as others have stated Scully can be pretty instuctional himself. And i did understand the "for dummies"book reference. But you made it seem so negative. Thats why I commented that it really was not like that. So instructional, perhaps, baseball for dummies, nope.

[Hollywood Joe]

You know Eric, Joe is a second father to Derek Jeter.

[Harold]

Perhaps the Times could have a different dodger blog for women, with a different point of view, perhaps a bit more instructional. I keed, I keed.

I still find the idea that a seasoned lawyer and executive like Jamie McCourt hires people just because she likes them, without consulting the people she pays to do that sort of thing to be a bit ridiculous, but there's no way to know so I can't really argue it. It just seems unlikely to me.

[underdog]

I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

[Ken Noe]

Lyons, Collins, Zelasko...is there a secret codicil to the sale that requires McCourt to promote Fox personalities? Because if there is, something needs to be done before they hire Joe Buck.

[bhsportsguy]

Collins, who may have done some work for a Fox regional cable station, primarily worked for NBC and ESPN.

Also, with Fox having the local TV rights and the fact that they do their studio work in Los Angeles, you are probably going to see some cross-over.

I think that ultimately, the Dodgers need to go outside the area when they replace Vin, find a someone with experience but maybe in his late 30s who can be with the club for the while.

[D4P]

***find a someone with experience but maybe in his late 30s who can be with the club for the while***

Women need not apply...?

[bhsportsguy]

Joba Chamberlain pitched 2/3 of inning tonight and left the game, no word on why yet but that cannot be good for him or the Yankees.

[underdog]

This probably will sound less like blasphemy to Dodger fans than it would to Giants fans, but when Vin does retire, my pick to replace him would be Jon Miller. He's sometimes tainted (even for me) unfairly for working with Joe Morgan and for being a Giants broadcaster at the moment, but besides the fact that he can do a Scully impression, he is very good working on his own. (Which I wish he'd be allowed to do on ESPN, sigh.)

Probably won't happen but I'd hope he'd be a candidate.

Especially because of how upset Giants fans would get.

(Though their newer guy Dave Flemming is also quite good, imho.)

[bhsportsguy]

D4P, I said "someone" which last time I checked could be male or female.

[fanerman]

I get kind of tired of Miller's over-emphasized Hispanic name pronunciation.

[Eric]

I know they will never rise to the greatness that is Vin Scully, however, I'd be more than happy for Rick Monday and Charles Steiner to replace Vin on that god-forsaken day Vin calls it a career.

[D4P]

***D4P, I said "someone" which last time I checked could be male or female***

I guess the "his late 30s" made me think male.

[Eric Stephen]

This whole conversation cries for a line from the greatest movie ever made, aka UHF.

[underdog]

That does annoy me, too, fanerman.

But just looking at the other possible choices at the moment... I could still overlook that compared to the longer list of annoying habits most other announcers seem to have.

Btw, I'd be okay with Charlie Steiner, too. (But not Steiner + Monday both replacing Scully.)

[Xeifrank]

Well, the A's really blew that game.
vr, Xei

[Tripon]

Well, the A's really blew that game.
vr, Xei

Posted by: Xeifrank | May 21, 2009 at 04:39 PM

That's what she said.

[underdog]

Okay, Tripon, go sit in the corner.

;-)

[bhsportsguy]

I humbly apologize and while its more probable that a man will replace Scully, if they decide a woman is better suited, that's cool too.

Not to open up another debate but I hope there is a woman general manager in baseball before we have to worry about replacing Vin. There is a strong candidate working for the Dodgers right now and she should be strongly considered for the next opening wherever that may be.

[Benjamin Miracord]

Joba Chamberlain pitched 2/3 of inning tonight and left the game, no word on why yet but that cannot be good for him or the Yankees.

Posted by: bhsportsguy | May 21, 2009 at 04:28 PM

Did Chamberlain get injured, or did Chamberlain wilt?

[Eric Enders]

I'm sick and tired of people who are sick and tired that Miller is the only announcer who bothers to pronounce Hispanic names correctly. Just because everyone else does it wrong doesn't mean he has to.

[Alex41592]

Charley Steiner by himself is an excellent play by play man on the radio. That's where he should stay. He worked Monday's game alone and I thought he was fantastic.

The Steiner/Monday duo I would not welcome especially on television. They tend to go off on random discussions which can detract from the ballgame. They laugh during key moments in the game etc...But overall they're solid on radio. T.V would open up more chances for that behavior.

I have a hard time trying to come up with a person to replace Vin because it's not possible. And probably whomever the person is I'll probably listen to Steiner anyway after the first few games.

[underdog]

Maravilloso, Eric. Es verdad.

[D4P]

***Miller is the only announcer who bothers to pronounce Hispanic names correctly***

You mean it's not "Encuhnarcion"...?

[fanerman]

I appreciate that Miller pronounces them correctly and that part of it doesn't bother me.

[bhsportsguy]

Chamberlain got in the way of a line drive.