Game 55, Tigers at Mariners
DMZ · May 30, 2008 at 6:05 pm · Filed Under Mariners
We cranked out 12 posts here since the last game. That’s a lot.
Robertson v Silva.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. This could be a really ugly game. Fortunately, the M’s are playing with a new attitude! Tighter, more focused baseball! They’re coming together as a team! Just like the Tigers did when they swept the Mariners! Let’s see these two rejuvenated franchises go at it! Woooo! Go M’s!
Lineups are out! WOOOOOO!!!
CF-L Ichiro
2B-R Lopez
DH-B Turbo
LF-L Ibanez
3B-R Beltre
C-R Johjima
RF-R Balentien
1B-0 Cairo
SS-R Betancourt
VIDRO AND CAIRO ARE SEPR8ED!!! NOOOEEESSSS!!!!! WINNING STOPS!!!! WHYYYY??!!?!??!?!?!
Comments
247 Responses to “Game 55, Tigers at Mariners”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That’s the only reason she’s on the telecast.
Totally agree! Why bring it up on a site that doesn’t let you post screen shots or video captures? Really bad form.
This is admittedly sexist, but [deleted, sexist]
crap. when the html tagging goes, it’s obviously time for bed.
because they haven’t experienced sports the way male commentators have?
No. It just doesn’t work for me. Couldn’t really tell you why.
205… because there is a surprising lack of average-looking women covering sports on TV?
R.A. Dickey for #5 starter!!!!
Silva claimed that he “couldn’t feel the ball” when he was pitching.
There’s a lack of average looking men too. Do you think Brad Adam has his job purely because of journalistic talent?
It’s so obnoxious that you can look at a woman doing a sports broadcast and proclaim that she must have gotten there on looks without stopping to think about all of the s**t she had to deal with, because of people like you.
Of course I believe that. What other reason do you think? You think she’s unaware of what she’s wearing? You think her producers are unaware of what she’s wearing? You think I’M the sexist one here?
Look, I don’t buy the “because they haven’t experienced sports the way male commentators have” argument — Brad Adams doesn’t look he’s experienced too much of anything, while Angie Mentinck could kick the crap out of half the Mariners. I don’t have a problem with female sportscasters at all.
I DO have a tiny problem when their physical attributes are clearly what they bring to the telecast. Zaloumis is in that category. If she looked like, uh, uh, uh, some other woman with a different body type, she wouldn’t have gotten an interview at the station.
If you think that’s sexist, allow me to say in my defense that virtually everyone in that position, male or female, is chosen for the exact same reason. Watched any local news lately? 100% wall-to-wall bimbos and himbos, or possibly former bimbos. Nobody on God’s green earth gives two farts and a train whistle if they know anything at all about anything at all, as long as they can read the Teleprompter.
I have a profound amount of respect for intelligent, thinking women. An intelligent, thinking woman could no more get a job on a local TV station, especially doing sports (or weather) than I could modeling brassieres. Ms. Zaloumis was hired for her turtleneck-filling skills, period.
I’ll bet it would work for you if you had been more exposed to female commentators through the years. I don’t blame you for not liking female commentators, but I think you should at least acknowledge that their being female is the reason per se, which brings up another point about all of this that I think is really at the heart of it. That point is the implication, under all of these sexist jabs, that women can’t do sports and shouldn’t try unless they’re fun to look at.
How do you think people reacted to the first female news anchors?
Steve T, your opinion is more nuanced than I had thought, and I’d even go so far as to say I agree with most of what you said. Thanks for the clarification.
210… people like me? I’m not the one hiring sportscasters because of their looks.
If you think this kind of sexism isn’t alive and well in television, you need a reality check. Pointing this out doesn’t make one sexist.
I did openly acknowledge that from the get-go. I would never claim that women can’t understand sports the way men do or anything like that, I just think it’s annoying hearing them call a game.
This should say: “is not the reason”
May I also point out that the one who first mentioned it to me, and in fact pushed me out of the way to get a better look at Ms. Zaloumis’s turtleneck, exclaiming loudly, was my wife.
In that case, I completely disagree. I like watching women’s sports, and have nothing but admiration and appreciation for female athletes.
How do you think people reacted to the first female news anchors?
The first female newscaster on network television was Barbara Walters. I kinda doubt she was put there for her looks. (And lest you say “but she was young…”, she was 47 at the time.)
I am depressingly convinced that sexism is everywhere in television, but here’s the thing: We’ve all come to accept himbos like Brad Adam without comment (99% of the time), but fixate on the lack of credentials and abundance of sexy of his female counterparts. That is sexist too.
Yeah, but how many hundreds and thousands of anchors at local affiliates do you think there were before Barbara could have been accepted at a network?
Yikes. I’m outta here. You know the Mariners lost when…
You want to talk trash about Brad Adam? What about that hair? It looks like it’s going to take off and do a few loop-the-loops before landing at Boeing Field.
Yeah, but how many hundreds and thousands of anchors at local affiliates do you think there were before Barbara could have been accepted at a network?
The first female news correspondant on network TV was Pauline Frederick. (She was age 40 when hired.) Began with political conventions, then moved to cover the UN. Won a Peabody. Not hired for her looks – she was average looking.
I find it humorous that you are making these assumptions without doing the tiniest bit of research – I found both these facts by googling “first female broadcaster.” First hit, too!
So true. I think he could use a teeth whitening, though.
You keep coming up with NETWORK personalities. I find it funny that you don’t seem to know the difference between networks and local affiliates, where the majority of news telecasts are done (especially true in the pre-CNN days).
You keep coming up with NETWORK personalities. I find it funny that you don’t seem to know the difference between networks and local affiliates, where the majority of news telecasts are done (especially true in the pre-CNN days).
OK, so why don’t you make your point by finding out who the first female local affiliate broadcaster was?
You made an assertion. YOU prove it.
Good night.
I didn’t assert anything. I asked a semi-rhetorical question. Want a reminder?
That’s all I asked. Thinking logically, I think you would agree that there’s a pretty good chance nobody (no man, especially) wanted to hear the news from a woman after years and years of only men.
Beltre still continues to play good ball in his horrid luck. Silva is unacceptable, and the Mariners are still not playoffs contender. Wake me up in 2009, or at the ASB if we do whats right and blow this team up (starting with a few choice firings)
For crying out loud, we’re worried about TV sports anchors being hired for their looks? As opposed to what? Their insight into the game? If they replaced Chesty McTightsweater with someone who brought thoughtful analysis of the game, what do you think we would get? Discussion of Raul’s zone rating? Cairo’s ISO? Washburn’s FIP? Ha. No, we would most likely get more talk of “grit” and “pressing” and “adjusting to their role.” If they’re going to drone on about how inexplicable the latest rotation meltdown is, they least the station can do is take Bogey’s advice and give the audience something to look at.
You should probably read the previous discussion a little more carefully. I don’t think anybody’s suggesting the hiring of sports anchors is about anything but camera presence. I take issue, though, with everybody’s demeaning unwillingness to shut up about female anchors. I don’t know Nicole Zaloumis, so I have no reason to think she deserves non-stop sexist criticism from male viewers.
What do I want to see after the game? I want to see Dave (in a tight sweater) standing in front of a big TV, like CNN’s, with a pointer in his hand and the replay of Silva’s miserable pitches playing. “See? 84 MPH, straight, out over the plate? They can hit those.”
If your looking for insight from the TV anchors in anyway your looking in the wrong place. The radio guys are much better, even if they don’t know about modern analysis.
The Baseball guys are simply there to keep the dumb fans happy and hopeful. I am very sad to say I used to be one of the people sucked in by there BS in ’04, ’05, ’06 and 07′ (pretty much the years I have been watching baseball). But this year I discovered Sabermertics and PECOTA, and while I am still learning both, I can already see the BS they tell us just to make the uneducated fan feel happy and hopeful.
I guess my point is. The TV is the worst place to be looking for good baseball analysis .
It’s like this: there are reasons not to like nearly every TV sports personality on merit. Most of them couldn’t say something insightful if it would get them Bob Costas’ job. I’ve never heard anyone outside of a discussion like this, though, jump from “male commentator X doesn’t do a very good job” to “male commentator X deserves to be demeaned sexually.” It’s a purely male on female, sexually-driven phenomenon and is disturbingly prevalent. I’m not going to deny that I’ve had the urge to reach for sexism when criticizing a woman, but I realize that such an urge is totally counterproductive and driven by gender hostility. Could we try to be better, more civil people? Like once?
Couple thoughts now that I’ve calmed down after the game.
The two balls to deep centerfield in the first were really difficult for Ichiro because the sun was really strong right at the warning track and not before at all, so it would be very, very difficult to see. You’re going from dark to blinding light on the ball, with the wall in front of you. Ichiro’s caught some crappy breaks in center this week.
Watching Robertson warm up, the first thought I had was, this was a guy whose movement on the ball would be right in Richie’s wheelhouse. So naturally he’s not even brought in as a pinch hitter. The fact that Adrian could take him deep twice is probably not inconsistent with my thinking.
Cairo really isn’t a first baseman (I know I’m preaching to the choir here). He has the instincts of a middle infielder. One time, there was a ball hit to Balentien that he caught and immediately looked toward first. Cairo should have been on the bag, but instead was for some reason in a cutoff position, and the runner got back.
I thought Kenji did a good job of catching Dickey. Particularly since he couldn’t have had any mental preparation to do so. Having a knuckleballer for a long man is a great convenience to a manager, who doesn’t have to worry about ruining his arm if he has to come in in the first (something a Mariner manager can expect once or twice a week), but an awful imposition on a catcher.
Finally, is McLaren really just running the lineup based on who had a hit yesterday? That is the kind of managing you see in Little League, or you see when you’re playing a videogame, not in the majors. What happened to all that b.s. about expectations and preparations and whatever? Maybe Kenji will bat second tomorrow and Cairo will bat cleanup. Let’s have Wilie catch, he hasn’t had a passed ball since junior high!
Whoa, that was a big bang’s worth of boob-based bickering.
Maybe since I have a good idea of the sort of non-sexist things Steve T tends to say and the thankfully non-sexist things most people here say, I took the “Zaloumis” comment as intended… as a “holy cow, something just appeared on my screen which is extremely prominent.” Which is exactly what I thought when I saw her on the broadcast, so I can’t be casting any stones.
That said, I think it’s awesome that we’re thinking about how and why we notice these things (not THOSE things. I mean yes, those things, but also “this type of thing” namely potential sexism) and jolly good, paulkersey, for starting the discussion.
OppositeField–Not liking women broadcasting may well be just one of those weird things, like me not liking talk radio, but the comment “I just can’t take it seriously” strikes me as a little off. Can’t you, er, try harder?
Exactly. It’s not Zaloumis’ job to provide insight. She introduces the varous segments, delivers news headlines, and generally MCs the show. And she does a fine job of it. She probably does her job better most nights than the people who are supposed to provide the insight. So, I’ll disagree with the idea that she was only hired because of her looks. Looking good is a requirment for the job, yes, but she does have the skills of an anchor as well. Having done some (radio) broadcast work years ago, I can say it’s not the easiest thing in the world to deliver narration to a live audience. Give her props, she does a good job and looks good in a tight sweater. That’s more than most of us can say. More than Carlos Silva can say on two counts today for sure.
It should also be acknowledged that I (for example) could speculate that a woman could have been hired because of her looks not based on my own sexism, but based on my knowledge of sexism in hiring practices.
Of course, it also behooves me to not simply assume it’s the case. But it doesn’t make sense to blindly ignore the possibility that women hired to appeal to a majority-young-male audience might have been selected based on more than their knowledge and experience, unfortunately.
Fox doesn’t help by taking almost any female in their employ and “foxing” her– the clothes, the make-up, the giant hair (think of how Jeannie Zelasko has been lacquered over as she has moved up the ladder)
I keep wondering how Arlati & Capuano have escaped being dunked in the communal foundation bottle.
and sadly, reading about her ‘meteoric rise’ because she has ‘it’ tends to underscore such thoughts.
holy crap.
“Capuano graduated Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a degree in Cell Biology and Biochemistry from University of California San Diego in 1995. She spent a year working on her doctorate at UCLA before deciding to leave the laboratory and pursue her dream career in sportscasting.”
Sure, but I bet she can’t play elephant polo worth a damn.
241… Capuano has always come across as fairly sharp to me, but wow.
Then again, I know a guy with an astrophysics PhD who is writing computer games. Can’t blame either of them!
Rick Rizzs is sexy. (kidding)
Sorry, couldn’t help it with how the thread went off the rails there for a bit
BTW, FWIW, from ROTOWORLD:
Carlos Silva, Seattle Mariners, May. 31 – 1:00 am et
Carlos Silva was blasted for seven runs in two-thirds of an inning Saturday in a loss to the Tigers.
“What kind of general manager gives a pitcher with so little margin for error a $48 million contract? Probably one not long for his job.
“Silva will rebound to mediocrity, but the Mariners paid a huge sum for a guy who isn’t a difference maker. He’s 3-5 with a 6.00 ERA this season.”
You know, it boggles my mind that we bloggers find little tidbits like the one you did, John D., (#245), as well as discussing the various statistical proofs and independent analyses that demonstrate how poorly constructed the M’s teams have been the past few years…
But we still see these stupid statements being issued by Armstrong, Bavasi, etc. about “votes of confidence”, about how their less-than-replacement-level team talent must Play Better!, and so on, as if the entire Mariners front office staff is living in a military-style concrete bunker 200 feet underground without any access at all to the outside world.
Armstrong must be the monkey with his paws over his eyes, Bavasi the one with his paws over his ears, and McLaren the one with his paws over his mouth. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil…
Bavasi is smart. He will make us go.