Jump to content

Nameless baseball players


PackerBadger

Recommended Posts

No, no names look horible because one team wears them, and the other dosen't. And don't give me that "team" bull, if you did something, you deserve credit. You have a team, but it takes individual players to make a team great. How many of you would know Kevin Mench, Michael Young, Hank Blaylock, Alfonso Soriano, Mark Teixiara, Rod Barajas, Richard Hidalgo, Chris Young, Kenny Rogers, Chan Ho Park, and the others that I can't remember on the Rangers roster, if you saw them on TV. Numbers get mixed up.

Hell, I should know. Being a broadcaster, not having names is a great problem for High Schools. I know my players, but when other teams come in, I have to shuffle through my notebook and computer in a game where everything is on the fly. It is a real problem.

The fact is that even though you may want it, people who watch the game on a semi-regular basis to the casual fan will hate it because they don't know who's who on the field. Eventuly, MLB will require all teams (except for the Red Sox and Yankees of course :mad: ) to put all names on the back for marketability reasons. If you don't know the players, what keeps you watching?

Don't just bunch names together. Kenny Rogers has had a pretty damn good pitching career. He's pitched a perfect game. At age 41, he's 8-2 with 1.62 ERA. He's not a young nobody. Can no names on the road be a little bit of a pain? Sure. Can it be a little annoying whem teams make roster moves, and new guy comes in wearing an old guy's number? Yes.

By the same token, if you're a fan of a team, you're going to know the players by number, period. Baseball has always been more traditional than the other sports, and so I don't agree with Badger in the slightest that baseball should have names simply because they all do.

I think it should be yp to each team, seeing as it's how it used to be for the entire league. And, if for a given team, the idea doesn't work, they can always change back. But to not enjoy, follow or discuss the game because four or five teams don't have names on the back? Give me a break.

HornetsTwistSig.gif

New York Jets |3-3| First, AFC East

New York Mets |74-88| Fourth, NL East

New York Islanders|34-37-11| Fifth, Atlantic Division

New Orleans Hornets |21-45| Third, Southwest Division

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply
QUOTE (Perfect Zero @ Tuesday, June 7th, 2005 - 14:44:40)

If you don't know the players, what keeps you watching?

Uhh, love of the sport? Just a guess there.

Great attitude. Let's cater to the 272 "true baseball fans" in the U.S. and tell potential baseball fans, postseason fans, TV and everybody else that we don't give a damn what they think. No wonder baseball is dying.

Yea, baseball is dying. That's why they set attendance records last year and it's more popular than ever. :rolleyes: I don't think names have anything to do with whether a mass number off people watch. The Yankees don't have names yet the have one of the highest tv ratings in the league and draw wherever they go. Same thing for the Red Sox, Giants, Dodgers, and Cubs. People go see those teams or watch them on tv because they are good or have been in recent years.

To the casual fan it doesn't matter. Even if they name is on the back if they don't know who the player is it won't matter to them if the name is on the back. They still don't know. They'll go ooh that's Bubba Crosby, who's he? If a person knows the player he'll know them without looking at the name. If a person really want's to know the players name then there are many much more easier ways of finding out that read a name that is 3 inches tall from a distance. People watch the game to watch the game. If they watch to see a certain player then they'll already know who that player is and what he looks like.

It should up to the team if they want names of the back. Personally, I think baseball uniforms are the only ones that look good without names.

As for Kenny Rodgers he has not had a great career. Sure he pitched a perfect game but so did Don Larsen and his was in the World Series. He admittedly wasn't a great pitcher. Pitching a perfect game means you were great and lucky one day. Pitching more than one means your great. Rodgers has never pitched great in a big spot especially in the playoffs. He's got a pitch well in a big spot before I can say he had a great career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't know the players in the first place, then having the names on the back won't matter. Like the guy above said, they won't know the players no matter what. Who cares what other leagues do. Baseball is different in that part of its aura is it's strong ties to its past. That includes "Take Me Out To The Ballgame", Fenway Park, Pinstripes, Hot Dogs, the 7th Inning stretch and for teams that want it, NO NAMES ON THE BACK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Perfect Zero @ Tuesday, June 7th, 2005 - 14:44:40)

If you don't know the players, what keeps you watching?

Uhh, love of the sport? Just a guess there.

Great attitude. Let's cater to the 272 "true baseball fans" in the U.S. and tell potential baseball fans, postseason fans, TV and everybody else that we don't give a damn what they think. No wonder baseball is dying.

Yea, baseball is dying. That's why they set attendance records last year and it's more popular than ever. :rolleyes: I don't think names have anything to do with whether a mass number off people watch. The Yankees don't have names yet the have one of the highest tv ratings in the league and draw wherever they go. Same thing for the Red Sox, Giants, Dodgers, and Cubs. People go see those teams or watch them on tv because they are good or have been in recent years.

To the casual fan it doesn't matter. Even if they name is on the back if they don't know who the player is it won't matter to them if the name is on the back. They still don't know. They'll go ooh that's Bubba Crosby, who's he? If a person knows the player he'll know them without looking at the name. If a person really want's to know the players name then there are many much more easier ways of finding out that read a name that is 3 inches tall from a distance. People watch the game to watch the game. If they watch to see a certain player then they'll already know who that player is and what he looks like.

It should up to the team if they want names of the back. Personally, I think baseball uniforms are the only ones that look good without names.

As for Kenny Rodgers he has not had a great career. Sure he pitched a perfect game but so did Don Larsen and his was in the World Series. He admittedly wasn't a great pitcher. Pitching a perfect game means you were great and lucky one day. Pitching more than one means your great. Rodgers has never pitched great in a big spot especially in the playoffs. He's got a pitch well in a big spot before I can say he had a great career.

Career Record? 184-125. He has a World Series ring from '96. He's pitched 36 complete games, 9 of them shutouts. And he's 26-11 since turning age 40. He's not one of the all time greats, but to lump him with the young infield of Texas and say nobody knows who he is? Give me a break. And you said pitching more than one perfect game means you're great... but no one's ever done that, and yet, baseball had has its fair share of great pitchers.

HornetsTwistSig.gif

New York Jets |3-3| First, AFC East

New York Mets |74-88| Fourth, NL East

New York Islanders|34-37-11| Fifth, Atlantic Division

New Orleans Hornets |21-45| Third, Southwest Division

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you can be great without pitching a no hitter or perfect game. Look at Clemens. Interseting you brought up his '96 World Series ring with the Yankees. His wasn't supposed to pitch in that series but he did because of a rain out. He nearly cost the Yankees that series when he pitched game 4 and fell behind 6-0. Fortunatly the Yankees came back to when that game after he was gone. There's also the '99 postseason where he lost game 6 of the NLCS with the Mets.

I've seen too much of him in New York to consider him a great pitcher. He was horrible with the Yankees and Mets especially in the big spot in the postseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you can be great without pitching a no hitter or perfect game. Look at Clemens. Interseting you brought up his '96 World Series ring with the Yankees. His wasn't supposed to pitch in that series but he did because of a rain out. He nearly cost the Yankees that series when he pitched game 4 and fell behind 6-0. Fortunatly the Yankees came back to when that game after he was gone. There's also the '99 postseason where he lost game 6 of the NLCS with the Mets.

I've seen too much of him in New York to consider him a great pitcher. He was horrible with the Yankees and Mets especially in the big spot in the postseason.

Very true, and he's also never won twenty games either. That being what it may, my original point is you don't lump him with everyone on Texas and call him a nobody.

HornetsTwistSig.gif

New York Jets |3-3| First, AFC East

New York Mets |74-88| Fourth, NL East

New York Islanders|34-37-11| Fifth, Atlantic Division

New Orleans Hornets |21-45| Third, Southwest Division

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya know the game got along just fine with players not having names OR logos on the jerseys. I don't think it is a "game shattering" issue...just a matter of opinion or preference.

The game was played for about 60 years before anyone wore numbers on the uniforms, but I don't want to go back to that era either.

Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of you would know Kevin Mench, Michael Young, Hank Blaylock, Alfonso Soriano, Mark Teixiara, Rod Barajas, Richard Hidalgo, Chris Young, Kenny Rogers, Chan Ho Park, and the others that I can't remember on the Rangers roster, if you saw them on TV. Numbers get mixed up.

Hell, I should know. Being a broadcaster, not having names is a great problem for High Schools. I know my players, but when other teams come in, I have to shuffle through my notebook and computer in a game where everything is on the fly. It is a real problem.

Mench: #28. M. Young: #10. Blalock [check your spelling so you don't shoot yourself in the foot trying to make your point]: #9. Soriano: #12. Teixiera [again with the spelling - and the Rangers put their names on the backs of the jerseys... clearly they aren't serving their intent]: #23. Hidalgo: #51. Barajas: #27. C. Young: #49. Chan Ho: #61.

And so on. I'm not a Rangers fan. How'd I know them? Well, most of them I knew. The ones I didn't, I LOOKED UP ON THE WEB. Were I at the game, I could look for them on a scorecard, or simply ont he scoreboard when they came to bat. Or I could just open my ears when the PA announcer made it public knowledge. If the broadcasters in Texas aren't giving you the information, take it up with the broadcasters - every game I watch on the national broadcasts display graphics with names, numbers and stats for EVERY hitter, and with every lineup and pitching change. Same goes for our local (Phillies) broadcasts, and every team I've ever watched.

I too did some broadcast work in high school and college. What was so hard about talking to the opposing team's manager for 2 minutes before the game to verify name, number and pronunciation? Names on jerseys wouldn't have accomplished all that much, since I don't have 20/15 vision and I wouldn't be able to make out the names on the backs anyway.

And jkrdevil, go back and reread the article. Plaschke made 2 complaints - that the Dodgers removed the last names AND failed to make the numbers on the backs larger in the absence of names.

Read below:

Count Juan Duran as one who thinks the Dodgers should put the names back on the shirts.

Count me as two.

It's been two months now, and I give up.

I'm sick of watching the players run onto the Dodger Stadium field in the first inning with those little leaguers and wondering, which is which?

I'm sick of trying to tell Derek Thompson from Mike Rose from D.J. Edwards from ? wait, do they even have a D.J. Edwards? I'm not entirely sure, but you get the point.

"Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."

2007nleastchamps.png

In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.