Page 1 of 4

Who's more ridiculous? Joe Morgan or John Kruk?

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 8:27 pm
by BobbyRoberto
In comparing this year's Red Sox offense to last year's, Joe Morgan just said, "The Red Sox didn't have a high on-base percentage last year. Last year they were more free-swinging."

Last year, the Red Sox led all of baseball with a .360 OBP.

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 8:39 pm
by stevethumb
harold reynolds is the worst analyst on television...his platitudes are empty , his insight shallow , and his opinions are based on unfounded facts....good example above, roberto

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 9:37 pm
by baseballboy
You can put Renolds, Kruk, and Morgan together and be lucky to get past "idiot" level when it comes to preparation and insight regarding their comentary - I mean these guys just talk for the sake of moving their gums without knowledge or proof to back up their gibberish - ESPN should get rid of all of them.

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 9:43 pm
by beltrans_boy
I like Kruk. He's entertaining, and he doesn't give off the same "know-it-all" air that Gammons, Reynolds or JM do. Kruk can stay.

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 9:50 pm
by baseballboy
beltrans_boy wrote:I like Kruk. He's entertaining, and he doesn't give off the same "know-it-all" air that Gammons, Reynolds or JM do. Kruk can stay.


Agreed - of the 3 Kruk would be the best ;-)

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 10:03 pm
by bd3521
Did I hear J Miller say "thanks Terry Francona the Yankee manager"? :~(

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 11:50 pm
by theskaboss
I really like J. Miller, he's very entertaining. I never really liked any of the others (Kruk, Reynolds, Morgan). Although, sometimes when Kruk and Reynolds argue it's kinda funny... :-D

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 12:00 am
by SaintsOfTheDiamond
Neyer, Kurkjian, and Stark are the only ones who actually know their stuff IMO. The rest are just there to satisfy the "E" part of ESPN as far as I'm concerned. :-°